Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Incredulous on September 11, 2013, 07:48:13 PM
-
(http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article8810048.ece/ALTERNATES/w460/pg-34-pope-getty.jpg)
In comments likely to enhance his progressive reputation, Pope Francis has written a long, open letter to the founder of La Repubblica newspaper, Eugenio Scalfari, stating that non-believers would be forgiven by God if they followed their consciences.
Responding to a list of questions published in the paper by Mr Scalfari, who is not a Roman Catholic, Francis wrote: “You ask me if the God of the Christians forgives those who don’t believe and who don’t seek the faith.
I start by saying – and this is the fundamental thing – that God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience.
“Sin, even for those who have no faith, exists when people disobey their conscience.”
Robert Mickens, the Vatican correspondent for the Catholic journal The Tablet, said the pontiff’s comments were further evidence of his attempts to shake off the Catholic Church’s fusty image, reinforced by his extremely conservative predecessor Benedict XVI. “Francis is a still a conservative,” said Mr Mickens. “But what this is all about is him seeking to have a more meaningful dialogue with the world.”
In a welcoming response to the letter, Mr Scalfari said the Pope’s comments were “further evidence of his ability and desire to overcome barriers in dialogue with all”.
In July, Francis signalled a more progressive attitude on sɛҳuąƖity, asking: “If someone is gαy and is looking for the Lord, who am I to judge him?”
-
So, if my conscience is not violated by killing babies, then carry on?
-
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Everyone-goes-to-Heaven-just-obey-your-conscience
-
At this rate, Francis is going to make Paul VI and JPII look like champions of orthodoxy in no time at all.
Unfortunately, outside of a few trad Catholic friends and here at CI, most nominal Catholics do believe[/I] that JPII was some sort of champion of Catholic orthodoxy. I recently got slammed in conversation with some Catholic acquaintances when I politely suggested that Card Dolