Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Disputaciones on October 30, 2012, 11:59:17 PM
-
Can someone explain to me exactly what is meant by this?
Thanks.
-
Dogmatic sedevacantism is where "sede vacante" (the See is vacant) is raised to the level of a dogma, and that everyone denying this "dogma" is a heretic or non-Catholic.
Dogmatic Sedevacantists claim that those who don't adhere to sedevacantism are not just taking a different path in the Crisis, but that they actually need to be converted. If they don't convert, they must be either ignorant or of bad will -- just like a good Catholic would say about non-Catholics.
The idea the sedevacantism can be considered like a dogma of the Faith is ridiculous. Absolute, googly-eyed, "where's my straightjacket" insanity.
As an aside, dogmatic sedevacantists are NOT welcome on CathInfo. In other words, if you consider most CathInfo members to be non-Catholic, or matter for "conversion", you are not welcome here.
There are plenty of intelligent, educated Catholics of good will who look at Sedevacantism and keep walking. Such is a completely legitimate position.
As someone told me recently, "There are unanswerable questions both for the Sedevacantists and the Recognize-and-Resist side. Neither side has a perfect answer to all the objections/questions."
So we are free to pick our poison.
-
The idea the sedevacantism can be considered like a dogma of the Faith is ridiculous. Absolute, googly-eyed, "where's my straightjacket" insanity.
There are plenty of intelligent, educated Catholics of good will who look at Sedevacantism and keep walking. Such is a completely legitimate position.
Oh, but the idea that the Catholic Church, the Pillar and Ground of Orthodoxy, the Spotless Bride of Christ, can officially teach and impose heresy, schism, apostasy, mortal sin, evil laws, false/evil/mortally sinful/invalid worship etc. for decades on end; that blatant, public & manifest heretics and apostates are Catholics and can hold offices in the Church etc. etc. etc. is "sane" and a "completely legitimate position" to hold?
-
Yes, I do. Do you have a problem with my position?
-
All sedevacantists have a problem with that position because they believe that it cannot be reconciled with Catholic teaching. It's the reason why sedevacantists exist.
Please don't speak for "all sedevacantists" because you don't and you cannot.
While it is true that "all sedevacantists" have come to those conclusions, which is why they are sedevacantist, it is not correct to say that all sedevacantists believe that these conclusions are dogma and that failure to reach these conclusions is heresy.
Those who believe Benedict 16 is the pope of the Roman Catholic Church are, in my opinion, wrong; but they are not, by that fact, outside the Church. They are outside the Church only in as much as they subscribe to the heresies that Benedict 16 teaches.
Whether Benedict 16 is a true pope is a matter of fact. Like many facts that are ascertained by witnesses and deductive reasoning, not everyone sees the same evidence or understands the evidence they do see in the same way. Only history will tell us who is right just as history tells us that Athanasius was right while Arius was wrong or that Eusebius was right while Nestorius was wrong. At the time, many people were confused and faithful Catholics differed on each case.
The SSPX, for example, is still Catholic as they have not, as an organization, defected from the faith.
On the other hand, I believe that dogmatic anti-sedevacantism is equally as bad as dogmatic sedevacantism for anyone who is dogmatic on either side of this prudential judgment refuses communion with those who disagree with their personal opinion on the matter of the identity of the pope. Matthew and I disagree on the answer to that question, but neither of us declare that the other is not a Catholic for that reason.
CathInfo allows (as opposed to Angelqueen) Catholics to argue the question in a rational manner. Individuals may be convinced of the opposing arguments and reconsider and change their conclusions, but they are not "converted". (Interestingly, the SSPX frequently talks about the need to "convert Rome", but that is another topic altogether.) As long as there is a single claimant to the papacy whose claim has met the external forms (i.e., the people appointed as cardinals meet in conclave and a successor is elected and is accepted by "the world" to be the new pope) the question will remain open. The question of the "heretic pope" is not one that has clearly and unambiguously been settled.
In any event, in practice, all traditional Catholics who reject the heresies of the Conciliar Church and the docuмents that issued from Vatican 2, act in the same way toward those heresies and the papal commands and teachings that emanate from those heresies. The difference seems to me to be one of semantics; which is why, I think, dogmatism by either party could be schismatic and should not be tolerated by Catholics.
Now...the dogmatic sedevacantists have just declared me a heretic.
-
The Doctors of the Church say it is pious and probable, though it cannot be said to be certain, to believe that the Roman Pontiff, by a special favor of divine Providence, will never become a heretic. That's why, should this extraordinary circuмstances nonetheless come about, the Cardinals or Roman clergy would need to step up and a Council would be required to announce the determination of what has transpired (the loss of the Papal office) and antecedent to that declaration, no Catholic can be condemned for not coming to the conclusion on his own even in the case that it were true.
The truth or falsehood of a proposition is one thing, the exact grade of theological certainty to be attributed to it quite another.
Also, the Saints teach that a universally accepted Papal election is the sign and effect of a valid election. Now given such universal acceptance, or at least, what by all appearances is universal acceptance, no one can be guilty of serious sin for maintaining that the Pope is the Pope.
Certain words and deeds of recent Popes are admittedly difficult to explain, but the sedevacantist theory is far from being free of difficulties itself.
-
The Doctors of the Church say it is pious and probable, though it cannot be said to be certain, to believe that the Roman Pontiff, by a special favor of divine Providence, will never become a heretic.
This probable yet not certain opinion refers only to private heresy.
-
A Catholic Dictionary[/i]]DOGMA, in its theological sense, is a truth contained in the Word of God, written or unwritten – ie: in Scripture or Tradition – and proposed by the Church for the belief of the Faithful. Thus, dogma is a revealed truth, since Scripture is inspired by the Holy Ghost, while tradition signifies the truths which the Apostles received from Christ and the the Holy Spirit, and handed down to the church. ...
Ref: William E. Addis & Thomas Arnold. A Catholic Dictionary. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co, 1909. p.293.
As I would describe it, sedevacantism is a rational conclusion drawn from the application of theological principles to observable facts about words and deeds of certain individuals purported to have succeeded in recent times to the office of Roman Pontiff. Sedevacantism, being a theological position arrived at by human reason, cannot be a revealed truth. Therefore, the adjective corresponding to the noun, DOGMA, viz: DOGMATIC, cannot rightly be applied as an epithet to the term sedevacantism.
“Dogmatic sedevacantism” is an incoherent expression apparently invented for the purpose of pillorying Catholics who hold the sedevacantist position. I don’t deny that having arrived at that position, some sedevacantists, in their enthusiasm, may fall into the temptation of regarding all non-sedevacantist Catholics as heretics. But that is a failure in truth and in charity. The names of a couple of pseudo-Benedictines come to mind.
-
A Catholic Dictionary[/i]]DOGMA, in its theological sense, is a truth contained in the Word of God, written or unwritten – ie: in Scripture or Tradition – and proposed by the Church for the belief of the Faithful. Thus, dogma is a revealed truth, since Scripture is inspired by the Holy Ghost, while tradition signifies the truths which the Apostles received from Christ and the the Holy Spirit, and handed down to the church. ...
Ref: William E. Addis & Thomas Arnold. A Catholic Dictionary. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co, 1909. p.293.
As I would describe it, sedevacantism is a rational conclusion drawn from the application of theological principles to observable facts about words and deeds of certain individuals purported to have succeeded in recent times to the office of Roman Pontiff. Sedevacantism, being a theological position arrived at by human reason, cannot be a revealed truth. Therefore, the adjective corresponding to the noun, DOGMA, viz: DOGMATIC, cannot rightly be applied as an epithet to the term sedevacantism.
“Dogmatic sedevacantism” is an incoherent expression apparently invented for the purpose of pillorying Catholics who hold the sedevacantist position. I don’t deny that having arrived at that position, some sedevacantists, in their enthusiasm, may fall into the temptation of regarding all non-sedevacantist Catholics as heretics. But that is a failure in truth and in charity. The names of a couple of pseudo-Benedictines come to mind.
It's not incoherent. It communicates a very specific reality.
Some sedevacantists DO believe that sedevacantism is the "central dogma" of the Catholic Faith, and that all those who deny it are heretics or non-Catholics.
In reality, they consider themselves sedevacantists first and Catholics second. Though I doubt they'd admit to this. But their actions speak much louder than their words.
Insane, I know. But it doesn't change the fact that such people exist. I would know; I've run a traditional Catholic forum for 6 years. I've had to ban such people on more than one occasion.
-
Matthew,
In response to my assertion that “dogmatic sedevacantism” is an incoherent expression...
It's not incoherent. It communicates a very specific reality.
Well, its obvious that here you and I are not using the word “dogmatic” with the same meaning.
You appear to be employing it in a pejorative sense.
My argument is that sedevacantism is a theological opinion and not a revealed truth.
Therefore, it cannot be dogmatic in the technical sense of the word.
I don’t think you would dispute this.
-
Matthew,
In response to my assertion that “dogmatic sedevacantism” is an incoherent expression...
It's not incoherent. It communicates a very specific reality.
Well, its obvious that here you and I are not using the word “dogmatic” with the same meaning.
You appear to be employing it in a pejorative sense.
My argument is that sedevacantism is a theological opinion and not a revealed truth.
Therefore, it cannot be dogmatic in the technical sense of the word.
I don’t think you would dispute this.
Sunbeam,
You should actually read the text of what has been written and NOT stop at the point where you read "dogmatic sedevacantism" and stop thinking.
Of course the very idea of "dogmatic sedevacantism" is incoherent, but it is a coherent expression that describes the idea. There are many sedevacantists who have adopted this idea, the most well-known example probably being the Dimond brothers.
It is clear in this topic that Matthew is using the word, dogmatic, exactly as you are. What you are doing is refusing to accept the fact that there are people who themselves have made sedevacantism a dogma--thus, "dogmatic sedevacantism".
Surely you have heard of contradictions in terms that describe a reality. CathInfo is one of the few forums around whose owner is not paranoid that sedevacantists may make sense.
-
Well explained, TKGS.
Sunbeam -- you don't consider Sedevacantism to be a dogma. Neither do I. That's why you're allowed on here -- you have common sense. You're not claiming something ridiculous, like "sedevacantism is a dogma -- and if you don't accept that dogma you're a heretic!".
You'll have to trust me that there are people who DO hold precisely that position.
Thank God they are relatively rare. But on CathInfo, they're rarer than hen's teeth! Because each and every one one of them has been banned, for obvious reasons.
-
Sunbeam,
You should actually read the text of what has been written and NOT stop at the point where you read "dogmatic sedevacantism" and stop thinking.
Of course the very idea of "dogmatic sedevacantism" is incoherent, but it is a coherent expression that describes the idea. There are many sedevacantists who have adopted this idea, the most well-known example probably being the Dimond brothers.
It is clear in this topic that Matthew is using the word, dogmatic, exactly as you are. What you are doing is refusing to accept the fact that there are people who themselves have made sedevacantism a dogma--thus, "dogmatic sedevacantism"
TKGS,
May I respectfully suggest that you take your own advice, and "actually read the text of what has been written".
Here is a relevant part of what I wrote in response to the opening query posed by Disputationes:
I don’t deny that having arrived at that position [=sedevacantism], some sedevacantists, in their enthusiasm, may fall into the temptation of regarding all non-sedevacantist Catholics as heretics. But that is a failure in truth and in charity. The names of a couple of pseudo-Benedictines come to mind.
In that last sentence, have I not already alluded to the very individuals you here cite as a "most well-known example"?
When you say "the very idea of 'dogmatic sedevacantism' is incoherent", are you not conceding the point that I made earlier?
If so, then what's the problem?
-----------------------------------
May I, whilst writing, thank Matthew for crediting me with common sense.
Insofar as the attribution is deserved, I put it down to trying to think objectively.
-
If so, then what's the problem?
Apparently, there is no problem except that, if you understood the original answer to the question, you shouldn't have bothered to make your comments in the first place. They added no value to the topic.
-
In that last sentence, have I not already alluded to the very individuals you here cite as a "most well-known example"?
Bp. Daniel L. Dolan has explicitly stated that the non-papacy of Benedict XVI is a dogmatic fact. I think its reasonable to assume Fr. Cekada believes so as well. So it's not just the Zirconia brothers who have gone off the deep end.
-
Apparently, there is no problem except that, if you understood the original answer to the question, you shouldn't have bothered to make your comments in the first place.
TKGS,
Please be so kind as to explain:
a) What you mean by “the original answer to the question”.
b) On what authority this "original answer" stands.
c) Why this "original answer" should be accepted to the exclusion of any other answer.
-
Read Vat. I, on how Papal infallability came to be. That is to be believed. And when you read carefully how it came to be, the defining of Anti- popes will be there as well. You will find it very interesting and very important. Thank God Papal Infalliblity was found and for us to believe because without it, we could not explain anti-popes.
-
The most common example of "dogmatic sedevacantists", the Dimonds, are not just sedevacantists but also "Feeneyites". There used to be a poster here too called CM who believed something like every Pope since St.Pius X was a heretic, that there were no priests or Bishops in the world, or something to that effect.
At least in many cases "dogmatic sedevacantism" is "feeneyite sedevacantism". But most sedevacantists are not Feeneyites, and while they would say they arrive at their position with moral certainty, they don't claim it binds others on pain of heresy.
This probable yet not certain opinion refers only to private heresy.
Well, here is Van Noort's summary and estimation of the theological status of the varying opinions offered by the Doctors and Saints on this question,
Thus far we have been discussing Catholic teaching. It may be useful to add a few points about purely theological opinions – opinions with regard to the pope when he is not speaking ex cathedra. All theologians admit that the pope can make a mistake in matters of faith and morals when so speaking: either by proposing a false opinion in a matter not yet defined, or by innocently differing from some doctrine already defined. Theologians disagree, however, over the question of whether the pope can become a formal heretic by stubbornly clinging to an error in a matter already defined.
The more probable and respectful opinion, followed by Suarez, Bellarmine and many others, holds that just as God has not till this day ever permitted such a thing to happen, so too he never will permit a pope to become a formal and public heretic. Still, some competent theologians do concede that the pope when not speaking ex cathedra could fall into formal heresy. They add that should such a case of public papal heresy occur, the pope, either by the very deed itself or at least by a subsequent decision of an ecuмenical council, would by divine law a forfeit his jurisdiction.
I also wanted in my last post to say the reverse also holds, that good Catholics can under certain circuмstances have some reasons for doubting the valid election of certain claimants to the Papacy without ceasing to be Catholics as sedevacantists do. I just think when you extend it across 5 Popes and 50 years that that raises all sorts of other questions with regard to jurisdiction, Apostolicity etc and therefore becomes more and more untenable as a theory, not to question the sincerity, faith or good will of those who hold to it.
-
Dogmatic sedevacantism is where "sede vacante" (the See is vacant) is raised to the level of a dogma, and that everyone denying this "dogma" is a heretic or non-Catholic.
Some sedevacantists DO believe that sedevacantism is the "central dogma" of the Catholic Faith, and that all those who deny it are heretics or non-Catholics.
Sunbeam -- you don't consider Sedevacantism to be a dogma. Neither do I. That's why you're allowed on here -- you have common sense. You're not claiming something ridiculous, like "sedevacantism is a dogma -- and if you don't accept that dogma you're a heretic!".
I don't know any sedevacantists who claim sedevacantism to be a dogma. I don't believe it is either.
The case is simple.
Objectively, every single person claiming to be a Catholic today who does not hold the sedevacantist position, whether you like it or not, is in error and is not a Catholic, and this has nothing to do with sedevacantism being a "dogma", but rather because of the consequences of not holding the sedevacantist position, and the reason for this is very simple: the sedevacantist position is the only one at the moment that does not deny or compromise any teaching of the Church or dogma or any of the promises of Christ, and the only one that doesn't lead to heresy, schism or apostasy or any other error. That's a fact. But every other position does lead either to heresy, or schism, or apostasy, or all of them. Every other position leads to all kinds of blasphemies and absurdities.
You Matthew are first-hand evidence of this fact with regard to all the false "traditionalists" (all the ones who hold the "recognize and resist" position): I asked you whether you believed the idea that the Catholic Church, the Pillar and Ground of Orthodoxy, the Spotless Bride of Christ, can officially teach and impose heresy, schism, apostasy, mortal sin, evil laws, false/evil/mortally sinful/invalid worship etc. for decades on end; that blatant, public & manifest heretics and apostates are Catholics and can hold offices in the Church etc. etc. etc. is a "sane" and a "completely legitimate position" to hold, and you answered, "Yes".
Well, that just proves you are a faithless and blasphemous apostate, because to believe what you believe is to believe that the Gates of Hell have prevailed, which means that the Church has been overcome by heresy, apostasy and error, and that is has officially taught these three and more. That is what the Church being "overcome" by the Gates of Hell means, not, as you false "traditionalists" would have us believe, that it's impossible for an interregnum to last for decades, or that there can't be a phony impostor "church" which is not the Catholic Church posing as the Catholic Church, or that the faithful will be reduced to a remnant, or that there can't be five successive antipopes, or that a manifest heretic can't be a pope, etc; in fact this is exactly what is predicted to happen.
The non-sedevacantists like yourself adhere to a boatload of heresies, errors and schismatic positions due to your rejection of sedevacantism, such as: you deny the primacy and supreme authority of the man you think is the Pope; you deny the infallibility of both the pope and the Church and also of the Magisterium; you reject canonizations; you deny the dogma that a heretic is outside the Church; you deny that heretics, schismatics and apostates can't hold any offices in the Church and are excommunicated ipso facto; you deny the infallible Bull cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio; you are all schismatics for operating completely independent from what you believe is the hierarchy and the pope; you are heretics for saying the Church can actually promulgate an erroneous and heretical Ecuмenical Council; you put the Mass before the Faith; you continually mock, ridicule, criticize and reject the men you claim are your authorities, what you believe is your hierarchy, and what you think is the Church; the list is endless.
And if we talk about the antisedevacantist Novus Ordo "catholics", well, I don't even need to say why they're not Catholics, since they are worse than you.
Dogmatic Sedevacantists claim that those who don't adhere to sedevacantism are not just taking a different path in the Crisis, but that they actually need to be converted. If they don't convert, they must be either ignorant or of bad will -- just like a good Catholic would say about non-Catholics.
I just proved you, and all the other false "traditionalists" who take your "recognize and resist" position and reject sedevacantism, are all blasphemous apostates, for you all blaspheme the Church even more than the Novus Ordoites. Most of them just believe that the Church can change etc. but you believe the Church can be downright heretical.
The idea the sedevacantism can be considered like a dogma of the Faith is ridiculous. Absolute, googly-eyed, "where's my straightjacket" insanity.
People like you don't know the word honesty and just make strawmans and twist the meaning of things.
There are plenty of intelligent, educated Catholics of good will who look at Sedevacantism and keep walking. Such is a completely legitimate position.
Anti-sedevacantist false "traditionalists" like yourself are anything but "good-willed", and it sure isn't a legitimate position to hold.
As someone told me recently, "There are unanswerable questions both for the Sedevacantists and the Recognize-and-Resist side. Neither side has a perfect answer to all the objections/questions."
Speak for your own position there bud. All the attempted objections against sedevacantism have been answered and refuted.
So we are free to pick our poison.
Indeed you are, but your position is not Catholic, but poisonous.
As I proved to the heretic "Stubborn", your "recognize and resist" position is patently false and supported by nothing.
By the way, where did he go? He has yet to answer to my last post.
I'm not surprised you will ban me after this, since you are an immature coward who prefers to ban people and remain in his spiritual fog and blindness instead of standing up and defending his position like a man.
-
Well, here is Van Noort's summary and estimation of the theological status of the varying opinions offered by the Doctors and Saints on this question,
Thus far we have been discussing Catholic teaching. It may be useful to add a few points about purely theological opinions – opinions with regard to the pope when he is not speaking ex cathedra. All theologians admit that the pope can make a mistake in matters of faith and morals when so speaking: either by proposing a false opinion in a matter not yet defined, or by innocently differing from some doctrine already defined. Theologians disagree, however, over the question of whether the pope can become a formal heretic by stubbornly clinging to an error in a matter already defined.
The more probable and respectful opinion, followed by Suarez, Bellarmine and many others, holds that just as God has not till this day ever permitted such a thing to happen, so too he never will permit a pope to become a formal and public heretic. Still, some competent theologians do concede that the pope when not speaking ex cathedra could fall into formal heresy. They add that should such a case of public papal heresy occur, the pope, either by the very deed itself or at least by a subsequent decision of an ecuмenical council, would by divine law a forfeit his jurisdiction.
Funny how you don't highlight the last sentence right?
-
I don't know any sedevacantists who claim sedevacantism to be a dogma. I don't believe it is either.
Then you do not know yourself very well, because you go on to write...
Objectively, every single person claiming to be a Catholic today who does not hold the sedevacantist position, whether you like it or not, is in error and is not a Catholic, and this has nothing to do with sedevacantism being a "dogma", but rather because of the consequences of not holding the sedevacantist position, and the reason for this is very simple: the sedevacantist position is the only one at the moment that does not deny or compromise any teaching of the Church or dogma or any of the promises of Christ, and the only one that doesn't lead to heresy, schism or apostasy or any other error. That's a fact. But every other position does lead either to heresy, or schism, or apostasy, or all of them. Every other position leads to all kinds of blasphemies and absurdities.
Gee, I did not know sedevacantists were comedians too... although this is not very funny...
The burden of proof falls upon sedevacantists such as you to apodictically demonstrate and systematically prove:
(1) precisely how, when and why the occupants of the Johannine-Pauline structures cannot claim to constitute the Ecclesia docens;
(2) precisely how, when and why the occupants of the Johannine-Pauline structures lapsed away from the Catholic and divine faith into formal heresy, properly so-called;
(3) what precisely in the docuмents of the Johannine-Pauline council can be said to constitute the "Œconomia nova" of the modernists, by identifying the heresies and errors thereof and demonstrating what theological label is to designate these propositions (according to the methodology of the eminent theologians whom Holy Mother Church has proposed to us as our teachers and guides in these matters);
(4) they must demonstrate the theological, moral and Canonical ramifications of the deliberate and contumacious adherence of these propositions of the Johannine-Pauline council, both as regards to the Bishops of the time and to the laity and clergy who remain materially adhered to the structures that were brought forth by the Johannine-Pauline council and its modernist proponents;
(5) how exactly are we to contextualize these occurrences to the doctrines of Holy Mother Church as set forth in the Encyclical letters of the Roman Pontiffs, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and the approved theologians of the illustrious schools; and
(6) whether or not does the above necessitates positing the conglomerate of acephalous clerics of the anti-modernist resistance as constituting the Ecclesia docens, and what are the criteria whereby the faithful may readily identify who exactly amongst these same clerics to be ascribed the "hierarchical claim" and how these clerics are to "exercise" such a claim (for example, what prevents one from ascribing such "hierarchical claim" to Bp. Pivarunas, but denying it to Bp. Slupski, or how can the faithful determine who are the charlatans and frauds, such as Ryan "St. Anne" Scott?).
Numbers one through five have been done in piecemeal fashion by individual apologists (whether clerical or lay), or groups thereof, but not in a systematic manner, much less according to the strict scholastic methods of inquiry as seen in how theologians such as Franzelin, Van Noort, Scheeben, Garrigou-Lagrange, Tanquerey, Fenton, &c., present sacred doctrine in their manuals and commentaries. Nor have any of these individuals been trained and educated according to the exigencies of the Sacred Canons, much less according to the standards of intellectual industry and scientific discipline inexorably inherent in the acquisition of a doctorate in sacred theology. Even the most elderly of their number who can claim anything like the former (not the latter) sort of training cannot demand the assent of the faithful anyways, because he lacks the missio and jurisdiction requisite to preach the Catholic faith anyways.
As one sedevacantist has written:
There is no "complete" published sedevacantist theory except the Guerardian one (and even that has not been published in any language than French, and even in French it was not put into a systematic form and published in a volume, but rather it appeared scattered throughout issues of a journal). Yet non-sedevacantists are attacked for failing to adopt "sedevacantism". This only needs to be stated for its absurdity to be immediately apparent. Can any reasonable and just man condemn another for refusing to accept a theory which, as far as he can see, involves the denial that the Church has a hierarchy? Can anybody really be condemned for not adopting a theory which nobody has even bothered to present in a professional and complete form?
Number six essentially constitutes the central problem of the species of "sedevacantism" that you and others have been propagating, insofar as it makes very problematic the question of the visibility of the Ecclesia docens, the contumacy of certain polemicists who have made novel theories in prejudice to sound theology have made the question impossibly quizzical and labyrinthine.
In order for such polemicists as you to evade the censure of theological error or of being "rash," you must methodically and systematically present the predicament of the Church in the present day according to the teachings and methods of Thomistic philosophy and theology. This is especially true regarding the question of how the faithful are to identify the Ecclesia docens in the present age, which the sedevacantists must satisfactorily answer in order for them to attain to the integrity and consistency that would render their stance credible and tenable.
Whilst you claim that the objections against sedevacantism have been "refuted," you yourself and others of like mind have refuted yourselves in the ecclesiological errors that you may have unknowingly committed in positing and adhering to an "acephalous Church:"
The Church of the Word Incarnate: An Essay of Speculative Theology[/i] (trans. A.H.C. Downes; London: Sheed and Ward, 1954), pg. 411n]
During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, says Cajetan, the universal Church is in an imperfect state; she is like an amputated body, not an integral body. "The Church is acephalous, deprived of her highest part and power. Whoever contests that falls into the error of John Hus―who denied the need of a visible ruler for the Church―condemned in advance by St. Thomas, then by Martin V at the Council of Constance. And to say that the Church in this state holds her power immediately from Christ and that the General Council represents her, is to err intolerably" (De Comparatione etc., cap. vi., 74). Here are the seventh and the twenty-seventh propositions of John Hus condemned at the Council of Constance: "Peter neither is nor ever was the head of the Holy Catholic Church"; "There is nothing whatsoever to show that the spiritual order demands a head who shall continue to live and endure with the Church Militant" (Denz. 633 and 653).
The anti-sedevacantists could make the argument that such polemicists as those in question expose "sedevacantism" as theologically untenable by subscribing to the condemned twenty-seventh proposition of John Hus.
Moreover, the twenty-eighth proposition seems to be blueprint of the so-called "Apostolic Church" that these sedevacantists have devised: "Christ through His true disciples scattered through the world would rule His Church better without such monstrous heads," Christus sine talibus monstruosis capitibus per suos veraces discipulos sparsos per orbem terrarum melius suam Ecclesiam regularet" (Denz., no. 654). And there have been sedevacantists who have lamented the dogmatic definition of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff by the Vatican Council (Session IV, 18 July 1870) in the Constitution Pastor aeternus as the "preparation" for the present day ecclesiastical crisis; ironically echoing the Jansenists and Gallicanists that preceded them.
Ultimately, this renders such sedevacantists' opinion the very "sedevacantism" (to speak anachronistically) that John Hus himself professed, as his twentieth proposition seems to show: "If the Pope is wicked and especially if he is foreknown, then as Judas, the Apostle, he is of the devil, a thief, and a son of perdition, and he is not the head of the holy militant Church, since he is not a member of it," "Si Papa est malus et praesetim, si est praescitus, tunc ut Iudas apostolus est diaboli, fur, et filius perditionis, et non est caput sanctae militantis Ecclesiae, cuм nec sit membrum eius" (Denz., no. 646). For if these so-called apologists of the sedevacantist camp adopt an ecclesiology that hearkens to the errors of John Hus, there may be a legitimate objection that posits the possibility that "sedevacantism" as interpreted by these polemicists is ultimately a revival of the Hussite heresies.
In making the acephalous and vagrant clergy the Ecclesia docens, or, worse yet, reducing the magisterium of the Church to the endeavors of numberless individuals who must necessarily have recourse to tomes (Denzinger, the Codex, &c.) or to the endeavors of others (such as untrained clerics or charlatans such as the Dimond Brothers), such theorists are devising an "Œconomia nova" of their own, wherein this sort of "sedevacantism" brings forth a new abominatio in desolationem (cf. Dan. cap. xi., 31, cap. xii., 11), or, rather, a new abominatio desolationis (cf. Dan. cap. ix., 27, S. Matt. cap. xxiv., 15, S. Marc. cap. xiii., 14): not only a Church without a Pope, but a Church that has no need of a Pope to have a hierarchy that can claim Apostolic succession formaliter and ordinary jurisdiction. A new and vile form of fideicide that brings about scandal and error in a manner analogous to the Hegelian historicist "dogmatics" of the modernists and their Johannine-Pauline structures.
This is essentially what a "dogmatic sedevacantist" such as you has become.
I'm not surprised you will ban me after this, since you are an immature coward who prefers to ban people and remain in his spiritual fog and blindness instead of standing up and defending his position like a man.
No: he will ban you simply because you are a nuisance and your novelties are proximate occasions of sins against the faith and charity.
Oh, what have I done!?
I guess your rank arrogance and immature dilettantism compelled me to reply something, my resolution to not post in this sub-forum notwithstanding.
But I am not going to dispute lofty questions of theology with someone who cannot even comprehend and practice the basic teachings of the sacred Gospels and of such works as the treatise De imitatione Christi regarding fraternal charity.
Please be assured of my prayers.
-
"Dogmatic sedevacantists" are objectively schismatic for refusing communion with traditional Catholics who do not agree with their theological opinion. They are also heretical for inserting "sedevacantism" into the deposit of faith which, as they proclaim, must be accepted in order for you to be Catholic. Stay away from them.
-
This probable yet not certain opinion refers only to private heresy.
Well, here is Van Noort's summary and estimation of the theological status of the varying opinions offered by the Doctors and Saints on this question ...
I meant to say heresy as a private individual. NO theologian maintains the possibility that a pope could fall into heresy in his public role as Supreme Pontiff, acting in his official capacity as teacher and governor of the Church.
"As a private person, can the Pope fall into heresy? The theologians dispute about this question. To us it seems more pious and more probable to admit that God will take care, by his Providence, that never will a Pope be a heretic."
-
Then you do not know yourself very well, because you go on to write...
Gee, I did not know sedevacantists were comedians too... although this is not very funny...
The burden of proof falls upon sedevacantists such as you to apodictically demonstrate and systematically prove:
(1) precisely how, when and why the occupants of the Johannine-Pauline structures cannot claim to constitute the Ecclesia docens;
(2) precisely how, when and why the occupants of the Johannine-Pauline structures lapsed away from the Catholic and divine faith into formal heresy, properly so-called;
(3) what precisely in the docuмents of the Johannine-Pauline council can be said to constitute the "Œconomia nova" of the modernists, by identifying the heresies and errors thereof and demonstrating what theological label is to designate these propositions (according to the methodology of the eminent theologians whom Holy Mother Church has proposed to us as our teachers and guides in these matters);
(4) they must demonstrate the theological, moral and Canonical ramifications of the deliberate and contumacious adherence of these propositions of the Johannine-Pauline council, both as regards to the Bishops of the time and to the laity and clergy who remain materially adhered to the structures that were brought forth by the Johannine-Pauline council and its modernist proponents;
(5) how exactly are we to contextualize these occurrences to the doctrines of Holy Mother Church as set forth in the Encyclical letters of the Roman Pontiffs, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and the approved theologians of the illustrious schools; and
(6) whether or not does the above necessitates positing the conglomerate of acephalous clerics of the anti-modernist resistance as constituting the Ecclesia docens, and what are the criteria whereby the faithful may readily identify who exactly amongst these same clerics to be ascribed the "hierarchical claim" and how these clerics are to "exercise" such a claim (for example, what prevents one from ascribing such "hierarchical claim" to Bp. Pivarunas, but denying it to Bp. Slupski, or how can the faithful determine who are the charlatans and frauds, such as Ryan "St. Anne" Scott?).
Numbers one through five have been done in piecemeal fashion by individual apologists (whether clerical or lay), or groups thereof, but not in a systematic manner, much less according to the strict scholastic methods of inquiry as seen in how theologians such as Franzelin, Van Noort, Scheeben, Garrigou-Lagrange, Tanquerey, Fenton, &c., present sacred doctrine in their manuals and commentaries. Nor have any of these individuals been trained and educated according to the exigencies of the Sacred Canons, much less according to the standards of intellectual industry and scientific discipline inexorably inherent in the acquisition of a doctorate in sacred theology. Even the most elderly of their number who can claim anything like the former (not the latter) sort of training cannot demand the assent of the faithful anyways, because he lacks the missio and jurisdiction requisite to preach the Catholic faith anyways.
As one sedevacantist has written:
There is no "complete" published sedevacantist theory except the Guerardian one (and even that has not been published in any language than French, and even in French it was not put into a systematic form and published in a volume, but rather it appeared scattered throughout issues of a journal). Yet non-sedevacantists are attacked for failing to adopt "sedevacantism". This only needs to be stated for its absurdity to be immediately apparent. Can any reasonable and just man condemn another for refusing to accept a theory which, as far as he can see, involves the denial that the Church has a hierarchy? Can anybody really be condemned for not adopting a theory which nobody has even bothered to present in a professional and complete form?
Number six essentially constitutes the central problem of the species of "sedevacantism" that you and others have been propagating, insofar as it makes very problematic the question of the visibility of the Ecclesia docens, the contumacy of certain polemicists who have made novel theories in prejudice to sound theology have made the question impossibly quizzical and labyrinthine.
In order for such polemicists as you to evade the censure of theological error or of being "rash," you must methodically and systematically present the predicament of the Church in the present day according to the teachings and methods of Thomistic philosophy and theology. This is especially true regarding the question of how the faithful are to identify the Ecclesia docens in the present age, which the sedevacantists must satisfactorily answer in order for them to attain to the integrity and consistency that would render their stance credible and tenable.
Whilst you claim that the objections against sedevacantism have been "refuted," you yourself and others of like mind have refuted yourselves in the ecclesiological errors that you may have unknowingly committed in positing and adhering to an "acephalous Church:"
The Church of the Word Incarnate: An Essay of Speculative Theology[/i] (trans. A.H.C. Downes; London: Sheed and Ward, 1954), pg. 411n]
During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, says Cajetan, the universal Church is in an imperfect state; she is like an amputated body, not an integral body. "The Church is acephalous, deprived of her highest part and power. Whoever contests that falls into the error of John Hus―who denied the need of a visible ruler for the Church―condemned in advance by St. Thomas, then by Martin V at the Council of Constance. And to say that the Church in this state holds her power immediately from Christ and that the General Council represents her, is to err intolerably" (De Comparatione etc., cap. vi., 74). Here are the seventh and the twenty-seventh propositions of John Hus condemned at the Council of Constance: "Peter neither is nor ever was the head of the Holy Catholic Church"; "There is nothing whatsoever to show that the spiritual order demands a head who shall continue to live and endure with the Church Militant" (Denz. 633 and 653).
The anti-sedevacantists could make the argument that such polemicists as those in question expose "sedevacantism" as theologically untenable by subscribing to the condemned twenty-seventh proposition of John Hus.
Moreover, the twenty-eighth proposition seems to be blueprint of the so-called "Apostolic Church" that these sedevacantists have devised: "Christ through His true disciples scattered through the world would rule His Church better without such monstrous heads," Christus sine talibus monstruosis capitibus per suos veraces discipulos sparsos per orbem terrarum melius suam Ecclesiam regularet" (Denz., no. 654). And there have been sedevacantists who have lamented the dogmatic definition of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff by the Vatican Council (Session IV, 18 July 1870) in the Constitution Pastor aeternus as the "preparation" for the present day ecclesiastical crisis; ironically echoing the Jansenists and Gallicanists that preceded them.
Ultimately, this renders such sedevacantists' opinion the very "sedevacantism" (to speak anachronistically) that John Hus himself professed, as his twentieth proposition seems to show: "If the Pope is wicked and especially if he is foreknown, then as Judas, the Apostle, he is of the devil, a thief, and a son of perdition, and he is not the head of the holy militant Church, since he is not a member of it," "Si Papa est malus et praesetim, si est praescitus, tunc ut Iudas apostolus est diaboli, fur, et filius perditionis, et non est caput sanctae militantis Ecclesiae, cuм nec sit membrum eius" (Denz., no. 646). For if these so-called apologists of the sedevacantist camp adopt an ecclesiology that hearkens to the errors of John Hus, there may be a legitimate objection that posits the possibility that "sedevacantism" as interpreted by these polemicists is ultimately a revival of the Hussite heresies.
In making the acephalous and vagrant clergy the Ecclesia docens, or, worse yet, reducing the magisterium of the Church to the endeavors of numberless individuals who must necessarily have recourse to tomes (Denzinger, the Codex, &c.) or to the endeavors of others (such as untrained clerics or charlatans such as the Dimond Brothers), such theorists are devising an "Œconomia nova" of their own, wherein this sort of "sedevacantism" brings forth a new abominatio in desolationem (cf. Dan. cap. xi., 31, cap. xii., 11), or, rather, a new abominatio desolationis (cf. Dan. cap. ix., 27, S. Matt. cap. xxiv., 15, S. Marc. cap. xiii., 14): not only a Church without a Pope, but a Church that has no need of a Pope to have a hierarchy that can claim Apostolic succession formaliter and ordinary jurisdiction. A new and vile form of fideicide that brings about scandal and error in a manner analogous to the Hegelian historicist "dogmatics" of the modernists and their Johannine-Pauline structures.
This is essentially what a "dogmatic sedevacantist" such as you has become.
I will easily answer and refute all your objections, after you apply the same principles to your blatantly false "recognize and resist" position.
No: he will ban you simply because you are a nuisance and your novelties are proximate occasions of sins against the faith and charity.
Oh, what have I done!?
Ok.
I guess your rank arrogance and immature dilettantism compelled me to reply something, my resolution to not post in this sub-forum notwithstanding.
But I am not going to dispute lofty questions of theology with someone who cannot even comprehend and practice the basic teachings of the sacred Gospels and of such works as the treatise De imitatione Christi regarding fraternal charity.
Please be assured of my prayers.
And just where exactly did I violate the practice of the basic teachings of the sacred Gospels and of such works as the treatise De imitatione Christi regarding fraternal charity?
May I remind you Our Lord did not hesitate to denounce the pharisees as "brood of vipers", "ravening wolves", "hypocrites", "whitewashed tombs" etc.
I call a spade a spade.
-
"Dogmatic sedevacantists" are objectively schismatic for refusing communion with traditional Catholics who do not agree with their theological opinion. They are also heretical for inserting "sedevacantism" into the deposit of faith which, as they proclaim, must be accepted in order for you to be Catholic. Stay away from them.
You are all false "traditionalists" and heretics anyways. You all believe in salvation outside the Church and reject this dogma. The heretical SSPX openly rejects this dogma and all of you phonies who think and say the SSPX is "catholic" are heretics for saying manifest heretics are "Catholic".
Lefebvre didn't fool around but openly reject this dogma. At least he was honest in admitting he believed in salvation outside the Church, unlike all of you who try to disguise it.
So how will I be a schismatic for rightly refusing communion with all of you heretics?
And I already said I don't believe sedevacantism is a dogma but all of you apparently have no problem with twisting another's position and of uttering lies and falsehoods.
-
P.S. Hobbledehoy,
the Imitation only deals with real Catholics and with the faithful or the other brethren in a monastery etc., it wasn't dealing with heretics like you, who we have to rightly denounce.
-
all of you apparently have no problem with twisting another's position
Have you not done this very thing? You are accusing others of denying a dogma when it is you who do not understand the dogma as taught by the Church.
-
Disputaciones,
You, sir, are completely off your rocker. You are the definition of a dogmatic sedevacantist, extremist, and isolated armchair theologian who doesn't know what Traditional Catholicism really is. If you think Traditional Catholicism is staying home on Sunays regardless of the circuмstances, and condemning everyone else as heretics except yourself, you are sadly mistaken.
And by the way, I am almost certain that you are Hietanen. Your beliefs, accusations of "heresy", and posting style are all too similar to his.
-
all of you apparently have no problem with twisting another's position
Have you not done this very thing? You are accusing others of denying a dogma when it is you who do not understand the dogma as taught by the Church.
I have not.
Did you read my post?
I said rejecting sedevacantism and not embracing the position leads to a denial of a host of dogmas and teachings. That's a fact.
There is a very big difference.
For as I already proved, rejecting sedevacantism leads to the belief that the Gates of Hell have prevailed over the Church, rejection of canonizations (as all of you won't accept the "canonization" of JPII and the other antipopes or of the marrano Escrivá will you?), believing that manifest heretics and apostates can be popes and are inside the Church, etc.
Is all of that not heretical then?
-
Disputaciones,
You, sir, are completely off your rocker. You are the definition of a dogmatic sedevacantist, extremist, and isolated armchair theologian who doesn't know what Traditional Catholicism really is. If you think Traditional Catholicism is staying home on Sunays regardless of the circuмstances, and condemning everyone else as heretics except yourself, you are sadly mistaken.
I know for a fact you are definitely not a Catholic, and I don't have to be a theologian to do so.
Among other things, you blatantly deny and reject the salvation dogma. That alone makes you a heretic.
I know for a fact being a traditional Catholic is not putting the Mass before the Faith, as all of you do.
I know for a fact the Church has always condemned communicatio in divinis.
And by the way, I am almost certain that you are Hietanen. Your beliefs, , and posting style are all too similar to his.
I am not, and I swear I am not.
accusations of "heresy"
Oh so that there is no salvation outside the Church, or that a heretic is outside the Church and cannot be a Pope, is not a dogma then?
-
Further, while you (falsely) accuse sedevacantists like myself to be "armchair theologians", how are you any different by holding that your "recognize and resist" perversion is a near-revealed truth?
-
I know for a fact you are definitely not a Catholic, and I don't have to be a theologian to do so.
Your definition of Catholicism is Jansenism and extremism.
Among other things, you blatantly deny and reject the salvation dogma. That alone makes you a heretic.
Absurd. I never denied the salvation Dogma.
know for a fact being a traditional Catholic is not putting the Mass before the Faith, as all of you do.
Wrong again, I don't put the Mass above the Faith.
Oh so that there is no salvation outside the Church, or that a heretic is outside the Church and cannot be a Pope, is not a dogma then?
I never said there is salvation outside the Church.
-
Further, while you (falsely) accuse sedevacantists like myself to be "armchair theologians", how are you any different by holding that your "recognize and resist" perversion is a near-revealed truth?
Do you automatically assume that everyone on this forum is a "recognize and resister"?
-
Your definition of Catholicism is Jansenism and extremism.
How so? Don't merely say it, prove it.
Absurd. I never denied the salvation Dogma.
Oh no? You believe those who are invincibly ignorant can be saved as long as they live a "good life and are honest" and you also believe in salvation by implicit desire, a perversion no Saint ever taught.
Wrong again, I don't put the Mass above the Faith.
Then why do you go to the SSPX and regard them as catholics?
I never said there is salvation outside the Church.
Salvation by invincible ignorance and implicit desire is to say there is salvation outside the Church.
-
Do you automatically assume that everyone on this forum is a "recognize and resister"?
No, I know they aren't, but nevertheless they still believe you can still be a catholic by being such, which is wrong.
They still believe it is a mere matter of opinion, which is dead wrong.
-
Disputationes -- you are GONE.
I don't allow schismatics on this board. Any sedevacantist that takes a butcher knife chainsaw to the Mystical Body of Christ is NOT WELCOME HERE.
All baptized Traditional Catholics are part of the Mystical Body of Christ, whether you like it or not.
Cutting them off, treating them as heretics, refusing communion with them just because they disagree with you on the so-called "sede vacante dogma" is SCHISMATIC and GRAVELY SINFUL.
Oh, and I see you're a Feeneyite as well. Feeneyites are the worst when it comes to bitterness, lack of charity, and schismatic spirit.
Sede vacante is not a dogma. It is a prudential position, the correctness of which IS open for debate.
It might seem odd for a long-time supporter of the SSPX to lambast Schism. But we have to remember -- true Schism IS a big deal. It's gravely sinful, and something to be studiously avoided.
The SSPX, in cleaving to the timeless Catholic Faith and Tradition, is NOT schismatic. It's the pope, cardinals, bishops and most priests who are in schism by breaking with Catholic Tradition and trying to create a new Faith.
-
Not to mention calling those who believe in Baptism of desire heretics, and misrepresenting them. Not one SSPX priest says [so I hope] one is saved by invincible ignorance; what they do say is one is not damned by it. One must have supernatural faith, hope, and charity to be saved; one can receive these outside of Baptism of water (even by implicit baptism of desire), though it is extraordinary and rare. We recognize that even in this implicit desire, some beliefs must be explicit. What they are the Church has not defined, so we're free to speculate.
-
Good decision to ban him, Matthew. Thank you.
-
Disputationes -- you are GONE.
Some people just won't listen.
-
Disputationes -- you are GONE.
Deo gratias!
His role-play as inquisitor was a bit amusing, but it started getting eerie...
I commend him and those of similar mind to the patronage of St. Dymphna.
-
I will play devil's advocate as I do agree with some of the things the banned guy said
1. sedes believe the pope is a heretic and therefore can not be a true pope but an anti pope.
so if you don't agree with the sede position you believe that the present "pope" is either not a heretic or is a heretic but still is pope...I don't believe any of those 2 beliefs to be following Catholic teaching on the matter.
I disagree with his view that I'm not allowed to go to a traditional mass SSPX eventhough I believe the priest to be a heretic, as this is the only option I have to recieve the sacraments.
I would like to read from anyone who believes it's a mortal sin to financially support a heretical priest, since now the only option to recieve the sacraments are to go to a heretical priest I don't see how I can go to the mass without financially supporting them since if everyone did the same the church wouldn't be able to continue.
-
Calling every SSPX priest a "heretic" is pretty strong words, gooch.
Heretics normally get something (thirty pieces of silver or equivalent) for their heresy -- they aren't normally such edifying, self-sacrificing model Catholics bearing great amounts of fruit and displaying such virtues (fruits of the Spirit).
Are you saying all these Catholics of good will are going to lose their souls? How can you believe such a thing.
Maybe the juridical state of the Pope is simply not something we (or the SSPX priests) can do anything about, and something we should not worry about.
As long as we don't follow the Pope's erroneous opinions, we will be fine.
-
I would like to read from anyone who believes it's a mortal sin to financially support a heretical priest, since now the only option to recieve the sacraments are to go to a heretical priest I don't see how I can go to the mass without financially supporting them since if everyone did the same the church wouldn't be able to continue.
This is nonsense.
Where's your proof that acknowledging Benedict XVI as true Pope is "heresy"? It may not be the correct position, but what dogmatic sedevacantists don't understand is that the sedevacantist position - just like the position of the SSPX - is nothing more than an opinion, and a theory that attempts to explain the current crisis in the Church. Our position on whether or not Benedict XVI is true Pope will not play a role in the salvation of our soul. God isn't going to ask us on Judgement Day whether we were a sede or an SSPXer. Rather, He is going to ask us "Did you keep the Faith?". That is what's important.
-
"now the only option to recieve the sacraments are to go to a heretical priest"
This is itself heretical or at the very least gravely erroneous.
Not only what others have said, but to believe as you seem to that every Bishop and priest, even traditional, throughout the world without exception is in heresy, is itself a heresy, and an abominable one, which denies the dogma of the Church's indefectibility.
It makes a mockery of the concept of the teaching Church and inverts the relation in which the Church taught stands with respect to them. Read Pope St.Pius X's Catechism.
It is also plainly contrary to the First Vatican Council, which states, "It was his will that in his Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time." The universal and Catholic Church as a whole cannot cease to be Apostolic, it is Bishops who can be successors to the Apostles, so she cannot cease to have at least some orthodox Bishops, who are shepherds and teachers, as you seem to believe.
-
I will play devil's advocate as I do agree with some of the things the banned guy said
1. sedes believe the pope is a heretic and therefore can not be a true pope but an anti pope. so if you don't agree with the sede position you believe that the present "pope" is either not a heretic or is a heretic but still is pope...I don't believe any of those 2 beliefs to be following Catholic teaching on the matter.
If you also realize these are your personal opinions, then you won't condemn others as heretics for not agreeing with you.
-
all of you apparently have no problem with twisting another's position
Have you not done this very thing? You are accusing others of denying a dogma when it is you who do not understand the dogma as taught by the Church.
I have not.
Did you read my post?
I said rejecting sedevacantism and not embracing the position leads to a denial of a host of dogmas and teachings. That's a fact.
There is a very big difference.
For as I already proved, rejecting sedevacantism leads to the belief that the Gates of Hell have prevailed over the Church, rejection of canonizations (as all of you won't accept the "canonization" of JPII and the other antipopes or of the marrano Escrivá will you?), believing that manifest heretics and apostates can be popes and are inside the Church, etc.
Is all of that not heretical then?
In your mind it leads to heresy, but there is no actual heresy present or even inplied. That, as you say, is a big difference.
Dogmatizing sedeplentists say the very same things (the Gates of Hell have prevailed over the Church, etc.) about those who don't subscribe to their opinions. Funny, isn't it?
-
"now the only option to recieve the sacraments are to go to a heretical priest"
This is itself heretical or at the very least gravely erroneous.
Not only what others have said, but to believe as you seem to that every Bishop and priest, even traditional, throughout the world without exception is in heresy, is itself a heresy, and an abominable one, which denies the dogma of the Church's indefectibility.
It makes a mockery of the concept of the teaching Church and inverts the relation in which the Church taught stands with respect to them. Read Pope St.Pius X's Catechism.
It is also plainly contrary to the First Vatican Council, which states, "It was his will that in his Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time." The universal and Catholic Church as a whole cannot cease to be Apostolic, it is Bishops who can be successors to the Apostles, so she cannot cease to have at least some orthodox Bishops, who are shepherds and teachers, as you seem to believe.
I didn't say every bishop or priest did I? I have access to one church in my city, I talked to the priest, he doesn't believe in no salvation outside the church, does that not make hima heretic?
-
I would like to read from anyone who believes it's a mortal sin to financially support a heretical priest, since now the only option to recieve the sacraments are to go to a heretical priest I don't see how I can go to the mass without financially supporting them since if everyone did the same the church wouldn't be able to continue.
This is nonsense.
Where's your proof that acknowledging Benedict XVI as true Pope is "heresy"? It may not be the correct position, but what dogmatic sedevacantists don't understand is that the sedevacantist position - just like the position of the SSPX - is nothing more than an opinion, and a theory that attempts to explain the current crisis in the Church. Our position on whether or not Benedict XVI is true Pope will not play a role in the salvation of our soul. God isn't going to ask us on Judgement Day whether we were a sede or an SSPXer. Rather, He is going to ask us "Did you keep the Faith?". That is what's important.
I agree that what's important is wether we will keep the faith. I just don't want to sin mortally and i read that the sede position is if you give money to an heretical priest it's a mortal sin...is that not true? I believe my priest is a heretic because he doesn't believe in no salvation outside the church, do you agree with that ?
-
I will play devil's advocate as I do agree with some of the things the banned guy said
1. sedes believe the pope is a heretic and therefore can not be a true pope but an anti pope. so if you don't agree with the sede position you believe that the present "pope" is either not a heretic or is a heretic but still is pope...I don't believe any of those 2 beliefs to be following Catholic teaching on the matter.
If you also realize these are your personal opinions, then you won't condemn others as heretics for not agreeing with you.
I'm not condemning anyone, but if you don't agree with the sede position aren't you stating that the current pope is not a heretic? or that a heretic can be pope? if that is the case I would like to read your arguements on how this pope is not a heretic or that it's ok for a heretic to be pope.
-
I will play devil's advocate as I do agree with some of the things the banned guy said
1. sedes believe the pope is a heretic and therefore can not be a true pope but an anti pope. so if you don't agree with the sede position you believe that the present "pope" is either not a heretic or is a heretic but still is pope...I don't believe any of those 2 beliefs to be following Catholic teaching on the matter.
If you also realize these are your personal opinions, then you won't condemn others as heretics for not agreeing with you.
I'm not condemning anyone, but if you don't agree with the sede position aren't you stating that the current pope is not a heretic? or that a heretic can be pope? if that is the case I would like to read your arguements on how this pope is not a heretic or that it's ok for a heretic to be pope.
You are dogmatizing the sede position as to exclude as Catholics those who disagree. That is wrong, and no less wrong than sedeplentists who dogmatize their position.
Can you see that alternative interpretations of the present situation are possible? A sincere man might apply these interpretations to produce a conclusion different from the sede vacante view. For example, thinking that the new rites and laws are not per se evil but only accidentally so, and thinking that some facts that we regard as factual are not so (that the vernacular liturgies are "universal disciplines" in the meaning given by the theologians).
Another factual question is whether Paul VI properly promulgated the Novus Ordo. It seems reasonable to argue that the fact was made deliberately vague by Paul VI and his advisors precisely to create the uncertainty that we have witnessed. The same is true of the notion that V2 was "pastoral." I'm not asserting that any of this is objectively doubtful, but only that it is not obvious that they are objectively clear, and therefore differences between sincere men are inevitable.
-
I'm not condemning anyone, but if you don't agree with the sede position aren't you stating that the current pope is not a heretic? or that a heretic can be pope? if that is the case I would like to read your arguements on how this pope is not a heretic or that it's ok for a heretic to be pope.
I will state that the conciliar popes have all been heretics. At the very least, I believe it is absolutely impossible to prove that the conciliar popes have been NOT been anti-Catholic conspirators.
That being said, the fact that they are heretics does not change their position of authority - and if it does, there is no way to prove it.
-
A true pope can not be a heretic, to believe so is to say God is a liar.
However, no one can THESE DAYS, really judge who is within the Church. No salvation outside the church, but who are we these days to say who is outside the church, since it is scattered, a consequence of having no pope.
Only God knows. All we can do is stay within the bounds of our conscience, for me that is the sede position.
-
A true pope can not be a heretic, to believe so is to say God is a liar.
However, no one can THESE DAYS, really judge who is within the Church. No salvation outside the church, but who are we these days to say who is outside the church, since it is scattered, a consequence of having no pope.
Only God knows. All we can do is stay within the bounds of our conscience, for me that is the sede position.
There are serious and, imo, legitimate concerns with this belief - again, imo.
IOW, if the pope cannot be a heretic, then SVs should believe with all their hearts that each and every pope ever to sit in the Chair has been chosen directly by God, same as St. Peter was chosen by God since God *presumably* would never put a heretic in the Chair - - - if that be the case, the election process has always been merely the means God ordained to use to choose His Vicars.
If this belief is not absolute among SVs, then I fail to see why SVs believe that a pope cannot be a heretic.
I also fail to see how SVs could cling to such a belief since to do so would place God in a rather precarious position due to God not choosing great living saints for all his Vicars. So I do not think that SVs believe it is God who chooses His Vicars yet at the same time SVs stand firm that no heretic can be pope as though God would never allow such a thing.
OTOH, if his heretical acts made him to be not the true pope, if he went to confession and was forgiven, would that action on his part make him the true pope again? Either way, who is the pope's judge in this matter - lay people? Priests? Bishops? The pope's confessor?
-
Stubborn, attending Catholic school back in the late 40's - 50's this is exactly as I was taught, that the Holy Ghost choses the pope. He inspires who He Wills to be elected. This is why I can not believe that the Holy Ghost picked those imposters.
Not to say a pope can not be a sinner, and in fact, some true popes were terrible sinners, but not heretics.
In fact by the fact that some pope were sinners, just proved again and again the the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church.
-
A true pope can not be a heretic, to believe so is to say God is a liar.
However, no one can THESE DAYS, really judge who is within the Church. No salvation outside the church, but who are we these days to say who is outside the church, since it is scattered, a consequence of having no pope.
Only God knows. All we can do is stay within the bounds of our conscience, for me that is the sede position.
Myrna, several pre-V2 theologians held that a pope-heretic retained the papacy. Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange was not saying "God is a liar" when he held his opinion.
Also, when you say "no one can THESE DAYS, really judge who is within the Church" kind of says we can't find the Church, which Bellarmine said "is as visible as the Republic of Venice."
-
Stubborn, attending Catholic school back in the late 40's - 50's this is exactly as I was taught, that the Holy Ghost choses the pope.
This is meaningless, proves nothing, and it's not something I've ever heard anywhere. The pope is canonically elected by electors. Do you think the Holy Ghost inspires men to elect an unjust and sinful man at times; or does He merely allow it to happen? I think it's the latter.
-
I think the latter is what she meant, SJB. That the Holy Ghost merely allows it to happen.
-
Stubborn, attending Catholic school back in the late 40's - 50's this is exactly as I was taught, that the Holy Ghost choses the pope. He inspires who He Wills to be elected. This is why I can not believe that the Holy Ghost picked those imposters.
Not to say a pope can not be a sinner, and in fact, some true popes were terrible sinners, but not heretics.
In fact by the fact that some pope were sinners, just proved again and again the the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church.
There is still issues with this.
If indeed the Holy Ghost does inspire the election of popes, then why did the Holy Ghost *not* inspire the elections of the conciliar popes?
OTOH, we know for certain that in the past there have been bad popes, if we believe that the Holy Ghost dictates who is elected, then we believe that the Holy Ghost has, in the past, put bad popes in the Chair. If that is the case, then there is every reason to believe the Conciliar popes were put there by the Holy Ghost as well. And if in fact the Holy Ghost did place a bad pope in the Chair, then that's all the more reason to acknowledge that the pope placed in the Chair by the Holy Ghost is indeed a true pope.
I am not trying to be obtuse, but in searching for the truth of this matter, it seems *to me* that these are questions that need to be sought after, answered, then the answers must be accepted no matter what.
Again IMO and based only on [my] human reasoning, I do not think that the Holy Ghost dictates who the pope will be because if He did, I don't think there could ever be a bad pope.
-
I think the latter is what she meant, SJB. That the Holy Ghost merely allows it to happen.
Then the Holy Ghost doesn't "pick the pope."
-
If I remember my Catholic teaching correctly the only human without sin was the Blessed Virgin Mary. We are all sinners, remember! From St. Peter down, proving the Church can continue without error when it come to Faith and Morals even if the pope is sinful. There is a big difference between a pope in sin and a heretic. There is a big difference in a pope with personal sin then a True pope leading the faithful outside the Church into a man made religion, a counterfeit religion.
Yes, the Holy Ghost can and does inspire who will be elected a TRUE pope.
The Holy Ghost does not make errors, He had nothing to do with the election of impostor popes, because they are heretics before and after their pretense of occupying the Chair of Peter.
-
If I remember my Catholic teaching correctly the only human without sin was the Blessed Virgin Mary. We are all sinners, remember! From St. Peter down, proving the Church can continue without error when it come to Faith and Morals even if the pope is sinful. There is a big difference between a pope in sin and a heretic. There is a big difference in a pope with personal sin then a True pope leading the faithful outside the Church into a man made religion, a counterfeit religion.
Yes, the Holy Ghost can and does inspire who will be elected a TRUE pope.
The Holy Ghost does not make errors, He had nothing to do with the election of impostor popes, because they are heretics before and after their pretense of occupying the Chair of Peter.
Doesn't this belief leave the Holy Ghost prone to error? Because if He only gets involved on a part time basis, then it seems He makes a terrible mistake when He is being absent by risking allowing elections of heretics.
So how come the Holy Ghost did not inspire the elections of the conciliar popes? IOW, why would the Holy Ghost inspire the election on Pope Paul V but not Pope Paul VI?
-
several pre-V2 theologians held that a pope-heretic retained the papacy.
That really isn't the issue. It's a question of Ecclesial Defectism. A belief held by Matthew and others on this forum.
I don't think it accurate to make SVism a matter of whether the Church can err or teach error or not (which it can't) because the pope is not the Church, anymore than the king is the kingdom or the president is the USA. This remains true whether the pope is good or bad.
-
SJB, my point in citing St.Robert was to show why a Council would be necessary. Anyway, I think you've cited this very work to me in the past, and it's worth repeating here on this topic,
"466. Q*. Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso facto, of the Pontificate?
*A.* - 1. There are two opinions: one holds that he is, by virtue of divine appointment, divested, /ipso facto/, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, /jure divino/, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church - i.e., by an oecuмenical council of the College of Cardinals."
Obviously, the Council would be purely declaratory. This too was Savanarola's modus operandi (agitating for a Council) when he (wrongly, but understandably, again showing why it is very prudent to withhold judgment altogether) believed Pope Alexander VI was a heretic. The Council would have to be called by the Cardinals, or failing them the Roman clergy, not some group of laymen, nor even of Bishops and priests without ecclesiastical offices and jurisdiction.
If you have any ideas on how to convoke such a Council, I'm all ears. I certainly wouldn't oppose it.
But, from this it follows also that Catholics cannot be condemned in advance of such a definitive declaration of the Church for withholding or reserving judgment on the question, or even of believing that in his heart as a private person the Pope has not become a formal heretic, whatever his outward actions, for we may piously believe, says St.Robert, that God would not permit this.
-
If I remember my Catholic teaching correctly the only human without sin was the Blessed Virgin Mary. We are all sinners, remember! From St. Peter down, proving the Church can continue without error when it come to Faith and Morals even if the pope is sinful. There is a big difference between a pope in sin and a heretic. There is a big difference in a pope with personal sin then a True pope leading the faithful outside the Church into a man made religion, a counterfeit religion.
Yes, the Holy Ghost can and does inspire who will be elected a TRUE pope.
The Holy Ghost does not make errors, He had nothing to do with the election of impostor popes, because they are heretics before and after their pretense of occupying the Chair of Peter.
Doesn't this belief leave the Holy Ghost prone to error? Because if He only gets involved on a part time basis, then it seems He makes a terrible mistake when He is being absent by risking allowing elections of heretics.
So how come the Holy Ghost did not inspire the elections of the conciliar popes? IOW, why would the Holy Ghost inspire the election on Pope Paul V but not Pope Paul VI?
The Holy Ghost guides the Church, inspires and sanctifies; what are you even talking about when you say "part-time basis", this only makes sense if you believe that the infiltrators, wolves in sheep's clothing, deserve guidance from the Holy Ghost. It is very simple, Vatican II and their ilk are not the Church therefore the Holy Ghost did not error with their choosing, why, because they left the Church, they wanted no part of God, therefore God gave them what they wanted; to believe in error. This is what God is giving the world today, to believe in error, because they have no love of truth.
The Church is scattered because the shepherd has been struck. Today the word "majority" means most baptised catholics are on the wrong side of the fence. While the Holy Ghost still guides the few; who said, "when I return will I find Faith upon the earth"?
You people who believe that A VICAR OF CHRIST, can be a heretic have a lot to learn about the power of God.
You also act surprised about this crisis, and I wonder why, after all God told us He would allow this Great Apostasy, He also told us what we should do when it happens. To stay firm to the traditions we have learned from the beginning. This is what CMRI does, and hopefully those who follow SSPX will continue to do in the future. Follow no man, except Jesus Christ. Your common sense should tell you, if God told us to leave the harlot, why would you even think a sede vacantist position could accept that the Holy Ghost, the sanctifier could possible inspire the election of the enemy. This has nothing to do with the Vicar of Christ, the human person, having sins upon their souls, since God also told us that all men are sinners. It has everything to do with the Holy Ghost guiding these same men, (true popes) in matters of Faith and Morals.
To actual entertain the thought that the Holy Ghost can err is a grave sin against the Church.
-
If I remember my Catholic teaching correctly the only human without sin was the Blessed Virgin Mary. We are all sinners, remember! From St. Peter down, proving the Church can continue without error when it come to Faith and Morals even if the pope is sinful. There is a big difference between a pope in sin and a heretic. There is a big difference in a pope with personal sin then a True pope leading the faithful outside the Church into a man made religion, a counterfeit religion.
Yes, the Holy Ghost can and does inspire who will be elected a TRUE pope.
The Holy Ghost does not make errors, He had nothing to do with the election of impostor popes, because they are heretics before and after their pretense of occupying the Chair of Peter.
Doesn't this belief leave the Holy Ghost prone to error? Because if He only gets involved on a part time basis, then it seems He makes a terrible mistake when He is being absent by risking allowing elections of heretics.
So how come the Holy Ghost did not inspire the elections of the conciliar popes? IOW, why would the Holy Ghost inspire the election on Pope Paul V but not Pope Paul VI?
The Holy Ghost guides the Church, inspires and sanctifies; what are you even talking about when you say "part-time basis", this only makes sense if you believe that the infiltrators, wolves in sheep's clothing, deserve guidance from the Holy Ghost. It is very simple, Vatican II and their ilk are not the Church therefore the Holy Ghost did not error with their choosing, why, because they left the Church, they wanted no part of God, therefore God gave them what they wanted; to believe in error. This is what God is giving the world today, to believe in error, because they have no love of truth.
The Church is scattered because the shepherd has been struck. Today the word "majority" means most baptised catholics are on the wrong side of the fence. While the Holy Ghost still guides the few; who said, "when I return will I find Faith upon the earth"?
You people who believe that A VICAR OF CHRIST, can be a heretic have a lot to learn about the power of God.
You also act surprised about this crisis, and I wonder why, after all God told us He would allow this Great Apostasy, He also told us what we should do when it happens. To stay firm to the traditions we have learned from the beginning. This is what CMRI does, and hopefully those who follow SSPX will continue to do in the future. Follow no man, except Jesus Christ. Your common sense should tell you, if God told us to leave the harlot, why would you even think a sede vacantist position could accept that the Holy Ghost, the sanctifier could possible inspire the election of the enemy. This has nothing to do with the Vicar of Christ, the human person, having sins upon their souls, since God also told us that all men are sinners. It has everything to do with the Holy Ghost guiding these same men, (true popes) in matters of Faith and Morals.
To actual entertain the thought that the Holy Ghost can err is a grave sin against the Church.
Myrna,
Is explaining the obvious as tiring for you as it is for me? Keep up the good fight.
May God bless and Mary keep,
John
-
Disputationes -- you are GONE.
Deo gratias!
His role-play as inquisitor was a bit amusing, but it started getting eerie...
I commend him and those of similar mind to the patronage of St. Dymphna.
:roll-laugh1:
That may not have been intended to be funny but well-stated none-the-less.
I have often said that the feeneyites when all is said and done, might find themselves ETERNALLY outside the very Church they keep insisting everyone else is outside of.
-
:laugh1:
Disputationes -- you are GONE.
Deo gratias!
His role-play as inquisitor was a bit amusing, but it started getting eerie...
I commend him and those of similar mind to the patronage of St. Dymphna.
:roll-laugh1:
That may not have been intended to be funny but well-stated none-the-less.
I have often said that the feeneyites when all is said and done, might find themselves ETERNALLY outside the very Church they keep insisting everyone else is outside of.
The roll laughter was inappropriate.
How's this? :laugh1:
I mean that in a good way. There is nothing funny about a Saint helping the stubbornly misguided. Even when the stubbornly misguided would insist that saint was in Hell if they somehow were not physically baptized with water. I havn't followed the thread much or Disputationes so this is not against him so much as the the feeneyites I have encountered.
-
All sedevacantists have a problem with that position because they believe that it cannot be reconciled with Catholic teaching. It's the reason why sedevacantists exist.
Please don't speak for "all sedevacantists" because you don't and you cannot.
While it is true that "all sedevacantists" have come to those conclusions, which is why they are sedevacantist, it is not correct to say that all sedevacantists believe that these conclusions are dogma and that failure to reach these conclusions is heresy.
Those who believe Benedict 16 is the pope of the Roman Catholic Church are, in my opinion, wrong; but they are not, by that fact, outside the Church. They are outside the Church only in as much as they subscribe to the heresies that Benedict 16 teaches.
Whether Benedict 16 is a true pope is a matter of fact. Like many facts that are ascertained by witnesses and deductive reasoning, not everyone sees the same evidence or understands the evidence they do see in the same way. Only history will tell us who is right just as history tells us that Athanasius was right while Arius was wrong or that Eusebius was right while Nestorius was wrong. At the time, many people were confused and faithful Catholics differed on each case.
The SSPX, for example, is still Catholic as they have not, as an organization, defected from the faith.
On the other hand, I believe that dogmatic anti-sedevacantism is equally as bad as dogmatic sedevacantism for anyone who is dogmatic on either side of this prudential judgment refuses communion with those who disagree with their personal opinion on the matter of the identity of the pope. Matthew and I disagree on the answer to that question, but neither of us declare that the other is not a Catholic for that reason.
CathInfo allows (as opposed to Angelqueen) Catholics to argue the question in a rational manner. Individuals may be convinced of the opposing arguments and reconsider and change their conclusions, but they are not "converted". (Interestingly, the SSPX frequently talks about the need to "convert Rome", but that is another topic altogether.) As long as there is a single claimant to the papacy whose claim has met the external forms (i.e., the people appointed as cardinals meet in conclave and a successor is elected and is accepted by "the world" to be the new pope) the question will remain open. The question of the "heretic pope" is not one that has clearly and unambiguously been settled.
In any event, in practice, all traditional Catholics who reject the heresies of the Conciliar Church and the docuмents that issued from Vatican 2, act in the same way toward those heresies and the papal commands and teachings that emanate from those heresies. The difference seems to me to be one of semantics; which is why, I think, dogmatism by either party could be schismatic and should not be tolerated by Catholics.
Now...the dogmatic sedevacantists have just declared me a heretic.
Well-stated :cheers:
Sometimes I feel like people can't even get to first base when it comes to deductive reasoning [such as when someone suggests that one who surmises that an unquestionably valid Pope was not perfect (sinned, did something imprudent) is attacking the Church], then I see a post like this and have hope.
-
A Catholic Dictionary[/i]]DOGMA, in its theological sense, is a truth contained in the Word of God, written or unwritten – ie: in Scripture or Tradition – and proposed by the Church for the belief of the Faithful. Thus, dogma is a revealed truth, since Scripture is inspired by the Holy Ghost, while tradition signifies the truths which the Apostles received from Christ and the the Holy Spirit, and handed down to the church. ...
Ref: William E. Addis & Thomas Arnold. A Catholic Dictionary. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co, 1909. p.293.
As I would describe it, sedevacantism is a rational conclusion drawn from the application of theological principles to observable facts about words and deeds of certain individuals purported to have succeeded in recent times to the office of Roman Pontiff. Sedevacantism, being a theological position arrived at by human reason, cannot be a revealed truth. Therefore, the adjective corresponding to the noun, DOGMA, viz: DOGMATIC, cannot rightly be applied as an epithet to the term sedevacantism.
“Dogmatic sedevacantism” is an incoherent expression apparently invented for the purpose of pillorying Catholics who hold the sedevacantist position. I don’t deny that having arrived at that position, some sedevacantists, in their enthusiasm, may fall into the temptation of regarding all non-sedevacantist Catholics as heretics. But that is a failure in truth and in charity. The names of a couple of pseudo-Benedictines come to mind.
Another coherant post. I suppose there are many but I focus on the errors in order to correct them.
It is Divine Law that a public heretic cannot be Pope. That can't be questioned.
I guess the dividing line is whether Father Ratzinger is a public heretic. What does "public" mean and what does "heretic" mean and what do the two words together mean.
-
Dogmatic sedevacantism is where "sede vacante" (the See is vacant) is raised to the level of a dogma, and that everyone denying this "dogma" is a heretic or non-Catholic.
Dogmatic Sedevacantists claim that those who don't adhere to sedevacantism are not just taking a different path in the Crisis, but that they actually need to be converted. If they don't convert, they must be either ignorant or of bad will -- just like a good Catholic would say about non-Catholics.
The idea the sedevacantism can be considered like a dogma of the Faith is ridiculous. Absolute, googly-eyed, "where's my straightjacket" insanity.
As an aside, dogmatic sedevacantists are NOT welcome on CathInfo. In other words, if you consider most CathInfo members to be non-Catholic, or matter for "conversion", you are not welcome here.
There are plenty of intelligent, educated Catholics of good will who look at Sedevacantism and keep walking. Such is a completely legitimate position.
As someone told me recently, "There are unanswerable questions both for the Sedevacantists and the Recognize-and-Resist side. Neither side has a perfect answer to all the objections/questions."
So we are free to pick our poison.
This is one of the more level-headed quotes from you, on this topic, that I have seen. For many there are numerous emotional barriers they have to overcome to even admit the possibility of SV.
-
A Catholic Dictionary[/i]]DOGMA, in its theological sense, is a truth contained in the Word of God, written or unwritten – ie: in Scripture or Tradition – and proposed by the Church for the belief of the Faithful. Thus, dogma is a revealed truth, since Scripture is inspired by the Holy Ghost, while tradition signifies the truths which the Apostles received from Christ and the the Holy Spirit, and handed down to the church. ...
Ref: William E. Addis & Thomas Arnold. A Catholic Dictionary. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co, 1909. p.293.
As I would describe it, sedevacantism is a rational conclusion drawn from the application of theological principles to observable facts about words and deeds of certain individuals purported to have succeeded in recent times to the office of Roman Pontiff. Sedevacantism, being a theological position arrived at by human reason, cannot be a revealed truth. Therefore, the adjective corresponding to the noun, DOGMA, viz: DOGMATIC, cannot rightly be applied as an epithet to the term sedevacantism.
“Dogmatic sedevacantism” is an incoherent expression apparently invented for the purpose of pillorying Catholics who hold the sedevacantist position. I don’t deny that having arrived at that position, some sedevacantists, in their enthusiasm, may fall into the temptation of regarding all non-sedevacantist Catholics as heretics. But that is a failure in truth and in charity. The names of a couple of pseudo-Benedictines come to mind.
It's not incoherent. It communicates a very specific reality.
Some sedevacantists DO believe that sedevacantism is the "central dogma" of the Catholic Faith, and that all those who deny it are heretics or non-Catholics.
In reality, they consider themselves sedevacantists first and Catholics second. Though I doubt they'd admit to this. But their actions speak much louder than their words.
Insane, I know. But it doesn't change the fact that such people exist. I would know; I've run a traditional Catholic forum for 6 years. I've had to ban such people on more than one occasion.
I believe there is a tendency to stress what seems to be the least understood which would make it appear as if that is all they (we) care about, much the same as one would stress to a Protestant that Catholics do not worship Mary or statues. They will constantly defend that point until it seems the sincere or well-meaning Protestant gets it. It doesn't mean they believe in the hyper-dulia due to our Lady more important than the latria reserved for God alone but since they don't understand why we owe our Lady honor that is the issue we focus on until they get it. If they can show they understand the reasoning and still reject it we can let it be. But while they dance around the topic or switch to other objections and never grant us the valid points we make, we keep trying until they at least acknowledge the point and stick to the topic without calling me names for trying to explain the position.
Sometimes the protestant never gets it. But the Catholic who wants to convert him keeps trying to help him get it. Of course one need not be a SV in order to be Catholic but I hope you see the point. We stress what seems to be most misunderstood in the hopes that if it continues to be rejected it won't be for the wrong reasons.
1. He just has to be Pope.
2. No one can judge the Pope (but if he can be shown to be a public heretic he is not a Pope that has been shown to be already judged by God.)
3. There is a limit to how long a vacancy can last. (Show me)
4. He has to be a formal heretic. (So if he is just ignorant he can bind heresy on the Church)
5. He might be a bad Father but he is still our father. ( :facepalm: biology doesn't enter into the equation)
-
I will play devil's advocate as I do agree with some of the things the banned guy said
1. sedes believe the pope is a heretic and therefore can not be a true pope but an anti pope.
so if you don't agree with the sede position you believe that the present "pope" is either not a heretic or is a heretic but still is pope...I don't believe any of those 2 beliefs to be following Catholic teaching on the matter.
I disagree with his view that I'm not allowed to go to a traditional mass SSPX eventhough I believe the priest to be a heretic, as this is the only option I have to recieve the sacraments.
I would like to read from anyone who believes it's a mortal sin to financially support a heretical priest, since now the only option to recieve the sacraments are to go to a heretical priest I don't see how I can go to the mass without financially supporting them since if everyone did the same the church wouldn't be able to continue.
If you are SV and go to an una cuм Benedictio Mass you are obliged to at least minimally support the Priest you get the Sacraments from but the majority of your donations should go to good SV clergy.
-
I would like to read from anyone who believes it's a mortal sin to financially support a heretical priest, since now the only option to recieve the sacraments are to go to a heretical priest I don't see how I can go to the mass without financially supporting them since if everyone did the same the church wouldn't be able to continue.
This is nonsense.
Where's your proof that acknowledging Benedict XVI as true Pope is "heresy"? It may not be the correct position, but what dogmatic sedevacantists don't understand is that the sedevacantist position - just like the position of the SSPX - is nothing more than an opinion, and a theory that attempts to explain the current crisis in the Church. Our position on whether or not Benedict XVI is true Pope will not play a role in the salvation of our soul. God isn't going to ask us on Judgement Day whether we were a sede or an SSPXer. Rather, He is going to ask us "Did you keep the Faith?". That is what's important.
Some people seem to forget that we must submit to valid Popes on all he binds on the Church and that our salvation does indeed depend on that in the objective realm. Subjectively if we are not aware of this doctrine or sincerely do not think it applies to our current situation then our invincible ignorance on this (or correct opinion as some would assert) will not damn us.
-
I would like to read from anyone who believes it's a mortal sin to financially support a heretical priest, since now the only option to recieve the sacraments are to go to a heretical priest I don't see how I can go to the mass without financially supporting them since if everyone did the same the church wouldn't be able to continue.
This is nonsense.
Where's your proof that acknowledging Benedict XVI as true Pope is "heresy"? It may not be the correct position, but what dogmatic sedevacantists don't understand is that the sedevacantist position - just like the position of the SSPX - is nothing more than an opinion, and a theory that attempts to explain the current crisis in the Church. Our position on whether or not Benedict XVI is true Pope will not play a role in the salvation of our soul. God isn't going to ask us on Judgement Day whether we were a sede or an SSPXer. Rather, He is going to ask us "Did you keep the Faith?". That is what's important.
Some people seem to forget that we must submit to valid Popes on all he binds on the Church and that our salvation does indeed depend on that in the objective realm. Subjectively if we are not aware of this doctrine or sincerely do not think it applies to our current situation then our invincible ignorance on this (or correct opinion as some would assert) will not damn us.
Here is the supporting quote:
Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm
-
Did anyone give Disputaciones an explanation of Ecclesial Defectism (belief that the Church can err) before he was banned?
I haven't noticed. Can you tell me what this is?
Some errors are allowed here I think. The dogmatic feeneyites seem to post quite regularly.
There are all sorts of debates with people erring on one side or the other on this forum.
-
If I remember my Catholic teaching correctly :tv-disturbed:the only human without sin was the Blessed Virgin Mary. We are all sinners, remember! From St. Peter down, proving the Church can continue without error when it come to Faith and Morals even if the pope is sinful. There is a big difference between a pope in sin and a heretic. There is a big difference in a pope with personal sin then a True pope leading the faithful outside the Church into a man made religion, a counterfeit religion.
Yes, the Holy Ghost can and does inspire who will be elected a TRUE pope.
The Holy Ghost does not make errors, He had nothing to do with the election of impostor popes, because they are heretics before and after their pretense of occupying the Chair of Peter.
Doesn't this belief leave the Holy Ghost prone to error? Because if He only gets involved on a part time basis, then it seems He makes a terrible mistake when He is being absent by risking allowing elections of heretics.
So how come the Holy Ghost did not inspire the elections of the conciliar popes? IOW, why would the Holy Ghost inspire the election on Pope Paul V but not Pope Paul VI?
The Holy Ghost guides the Church, inspires and sanctifies; what are you even talking about when you say "part-time basis", this only makes sense if you believe that the infiltrators, wolves in sheep's clothing, deserve guidance from the Holy Ghost. It is very simple, Vatican II and their ilk are not the Church therefore the Holy Ghost did not error with their choosing, why, because they left the Church, they wanted no part of God, therefore God gave them what they wanted; to believe in error. This is what God is giving the world today, to believe in error, because they have no love of truth.
I say part time basis because whoever believes the Holy Ghost picks the pope should understand by now that He did not pick the conciliar popes - hence, if they believe the popes are picked, then they need to admit that He does not pick the popes all of the time, only some of the time.
The reality is, popes are elected, not chosen. This fact is indisputable. If you believe He picks the popes yet you believe he did not pick the conciliar popes, then you believe He only picks popes on a part time basis.
If anything, we know the Holy Ghost does not pick popes because if He did, then we would certainly not have had the last 4 popes that we did.
The Church is scattered because the shepherd has been struck. Today the word "majority" means most baptised catholics are on the wrong side of the fence. While the Holy Ghost still guides the few; who said, "when I return will I find Faith upon the earth"?
You people who believe that A VICAR OF CHRIST, can be a heretic have a lot to learn about the power of God.
You also act surprised about this crisis, and I wonder why, after all God told us He would allow this Great Apostasy, He also told us what we should do when it happens. To stay firm to the traditions we have learned from the beginning. This is what CMRI does, and hopefully those who follow SSPX will continue to do in the future. Follow no man, except Jesus Christ. Your common sense should tell you, if God told us to leave the harlot, why would you even think a sede vacantist position could accept that the Holy Ghost, the sanctifier could possible inspire the election of the enemy. This has nothing to do with the Vicar of Christ, the human person, having sins upon their souls, since God also told us that all men are sinners. It has everything to do with the Holy Ghost guiding these same men, (true popes) in matters of Faith and Morals.
To actual entertain the thought that the Holy Ghost can err is a grave sin against the Church.
I am, at times, surprised that many SVs have their own certain idea about what the pope is supposed to be, and that they hold fast to this, their idea.
The wolves have taken over and usurped the Church to the point that She is all but unrecognizable, the one thing that remains untouched - probably the only thing that remains untouched within the Conciliar establishment - is the historical and structural continuity of the true Church. Those who hold ecclesiastical offices hold them legitimately, as surely as Caiaphas legitimately held the office of the High Priesthood of Judaism, when he engineered Christ’s condemnation and death.
-
I will play devil's advocate as I do agree with some of the things the banned guy said
1. sedes believe the pope is a heretic and therefore can not be a true pope but an anti pope. so if you don't agree with the sede position you believe that the present "pope" is either not a heretic or is a heretic but still is pope...I don't believe any of those 2 beliefs to be following Catholic teaching on the matter.
If you also realize these are your personal opinions, then you won't condemn others as heretics for not agreeing with you.
I'm not condemning anyone, but if you don't agree with the sede position aren't you stating that the current pope is not a heretic? or that a heretic can be pope? if that is the case I would like to read your arguements on how this pope is not a heretic or that it's ok for a heretic to be pope.
I believe the counter-argument is that if you don't realize the above you cannot be legitimately called a non-Catholic. Or you can truly believe that Ratzinger is not a public heretic or you can sincerely believe that a public heretic can be Pope. The dogmatic opinion here is that SV is only an opinion and if you disagree with that opinion you are not Catholic.
Did I get that right?
Perhaps those who publically insist that the SV position is wrong, something that Matthew, to his credit, is not doing, it is not that you insist that a public heretic can be pope or that Ratzinger is not a public heretic but the the mere possibility that Ratzinger is not Pope is so repulsive to some that they can't allow themselves to look into the question, let alone come to a conclusion on it.
So the claim would be that you cannot condemn them for that. Or suggest that that such people are culpably ignorant for fear of the answer to those questions. Or perhaps they truly think "public heretic" has a different meaning than the common every day usage of that term among laymen.
Perhaps the deny it is Divine Law that a public heretic cannot be Pope but only an opinion. I know for many it is too much to handle, especially if they have been threatened with eternal damnation for considering the opinion as my wife was on more than one occassion. I would't condemn one for avoiding the SV issue for that reason to be sure.
I used to trust those who obviously knew more than I on Church issues. I'm here to tell you that Wojtyla (JP2) certainly knew more than I and that I trusted him. Not everyone has access to the internet either. Nor do they have the time or money to purchase the great works from the Fathers. They think they are Catholic and over a billion others think they are as well. How can we or God condemn them if they are truly doing what they believe is right? It is the wolves in sheeps clothing that have the greater sin.
This is why we should not be fighting each other on this forum as we all (apart from anyone pretending to be Catholic and trying to undermine the faith) are on the same side.
Kudos to Matthew for allowing SVs here even though it is an issue he takes very seriously and disagrees with.
I'm not sure what people think they are accomplishing by telling people they are going to Hell or that they are heretics. If you really want to "convert" them or to see your side you should talk "to" them not "at" them.
-
If I remember my Catholic teaching correctly the only human without sin was the Blessed Virgin Mary. We are all sinners, remember! From St. Peter down, proving the Church can continue without error when it come to Faith and Morals even if the pope is sinful. There is a big difference between a pope in sin and a heretic. There is a big difference in a pope with personal sin then a True pope leading the faithful outside the Church into a man made religion, a counterfeit religion.
Yes, the Holy Ghost can and does inspire who will be elected a TRUE pope.
The Holy Ghost does not make errors, He had nothing to do with the election of impostor popes, because they are heretics before and after their pretense of occupying the Chair of Peter.
You may have received a thumbs down for this because some people believe that admitting popes sin and that some were notorious for it is akin to attacking the Church.
Good Catholics are to pretend that bad never happened with any Popes, how are we to convert anyone with any authentic knowledge of history with that Alice and Wonderland thinking?
-
Follow no man, except Jesus Christ.
We can also follow a valid Pope and what he binds on the Catholic Church.
-
Yes, because a valid pope always follows Christ.
-
Yes, because a valid pope always follows Christ.
Certainly in regards to what they "say" bind on the Church. Do what they say, not what they do. But in most cases they also led very holy lives.
It is good to see you posting again.
I like to believe most of us are of good will. But these are trying times spritually. Hopefully we are all trying our best and praying for one another.
I hope all is well.
-
several pre-V2 theologians held that a pope-heretic retained the papacy.
That really isn't the issue. It's a question of Ecclesial Defectism. A belief held by Matthew and others on this forum.
It is the issue when one is going to condemn another for holding such a view.
-
several pre-V2 theologians held that a pope-heretic retained the papacy.
That really isn't the issue. It's a question of Ecclesial Defectism. A belief held by Matthew and others on this forum.
It is the issue when one is going to condemn another for holding such a view.
Should we not condemn heretical views?
Yes, heresy should be condemned. The problem is that you are taking assigning heretical "conclusions" to a position that is very clearly not heretical. The "anti-sedevacantists" say the same thing; that the Church has defected is the conclusion of sede position.
-
an explanation of Ecclesial Defectism (belief that the Church can err)
What's this?
-
several pre-V2 theologians held that a pope-heretic retained the papacy.
That really isn't the issue. It's a question of Ecclesial Defectism. A belief held by Matthew and others on this forum.
It is the issue when one is going to condemn another for holding such a view.
Should we not condemn heretical views?
When you can point out the clear-cut heresy, go right ahead.
The solution to the Crisis in the Church is NOT clear-cut like some simple-minded people seem to think. To say otherwise is to maul the truth.
And to say "my position is the only one a person of good will could hold" is also not being intellectually honest. All known positions on the Crisis today have serious "holes" or defects in them. To deny this is to be intellectually dishonest as well.
-
It appears most vatican II catholics are sedevacantists and worse..
Because rape, sɛҳuąƖ abuse, real estate scandal, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, women priests, withcraft, abortion and voting for a candidate who publically denied Christ while booing HIm ... put many in disobedience with the Pope and teachings of the Roman catholic Church.
-
Yes, the sedevacantist need to chill out and stop attacking us too. At my last chapel, the sedevacantist chased alot of people to sspx. Here is my personal observance of sedevantists: Do they really like anyone???
The ones at my last chapel were hypocrits.
-
It appears most vatican II catholics are sedevacantists and worse..
Because rape, sɛҳuąƖ abuse, real estate scandal, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, women priests, withcraft, abortion and voting for a candidate who publically denied Christ while booing HIm ... put many in disobedience with the Pope and teachings of the Roman catholic Church.
you lost me here
-
Has the issue of the CDF referring to the Eastern schismatics as having "true particular Churches" of "the universal Church/Church of Christ"* -- which destroys the unity of the Church -- been brought up often here on this board?
*(Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion, n. 17; Dominus Iesus, n. 17.)
-
When you can point out the clear-cut heresy, go right ahead.
From/of where/what?
-
The solution to the Crisis in the Church is NOT clear-cut like some simple-minded people seem to think. To say otherwise is to maul the truth.
What was the clear-cut solution to the crisis that was presented? I would love to hear the solution, even if it is from simple-minded people. Or are you speaking of the root cause of the crisis in the Church?
Are all that presented the solution simple-minded or only some of them?
-
The solution to the Crisis in the Church is NOT clear-cut like some simple-minded people seem to think. To say otherwise is to maul the truth.
What was the clear-cut solution to the crisis that was presented? I would love to hear the solution, even if it is from simple-minded people. Or are you speaking of the root cause of the crisis in the Church?
Are all that presented the solution simple-minded or only some of them?
I'm saying that Sedevacantism isn't any more "perfect" of a solution than "Recognize-and-Resist". Both positions have pat-on-the-back, "slam dunk" aspects, as well as things they'd rather not talk/think about. That is, there are unanswered questions.
As far as I know, no one has received a revelation from heaven as to what we should be doing right now -- what "camp" we should be in. So there's no way to know who's "better" or "objectively more correct". That's why many of us argue until we're blue in the face.
Where to go to Mass in 2012 is a prudential decision, and not a question of fidelity to the Faith or Catholic Dogma. We MUST strive to attend a Catholic Mass as said before Vatican II; and we must seek out priests who teach only what was taught/practiced before Vatican II. Those are the ONLY essential parts. That is what makes you a "faithful Catholic". Choosing a 1962 Missal over the 1953 or the 1890 doesn't make you a heretic. Choosing to attend SSPX Masses rather than Independent/SV Masses doesn't make you a heretic. And vice-versa.
-
When you can point out the clear-cut heresy, go right ahead.
From/of where/what?
-
When you can point out the clear-cut heresy, go right ahead.
From/of where/what?
I'm saying that of course TRUE HERESY must be opposed and pointed out.
But you must be able to point to the Catholic Dogma being violated -- and not a dogma that's only found in a text file on your own personal hard drive :)
In other words, it must be REAL heresy, and not just "disagreeing with you".
For there are many "dogmas" made up by laymen, who make themselves into their own personal pope.
Believing in Baptism of Desire/Blood is NOT a heresy. Denying Sedevacantism is NOT a heresy. And so forth.
-
The solution to the Crisis in the Church is NOT clear-cut like some simple-minded people seem to think. To say otherwise is to maul the truth.
What was the clear-cut solution to the crisis that was presented? I would love to hear the solution, even if it is from simple-minded people. Or are you speaking of the root cause of the crisis in the Church?
Are all that presented the solution simple-minded or only some of them?
I'm saying that Sedevacantism isn't any more "perfect" of a solution than "Recognize-and-Resist". Both positions have pat-on-the-back, "slam dunk" aspects, as well as things they'd rather not talk/think about. That is, there are unanswered questions.
As far as I know, no one has received a revelation from heaven as to what we should be doing right now -- what "camp" we should be in. So there's no way to know who's "better" or "objectively more correct". That's why many of us argue until we're blue in the face.
Where to go to Mass in 2012 is a prudential decision, and not a question of fidelity to the Faith or Catholic Dogma. We MUST strive to attend a Catholic Mass as said before Vatican II; and we must seek out priests who teach only what was taught/practiced before Vatican II. Those are the ONLY essential parts. That is what makes you a "faithful Catholic". Choosing a 1962 Missal over the 1953 or the 1890 doesn't make you a heretic. Choosing to attend SSPX Masses rather than Independent/SV Masses doesn't make you a heretic. And vice-versa.
That was a good response.
Are the simple-minded the pure SVs and the pure anti-SVs who think their position is correct, and as a necessary result, that the contradictory position is incorrect?
Perhaps it is not necessary to try to figure out who the simple-minded are that you allude to. I'm not even sure what a simple-minded person is, in regards to holding certain positions and being able to grasp contrary positions, though I suppose I could look it up. Are the simple-minded incapable of gaining a deeper understanding of what they currently believe to be true even if this is carefully explained to them?
I couldn't help myself here is the definition of "simple-minded":
1. Lacking in subtlety or sophistication; artless or naive: a simple-minded horror movie; simple-minded generalizations.2. Stupid or silly; foolish.
3. Mentally impaired.
Perhaps this definition would not fit either the SVs who are sure about their position or the anti-SVs who are sure about their position (depending on which one is correct). I say this because SV is either true or not true. At the very least, whoever holds the correct position probably could not be labeled simple-minded on that position since the correct position is the correct position. If some people have to be labeled as simple-minded they would probably be the ones who hold the incorrect position and or those who are not sure either way.
Perhaps I could understand better if you could explain what type of individuals you think are simple-minded.
1. Those who are sure that we have no Pope.
2. Those who are sure that we do have a valid Pope.
3. Those who are not sure either way.
4. None of the above but some other category. (Which category?)
as well as things they'd rather not talk/think about
I'm willing to talk about any objection to SV for the record. Just to set the record straight, there are others I know, such as Griff Ruby and Mario Derksen, (at least in regards to those who engage in a charitable back and forth without name-calling [in your case you did not name any individuals who are simple-minded which is in your favor I would think]) who will talk about anything and are quite willing to talk about all sincere objections, and in fact welcome them.
In fact there a quite a number of SVs that are not simple-minded, Father Stepanich comes to mind here as do numerous other, and it would seem, that there are a good number of anti-SVs that are not simple-minded; unless simple-minded refers to the entire human race with our fallen human nature and dulled intellect.
Your recent posts on this issue are much more digestible for me than those of the past for whatever that is worth. It is good to realize that you are not anti-SV merely because accepting it is a huge emotional barrier to overcome, or would be a large inconvenience to your current liturgical affairs, and that you are seemingly are not an anti-SV at all, but admit that it could be possible even if it is still somewhat repugnant to you as it goes against all that you have been taught these many decades.
Perhaps the contrary opinion is repugnant to the SVs who have found themselves in that camp for many decades. In my case I went from the NO to traditional, not SV, to possible SV, to definite SV. I was not immersed in a Church for decades that forced either opinion on me. Others have been so we really can't blame them, so much, for believing what they have been taught, repeatedly, all these years, in my opinion.
-
I'm saying that of course TRUE HERESY must be opposed and pointed out.
But you must be able to point to the Catholic Dogma being violated -- and not a dogma that's only found in a text file on your own personal hard drive :)
In other words, it must be REAL heresy, and not just "disagreeing with you".
For there are many "dogmas" made up by laymen, who make themselves into their own personal pope.
Believing in Baptism of Desire/Blood is NOT a heresy. Denying Sedevacantism is NOT a heresy. And so forth.
You still haven't answered my question: you said "When you can point out the clear-cut heresy, go right ahead".
My only question is, point out the clear-cut heresy where? Vatican II? The last 5 antipopes? SSPX? The Rat-man? JP2? The docuмents of Vatican 2? Where?
P.S.: there is a tidal wave of heresy and apostasy in all of the above.
-
Lover of Truth:
Perhaps simple-minded was the wrong word.
Narrow-minded might be much better.
The idea is to appreciate the agreements of the "other side" and the flaws of your own position, whatever it is.
Because it's an objective fact that neither side has a 100% slam-dunk answer to the Crisis in the Church. If they did, I'm sure they would have conquered all hearts and minds by now.
The fact is, all known positions (as expressed by Traditional priests and the Mass centers where you can attend their Masses today) have flaws in their arguments, no matter how good their debate skills are.
Sure, some people are good at debate, and can frustrate/make their opponents give up. But that doesn't mean their arguments are 100% victorious. It just means they haven't met the right opponent, and/or they aren't honest in their argumentation.
-
I'm saying that of course TRUE HERESY must be opposed and pointed out.
But you must be able to point to the Catholic Dogma being violated -- and not a dogma that's only found in a text file on your own personal hard drive :)
In other words, it must be REAL heresy, and not just "disagreeing with you".
For there are many "dogmas" made up by laymen, who make themselves into their own personal pope.
Believing in Baptism of Desire/Blood is NOT a heresy. Denying Sedevacantism is NOT a heresy. And so forth.
You still haven't answered my question: you said "When you can point out the clear-cut heresy, go right ahead".
My only question is, point out the clear-cut heresy where? Vatican II? The last 5 antipopes? SSPX? The Rat-man? JP2? The docuмents of Vatican 2? Where?
P.S.: there is a tidal wave of heresy and apostasy in all of the above.
Ted, this is a forum where you don't say the SSPX are heretics for being not sedes.
-
P.S.: there is a tidal wave of heresy and apostasy in all of the above.
The SSPX believes every doctrine and dogma the Church has ever pronounced on. The present crisis has caused divergent opinions, because it is not immediately apparent how these doctrines (such as indefectibility) apply or there are facts with which they are not easily reconciled.
There have been difficulties in Christendom before, and divergent camps such as with the "Great Western Schism" when there were three Papal claimants, and it wouldn't have been just for any side to claim the others were non-Catholics merely over the question of the identity of the Pope.
Since you are so eager to accuse others of heresy, and since it is "divine law" that you will be judged by the same measure with which you judged others, as Our Lord said, perhaps you should tell me how your notion of a 50 year sede vacante does not compromise the Apostolicity (another dogma) of the Church.
For, ordinary jurisdiction is the formal component of Apostolicity, and the person of the Supreme Pontiff is the necessary channel through which this ordinary jurisdiction is transmitted to new Bishops. By all appearances, sedevacantism seems to lead to the conclusion that the Catholic Church has ceased to be Apostolic. Now, what possible assent can such a theory claim, let alone the claim that it is binding on all faithful Catholics? There are certainly extremely strong reasons to reject such an explanation altogether.
The best of sedevacantists concede this is a real problem and therefore affects the level of certainty that sedevacantism, even if true, can claim in the present day.
As one Catholic, Hobbledehoy, a sedevacantist, has written in this thread, himself quoting John Lane, another sedevacantist.
There is no "complete" published sedevacantist theory except the Guerardian one (and even that has not been published in any language than French, and even in French it was not put into a systematic form and published in a volume, but rather it appeared scattered throughout issues of a journal). Yet non-sedevacantists are attacked for failing to adopt "sedevacantism".
This only needs to be stated for its absurdity to be immediately apparent. Can any reasonable and just man condemn another for refusing to accept a theory which, as far as he can see, involves the denial that the Church has a hierarchy? Can anybody really be condemned for not adopting a theory which nobody has even bothered to present in a professional and complete form?
-
Instead of thinking of Vatican II in terms of heresy, it would be tough because the conciliarists are not simple minded but actually very devious. Perhaps instead of heresy the word we should be using is apostate. Our Lady said the next great apostasy would come from the top. She didn't say the next heresy. Heresy is when someone gets a dogma wrong. Apostasy is where an intellectually sound person departs from the faith.
Most of this "all religions have truth in them" come from the pen of Paul VI. If he didn't actually write the words, he signed the docuмent.
Pius XII and John XXIII cleared the path for the arrival of Paul VI.
Would you guys say that the word "apostasy" is a better fit for Vatican II instead of "heresy"?
-
Ted, this is a forum where you don't say the SSPX are heretics for being not sedes.
I didn't say that the SSPX is heretical because it is not sedevacantist.
-
For information (and NOT a recommendation):
“That guy” (Stubborn's term) is Richard Ibranyi, or, as he prefers to be known, Richard Joseph Michael Ibranyi, the founder of "Mary's Little Remnant"
I understand that he is a former associate of the Dimond brothers, and used to make their videos until there was a mutual falling out.
See discussion at: Richard Ibranyi Elias? (http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=9968&min=0&num=20)
-
Lover of Truth:
Perhaps simple-minded was the wrong word.
Narrow-minded might be much better.
The idea is to appreciate the agreements of the "other side" and the flaws of your own position, whatever it is.
Because it's an objective fact that neither side has a 100% slam-dunk answer to the Crisis in the Church. If they did, I'm sure they would have conquered all hearts and minds by now.
The fact is, all known positions (as expressed by Traditional priests and the Mass centers where you can attend their Masses today) have flaws in their arguments, no matter how good their debate skills are.
Sure, some people are good at debate, and can frustrate/make their opponents give up. But that doesn't mean their arguments are 100% victorious. It just means they haven't met the right opponent, and/or they aren't honest in their argumentation.
Thank you for that thoughtful response. I may not agree that all you express is objective fact but I am pleased that you no longer condemn SV as others have as being something only crazy or stupid people would hold to, as something that cannot possibly be true. Something that is in fact plausible. This is where I have seen the greatest weakness (and lack of plausibility) in the “arguments” against SV, in the ad hominem attacks.
I remember watching an angry elephant in a wildlife program and it reminded me of the way others attack the SV position. They do not respond rationally or with well-reasoned arguments but just kind of stomp around and throw stuff with their trunks. The comparison fails when checking the anti-SV for a trunk however.
I like the peaceful and respectful dialogue so much that I hesitate to ask the following:
Sure, some people are good at debate, and can frustrate/make their opponents give up. But that doesn't mean their arguments are 100% victorious. It just means they haven't met the right opponent, and/or they aren't honest in their argumentation.
Are you saying the good debaters, merely because they have not been refuted, are not honest in their argumentation?
I would agree that the intellectually dishonest (bad debaters) can make people give up because they ignore the legitimate points made and engage in name calling; but the good debaters can't be refuted or have not been are so, in my opinion, not because they are not honest, but simply because they present the truth. Here is some of the truth they present, and you do not need good debating skills to present it.
It is Divine Law that a Public Heretic cannot be Pope. Father Ratzinger is a public heretic. Therefore . . .
Further, a valid Pope cannot bind (and or maintain) the following on the faithful:
1. A heretical council
2. Doubtful Sacraments
3. A doubtful incentive to impiety Mass
4. Heretical Cannon Law
But they the conciliar Popes have. Therefore . . .
Further still, a valid Pope cannot partake in worship with heretics or pagans (engage in heretical acts) unless they explain that they did so without having a heretical intent. * But the Father Ratzinger and his immediate predecessors do (over and over again without apology). Therefore . . .
*An example of engaging in a heretical act without being an actual heretic would be if he passed by a Tabernacle without genuflecting but explained that he has a bad knee that does not allow him to do so. Or by saying I did not really kiss the Koran but was ducking a bullet. Or I worshipped at Mecca or at a Jєωιѕн service or with Anglicans etc. because I was put in a drug induced state against my will and could not control my actions. Or, I allowed a devil-worshiping witch-doctress put cow dung on my forehead because I was hypnotized into allowing her to do so without realizing it.
Sometimes people of good will who have differing opinions on very important things (whether we have a valid Pope or not is very important) get into trouble because of misunderstandings. This is just an example and not an attack on you, but I use it because it will resonate. A person can use terms like "simple-minded" or "narrow-minded" or "dishonest" in a way not meant to put those who hold a contrary opinion to what a person believes into those categories but be mistaken for doing so with the result being barriers put up against further communication for no legitimate reason.
Let me put the focus on me instead of you so you will not feel like this is an attack. I throw around the phrase "intellectually dishonest" or "willfully blind" alot. I do not, and I make this clear when I use the term (usually if not all the time), that I do not intend to put all who disagree with me into that category merely because they disagree with me. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm sure you do not think all SVs are simple-minded or narrow-minded or dishonest.
But I do know that intellectually dishonest and willfully blind people exist, I have seen it in my family (parents sister) and friends. I have seen it in debates where one is clearly proven wrong on a certain point and instead of granting the point they go on the ad hominem attack. It is very difficult for me to respect such people or take them seriously.
The "brothers" Dimond come to mind here.
Other intellectually dishonest people will use a false logic:
The Dimonds are not charitable. The Dimonds are SV. Therefore the SV position is incorrect.
People that focus on SVs of bad repute or even those who are good but have done some bad or stupid things as a way to undermine the SV position itself do not appear to be of good will to me because they use a faulty argumentation. It is as if they don't want to see the truth and will use anything they can to try to undermine it much like political adversaries who hurl accusations at one another in order to garner support from themselves. This tactic may work but that does not make it right.
Earlier on this thread you said both sides have slam dunk arguments. To which I would have asked, "What is the slam-dunk argument on the anti-SV side?" You may have seen the flaw in that argumentation and later said that neither have slam dunk arguments. Now if one side is correct, and one side is correct (both sides can’t both be wrong as he is either Pope or he isn’t), one of those sides does have a slam dunk argument, though it is possible (but doubtful) that the correct side has not used it. I believe your point is, and you are more qualified than most to make it, as you have seen the argumentation on both sides more than most others, and both sides make, at least apparent good points, without engaging in the ad hominem attacks. I would agree that there are some who pretty much avoid the ad hominem attacks and I see points now and again that I have not considered and I am glad to see them so that I can check their validity and whether the point undermines the undeniable (as opposed to points some make that are deniable or questionable) points that the SVs make (Divine Law prevents a public heretic from being a valid Pope).
I guess the whole moral of this story is that I see more charitableness and intellectual honesty in these discussions and I am encouraged by this.
Thank you for accepting people like me on your forum.
-
Yeah, sure, Ted, Disputaciones or whatever else is one of your aliases, Archbishop Lefebvre and all of us as well are "salvation heretics" for believing the Catholic doctrine of baptism of desire which the Saints, Doctors and Fathers believed.
In truth, you are a schismatic who separates from communion with Catholics under a trumped-up pretext. Schism originates in a will consumed by self-love( probably owing to lack of prayer and staying away from the sacraments due to one's pet theories) which destroys the virtue of supernatural charity in the soul and thereby impels one to rage against others, as St.Irenaeus says. St.Jerome says that every schismatic dreams up some error to separate himself from Catholics, as you have.
You simply quote verbatim probably the first link you find about Apostolicity without reading it fully or understanding what you quote. Several sedevacantists who have studied the matter more than you ever will admit it is a problem. Your own article goes on to say,
"This Apostolic succession must be both material and formal; the material consisting in the actual succession in the Church, through a series of persons from the Apostolic age to the present; the formal adding the element of authority in the transmission of power. It consists in the legitimate transmission of the ministerial power conferred by Christ upon His Apostles ... jurisdiction is essential to the Apostolicity of mission."
The sedevacantist position is problematic since it seems to imply by today that there are no Bishops in the entire Catholic Church who possess ordinary jurisdiction, which is required for formal Apostolic succession. Sedevacantists who have studied the matter are the first to admit this.
Then you only contradict yourself still more by evading the difficulty altogether and saying "But hey, other positions have difficulties too". But this is what others have told you from the beginning, that every position one takes appears to have some difficulties, so it is a prudential decision of which has the least. That's not to say there is not a true opinion, or that one cannot have a reasonable certitude that one has made the right decision informed by prayer and study, but that one opinion does not bind all Catholics.
You are an embarrassment to the more pious and learned sedevacantists here, not to mention to all Catholics, and are a living proof of the wisdom of CathInfo's policy to allow free discussion on this topic as on any other, but to ban dogmatic sedevacantists such as yourself, as I'm sure Matthew will do when he sees the errors and schismatic attitude in your post. Goodbye, "Ted".
-
What made you change your position
?
The answer is long and involved. The long answer is as follows:
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/06Mar/mar23ftt.htm
and:
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/06Nov/nov06ftt.htm
I wish I could remember the defining moment for absolute sure. Klaus Gamber’s, The Liturgical Reform, Ferrera’s “The Great Façade” and the Remnant’s “We Resist You to Your Face” woke me up a bit. My discussions with John Galvin, who was not an SV at the time (he wasn’t sure either way) but is now, woke me up. A discussion about fixing the new Mass in the Wanderer woke me up. I wrote in saying that they are fighting a losing battle, that the new Mass is broken in and of itself and cannot be fixed and I was wondering why good Catholics had to deal with this and why a “Pope” would promulgate the new mass and for all practical purposes abolish the true Mass?
But it was my realization that the Sacraments of the Holy Roman Catholic Church were messed with that cinched it for me I believe. This seemed like a diabolic plan that was being followed rather than an endless series of unexplainable coincidences. How can the devil get bring the most souls to Hell with him? By getting rid of the ordinary means we have of obtaining sanctifying grace – through the Sacraments. What is the best way to get rid of the Sacraments? Better even than messing with the form and or matter is getting rid of the only people that can administer them – the Priests and Bishops themselves by invalidating the Sacrament or Ordination and Consecration of Bishops. No these were not a bunch of unfortunate coincidences but a diabolic plan that has been willingly followed. Then afterwards SV kept being reaffirmed. I found out that The Oath Against Modernism was abolished as well as the Papal Coronation Oath and the Papal Crown was given away never to be worn again. It all started to fall into place. And all this happened after, as a confused N.O. when was I wondering why the “popes” were telling us not to proselytize the Jews or the Orthodox, approved the consecration of the Eucharist with no consecration formula (the Anaphora Rite?) and weakened the Exorcism Rite perhaps in an effort to get more ecuмenical with the Devil.
What is happening in the Church is happening in the world. Why is an American president repeatedly doing such un-American things like systematically bankrupting us and raising the debt beyond our wildest imagination? Because he is anti-american. He wants to destroy this country. Why do the recent “popes” do all these things? Because they are anti-Catholic. I don’t know if the Constitution allows an anti-American president but Divine Law does not allow an anti-Catholic Pope.
These “unexplainable” abominations and novelties, one after the other for decades were/are quite explainable indeed. All these things are happening because the anti-Popes and their Master, Satan, want it to happen. They are not Popes. By definition they cannot be. No longer did I have to bang my head against wall figuring out why these “Popes” were causing the destruction of the Church. The answer is very simple, but not simplistic, because they are not Popes but anti-Catholic destroyers of the Church.
-
As expected, "Ted" has been banned for schism and dogmatic Feeneyism.
-
As expected, "Ted" has been banned for schism and dogmatic Feeneyism.
Did Ted say anything like this under "Ted"?
-
As expected, "Ted" has been banned for schism and dogmatic Feeneyism.
Did Ted say anything like this under "Ted"?
Yes, he did. Quite explicitly.
But I deleted the last several posts of his, they were so bad.
-
I did read the posts and they were bad. I hope people on here that may have read them do not draw false conclusions about sedevacantism by reading the emotional outbursts of an irrational person.
When sedevacantism is properly understood it gives peace to the soul, not turmoil. It make the crisis understandable and removes all of the contradictions.
-
As expected, "Ted" has been banned for schism and dogmatic Feeneyism.
Did Ted say anything like this under "Ted"?
Yes, he did. Quite explicitly.
But I deleted the last several posts of his, they were so bad.
Gottcha. I thought I remembered glancing past some anti-BOB/D stuff that I regularly avoid actually reading on this or any forum because I have seen all the arguments pro and con and agree with the infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium.
It isn't EENS vs. BOB/D. They are complimentary not contradictory. The anti-BOB/Ders should expend their energy converting others so that they can get baptized rather than calling those already converted and baptized heretics.
-
Lover of Truth:
But I do know that intellectually dishonest and willfully blind people exist, I have seen it in my family (parents sister) and friends. I have seen it in debates where one is clearly proven wrong on a certain point and instead of granting the point they go on the ad hominem attack. It is very difficult for me to respect such people or take them seriously.
The "brothers" Dimond come to mind here.
can you give me a good example of the Dimonds losing an arguement and then go on ad hominem attack?
-
Lover of Truth:
But I do know that intellectually dishonest and willfully blind people exist, I have seen it in my family (parents sister) and friends. I have seen it in debates where one is clearly proven wrong on a certain point and instead of granting the point they go on the ad hominem attack. It is very difficult for me to respect such people or take them seriously.
The "brothers" Dimond come to mind here.
can you give me a good example of the Dimonds losing an arguement and then go on ad hominem attack?
Go to their site and look where they give a current listing of traditionalists and write down the names and number of names they call each. In the debates on SV they clearly win and those they debate know it, until they start talking about their particular intepretation of EENS, then the defeated debatee feels like he is off the hook because he knows they are wrong about that (and therefore "wrong" about SV). They lose credibility when they deny the teaching of the Church on BOB/D.
They name Pivuranas and everyone else you can think of. All heretics, all not Catholics, all liars, and all going to Hell.
I have not been on their site for a while but I remember reading all this on their site. Perhaps you will find examples.
They accused me of witchcraft or something when I mentioned not being able to look into my crystal ball, they knew I was being facetious but they used it against me. They are intellectually dishonest, they take quotes out of context and they omit parts of quotes or entire quotes if it does not suit their purposes.
All that is just the tip of the iceburg.
Apart from that they are not too bad.
-
Lover of Truth:
But I do know that intellectually dishonest and willfully blind people exist, I have seen it in my family (parents sister) and friends. I have seen it in debates where one is clearly proven wrong on a certain point and instead of granting the point they go on the ad hominem attack. It is very difficult for me to respect such people or take them seriously.
The "brothers" Dimond come to mind here.
can you give me a good example of the Dimonds losing an arguement and then go on ad hominem attack?
Go to their site and look where they give a current listing of traditionalists and write down the names and number of names they call each. In the debates on SV they clearly win and those they debate know it, until they start talking about their particular intepretation of EENS, then the defeated debatee feels like he is off the hook because he knows they are wrong about that (and therefore "wrong" about SV). They lose credibility when they deny the teaching of the Church on BOB/D.
They name Pivuranas and everyone else you can think of. All heretics, all not Catholics, all liars, and all going to Hell.
I have not been on their site for a while but I remember reading all this on their site. Perhaps you will find examples.
They accused me of witchcraft or something when I mentioned not being able to look into my crystal ball, they knew I was being facetious but they used it against me. They are intellectually dishonest, they take quotes out of context and they omit parts of quotes or entire quotes if it does not suit their purposes.
All that is just the tip of the iceburg.
Apart from that they are not too bad.
it seems you have already corresponded and/or debated with them, I 'd be interested to read that...non Catholics are going to hell....is this something you disagree with?
-
They name Pivuranas and everyone else you can think of. All heretics, all not Catholics, all liars, and all going to Hell.
Anyone who would dare to say that those who follow Bishop Pivuranas or another Sedevacantist group are going to Hell also calls Our Blessed Mother a liar, because most Sedevacantist if not all who have died, died wearing the brown scapular.
What was that promise Our Lady gave to those who die wearing the brown scapular?
Something for those who believe the novus ordo is still valid to consider about the brown scapular and is it preached anymore?
Sometime the answer is so simple.
-
Myrna whoever said that is not worthy of yours or any other true Catholic's time. Whoever he or she is , probably a disgruntled young male, is full of hubris and gall against Christ's Mystical Body and church.
May God keep you and Blessed Mary comfort you.
-
They name Pivuranas and everyone else you can think of. All heretics, all not Catholics, all liars, and all going to Hell.
Anyone who would dare to say that those who follow Bishop Pivuranas or another Sedevacantist group are going to Hell also calls Our Blessed Mother a liar, because most Sedevacantist if not all who have died, died wearing the brown scapular.
What was that promise Our Lady gave to those who die wearing the brown scapular?
Something for those who believe the novus ordo is still valid to consider about the brown scapular and is it preached anymore?
Sometime the answer is so simple.
do you believe novus ordites who die wearing the brown scapular can be saved? What about protestants?
-
do you believe novus ordites who die wearing the brown scapular can be saved? What about protestants?
This is a silly question. What is a "novus ordite"? Catholics who die wearing the Brown Scapular are not, to my understanding, guaranteed salvation but access to the sacraments at the time of death. There are many Catholics who worship in the Novus Ordo out of ignorance. Quite a number of traditional Catholics today were among them. I doubt that there are very many people who attend Novus Ordo services wearing the Brown Scapular who are not very troubled with the Conciliar Church. They may just not know what to do.
As for Protestants, no Catholic should assume they can be saved.
-
do you believe novus ordites who die wearing the brown scapular can be saved? What about protestants?
This is a silly question. What is a "novus ordite"? Catholics who die wearing the Brown Scapular are not, to my understanding, guaranteed salvation but access to the sacraments at the time of death. There are many Catholics who worship in the Novus Ordo out of ignorance. Quite a number of traditional Catholics today were among them. I doubt that there are very many people who attend Novus Ordo services wearing the Brown Scapular who are not very troubled with the Conciliar Church. They may just not know what to do.
As for Protestants, no Catholic should assume they can be saved.
Thats heresy.
Pius XII (1939-1951)
Mystici Corporis 1943
"Acutally only those who are numbered among the elect are those who profess the true faith and receive the laver of regeneration."
Those in the Vatican 2 church and those in the various protestant sects do not profess the true faith.
-
Conquistador, remember what Our Lady of Mt. Carmel promised to those who wear the Brown Scapular?
"Whosoever dies enclothed in this Scapular shall not suffer eternal fire."
Not that the Brown Scapular is popular amongst Novus Ordites anyway, but a Novus Ordite who wears it faithfully and sincerely can still be saved.
A Protestant would never wear it.
A Merry Christmas to you.
-
They name Pivuranas and everyone else you can think of. All heretics, all not Catholics, all liars, and all going to Hell.
Anyone who would dare to say that those who follow Bishop Pivuranas or another Sedevacantist group are going to Hell also calls Our Blessed Mother a liar, because most Sedevacantist if not all who have died, died wearing the brown scapular.
What was that promise Our Lady gave to those who die wearing the brown scapular?
Something for those who believe the novus ordo is still valid to consider about the brown scapular and is it preached anymore?
Sometime the answer is so simple.
Myrna, I think you'd be suprised at the variety of people out there. There are Novus Ordo Catholics who still very much want to be "Catholic", so they won't shy away from things like the Rosary, frequent Mass, confession, the Brown Scapular, etc.
Yes, many other Novus Ordo Catholics are just there because of habit, family, custom, etc.
But the first category of people (those of good will) become more rare all the time, as things continue to go downhill. Yet you must believe me that they still exist.
Catholics are "awakening" to discover Tradition practically every day. And many of them become better (Traditional) Catholics than many 2nd or 3rd generation trads. Don't forget that either.
It's Our Lord raising up children to Abraham from the very stones. He doesn't need unfaithful Trads.
-
They name Pivuranas and everyone else you can think of. All heretics, all not Catholics, all liars, and all going to Hell.
Anyone who would dare to say that those who follow Bishop Pivuranas or another Sedevacantist group are going to Hell also calls Our Blessed Mother a liar, because most Sedevacantist if not all who have died, died wearing the brown scapular.
What was that promise Our Lady gave to those who die wearing the brown scapular?
Something for those who believe the novus ordo is still valid to consider about the brown scapular and is it preached anymore?
Sometime the answer is so simple.
Myrna, I think you'd be suprised at the variety of people out there. There are Novus Ordo Catholics who still very much want to be "Catholic", so they won't shy away from things like the Rosary, frequent Mass, confession, the Brown Scapular, etc.Yes, many other Novus Ordo Catholics are just there because of habit, family, custom, etc.
But the first category of people (those of good will) become more rare all the time, as things continue to go downhill. Yet you must believe me that they still exist.
Catholics are "awakening" to discover Tradition practically every day. And many of them become better (Traditional) Catholics than many 2nd or 3rd generation trads. Don't forget that either.
It's Our Lord raising up children to Abraham from the very stones. He doesn't need unfaithful Trads.
I agree with you Matthew, and I was one of those. My point is with people who insist that sedevacantist are in schism. The sedevacantist I know are living theiir Catholic Faith, and we still have a Head, its Jesus Christ. We are not in schism, heading for Hell as Diamonds or anyone else says, and above all we do not judge the souls of the novus ordo people who are still searching for the Truth.
-
The gift of final perseverance (that one will be in the state of grace at the time of one's death) graciously promised by Our Lady for numerous pious practices, among them the wearing of the Brown Scapular, and other exceptional promises for similar devotions (like the 15 promises of the Rosary, the 7 promises for the Seven Dolors' devotion, the 12 promises of the Sacred Heart for the Nine First Fridays) must be understood according to the mind of the Church - not as if wearing a Scapular provides one a license to engage in sin or grounds for presumption, as some would treat it, but rather that if we honor her in her chosen way, Our Lady will undoubtedly and efficaciously obtain for us the graces to do all we need to do to remain faithful according to our state of life.
Saints to whom final perseverance was explicitly promised only abounded and increased in good works and fasts, in prayers and penances as a result. It was not for nothing that the Blessed Virgin said, "One day through the Rosary and the Scapular I will save the world". Developing a deep, ready and earnest devotion to Our Lord and Our Lady is the most important thing, and everything else is secondary to that.
-
Conquistador, remember what Our Lady of Mt. Carmel promised to those who wear the Brown Scapular?
"Whosoever dies enclothed in this Scapular shall not suffer eternal fire."
Not that the Brown Scapular is popular amongst Novus Ordites anyway, but a Novus Ordite who wears it faithfully and sincerely can still be saved.
A Protestant would never wear it.
A Merry Christmas to you.
Thats heresy.
Pius XII (1939-1951)
Mystici Corporis 1943
"Acutally only those who are numbered among the elect are those who profess the true faith and receive the laver of regeneration."
Those in the Vatican 2 church and those in the various protestant sects do not profess the true faith.
-
You don't know what heresy is. You sound like an extremist.
-
You don't know what heresy is. You sound like an extremist.
:rolleyes:
lol. I'm an "extremist" because I actually hold you have to profess the catholic faith to be saved?
Are you kidding me?
I guess St. Augustine was an extremist.
St. Augustine (+430): No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church.
Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can
have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer
amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church. (Sermo ad Caesariensis Ecclesiae plebem)
-
do you believe novus ordites who die wearing the brown scapular can be saved? What about protestants?
This is a silly question. What is a "novus ordite"? Catholics who die wearing the Brown Scapular are not, to my understanding, guaranteed salvation but access to the sacraments at the time of death. There are many Catholics who worship in the Novus Ordo out of ignorance. Quite a number of traditional Catholics today were among them. I doubt that there are very many people who attend Novus Ordo services wearing the Brown Scapular who are not very troubled with the Conciliar Church. They may just not know what to do.
As for Protestants, no Catholic should assume they can be saved.
Thats heresy.
Pius XII (1939-1951)
Mystici Corporis 1943
"Acutally only those who are numbered among the elect are those who profess the true faith and receive the laver of regeneration."
Those in the Vatican 2 church and those in the various protestant sects do not profess the true faith.
:facepalm:
Um, don't you realize that the promise of the Brown Scapular necessarily entails the profession and practice of the Catholic faith? If you condemn as heretics everyone who is [your words] "in the Vatican 2 church," then you are arrogating to yourself judicial authority and casuistic competence that you obviously lack. Moreover, by this very act you are committing schism, as you are breaking communion with other Catholics.
Those Catholics who are devoted to Our Lady and hence wear her Brown Scapular and recite devoutly her Holy Rosary, and incidentally and materially adhere to the Johannine-Pauline constructs in good faith, whilst eschewing heresy and immorality (which is inexorably inherent in the profession and practice of the faith and in the cultivation of the interior life, both of which presuppose the industrious fulfillment of their duties of state), do indeed live the life of grace, which is the prelude for the beatific vision; and they shall obtain the gift of final perseverance by the merits of Our Lord Jesus, through the maternal patronage of the same illustrious Virgin Mother of God and by their cooperation with grace in the life of prayer that shall ever detach them from self and all created things and make them all the more given over to the influence of the operation of the theological virtues and the Gifts of the Holy Ghost.
Maybe you should be more focused on the interior life than on cursory reading and selective citation of texts that justify your extremist mentality.
-
do you believe novus ordites who die wearing the brown scapular can be saved? What about protestants?
This is a silly question. What is a "novus ordite"? Catholics who die wearing the Brown Scapular are not, to my understanding, guaranteed salvation but access to the sacraments at the time of death. There are many Catholics who worship in the Novus Ordo out of ignorance. Quite a number of traditional Catholics today were among them. I doubt that there are very many people who attend Novus Ordo services wearing the Brown Scapular who are not very troubled with the Conciliar Church. They may just not know what to do.
As for Protestants, no Catholic should assume they can be saved.
Thats heresy.
Pius XII (1939-1951)
Mystici Corporis 1943
"Acutally only those who are numbered among the elect are those who profess the true faith and receive the laver of regeneration."
Those in the Vatican 2 church and those in the various protestant sects do not profess the true faith.
:facepalm:
Um, don't you realize that the promise of the Brown Scapular necessarily entails the profession and practice of the Catholic faith? If you condemn as heretics everyone who is [your words] "in the Vatican 2 church," then you are arrogating to yourself judicial authority and casuistic competence that you obviously lack. Moreover, by this very act you are committing schism, as you are breaking communion with other Catholics.
Those Catholics who are devoted to Our Lady and hence wear her Brown Scapular and recite devoutly her Holy Rosary, and incidentally and materially adhere to the Johannine-Pauline constructs in good faith, whilst eschewing heresy and immorality (which is inexorably inherent in the profession and practice of the faith and in the cultivation of the interior life, both of which presuppose the industrious fulfillment of their duties of state), do indeed live the life of grace, which is the prelude for the beatific vision; and they shall obtain the gift of final perseverance by the merits of Our Lord Jesus, through the maternal patronage of the same illustrious Virgin Mother of God and by their cooperation with grace in the life of prayer that shall ever detach them from self and all created things and make them all the more given over to the influence of the operation of the theological virtues and the Gifts of the Holy Ghost.
Maybe you should be more focused on the interior life than on cursory reading and selective citation of texts that justify your extremist mentality.
:facepalm:
Oh, I see....I dont have the "judicial authority" and "csuitic competence" to denounce the Vatican 2 church, but Marcel Lefebvre and Mark Pivarunas does? That makes sense.
You said :
"Moreover, by this very act you are committing schism, as you are breaking communion with other Catholics."
Well you would have to conclude logically using your very same theolgy, that Marcel Lefebvre was committing schism when he physically left the Vatican 2 church and consecrated his own bishops with the disaproval of JP2.
-
Oh, I see....I dont have the "judicial authority" and "csuitic competence" to denounce the Vatican 2 church, but Marcel Lefebvre and Mark Pivarunas does? That makes sense.
That's ARCHBISHOP Lefebvre to you. The fact that you refuse to give him and Bishop Pivarunas their proper titles makes it appear that you think they weren't validly ordained. Is that what you think?
I know practically nothing about Bishop Pivarunas' ordination, so I will let someone else comment on that. As for the Archbishop's, I assume you think he wasn't validly ordained because he was supposedly ordained by a Freemason, correct?
First of all, it has never been proven that Cardinal Leinart was a Freemason. And even if he was, to claim that he couldn't validly ordain someone would contradict what was taught by Pope Leo XIII and St. Thomas Aquinas:
“Concerning the mind or intention, inasmuch as it is in itself something internal, the Church does not pass judgment; but in so far as it is externally manifested, she is bound to judge of it. Now, if in order to effect and confer a Sacrament a person has seriously and correctly used the due matter and form, he is for that very reason presumed to have intended to do what the Church does. It is on this principle that the doctrine is solidly founded which holds as a true Sacrament that which is conferred by the ministry of a heretic or of a non-baptized person, as long as it is conferred in the Catholic rite.“ - Pope Leo XIII
In the words uttered by (the minister), the intention of the Church is expressed; and this suffices for the validity of the sacrament,EXCEPT THE CONTRARY BE EXPRESSED EXTERIORLY on the part of the minister”. - St. Thomas Aquinas
In other words, as long as the Catholic Bishop, whether he be Catholic or a heretic, observes externally the rite perscribed for the sacrament, according to Church teaching, he must be presumed to have the right intention and thus, the sacrament must be presumed to be valid.
I think people should take the words of a Pope and the words of the Common Doctor of the Catholic Church over an armchair theologian such as yourself.
Well you have to conclude logically that Marcel Lefebvre was committing schism when he physically left the Vatican 2 church and consecrated his own bishops with the disaproval of JP2.
It is the Vatican II church that is schismatic.
Dogmatic sedevacantists like you are the reason why so many people are turned off by sedevacantists. If it weren't for Archbishop Lefebvre you wouldn't have any TLMs to attend except the CMRI and Indult Masses.
-
[/quote]
It is the Vatican II church that is schismatic.
Dogmatic sedevacantists like you are the reason why so many people are turned off by sedevacantists. If it weren't for Archbishop Lefebvre you wouldn't have any TLMs to attend except the CMRI and Indult Masses. [/quote]
Who says where I go to a TLM? Or if I even a attend a TLM to begin with?
-
Convenient that you ignore the quotes from Pope Leo XIII and St. Thomas Aquinas.
-
Oh, I see....I dont have the "judicial authority" and "csuitic competence" to denounce the Vatican 2 church, but Marcel Lefebvre and Mark Pivarunas does? That makes sense.
Hey! ...or should it be "Hay!" I sense a straw man here.
I don't recall Archbishop Lefebvre or Bishop Pivarunas doing what you are doing: condemning as heretics everyone who in good faith adheres to the "the Vatican 2 church," which is what you are doing.
What these bishops have done, together with a good number of clerics and layfolk, has been to denounce modernism and lay witness to the implications consequent upon the "new economy" of the Johannine-Pauline structures.
Note that these two bishops have differing conclusions consequent upon their resistance against the modernistic mechanism of Vatican II, which should tell you that no one person has all the answers in these tumultuous times.
You seem to think that reading and citing selectively texts constitutes the competence requisite to exercise the sort of casuistry that you are endeavoring to propagate as the only "anti-V2 way."
As my parents told me when I was a kid, so I tell you: "Just keep quiet and pray."
-
Convenient that you ignore the quotes from Pope Leo XIII and St. Thomas Aquinas.
Convenient that you ignored my quote from St. Augustine.
St. Augustine (+430): No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church.
Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can
have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer
amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church. (Sermo ad Caesariensis Ecclesiae plebem)
-
I don't disagree with that statement from St. Augustine, but you're applying his quote to all Catholics who don't "profess the true faith", which in your book can mean anything.
Now, are you going to respond to those quotes, or ignore them because you have no way of refuting them yet are too stubborn to admit it?
-
I don't disagree with that statement from St. Augustine, but you're applying his quote to all Catholics who don't "profess the true faith", which in your book can mean anything.
Now, are you going to respond to those quotes, or ignore them because you have no way of refuting them yet are too stubborn to admit it?
I will answer you, once you address the St. Augustine quote. St. Augustine says outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation. Do you agree with this? If yes, is the Vatican 2 church the Catholic Church?
-
I do agree that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. I simply don't agree with your attempt to stretch his quote to the point that all NO Catholics are heretics or are outside the Church.
Now, I await your answer to the quotes I posted.
-
I do agree that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. I simply don't agree with your attempt to stretch his quote to the point that all NO Catholics are heretics or are outside the Church.
Now, I await your answer to the quotes I posted.
You still havent answered my question completely sir.
Is the Vatican 2 church The Catholic Church that St. Augustine refers to? yes or no please.
-
I do agree that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. I simply don't agree with your attempt to stretch his quote to the point that all NO Catholics are heretics or are outside the Church.
Now, I await your answer to the quotes I posted.
In regard to your quotes that you posted, I do believe Lefebvre and Pivarunas are validly ordained.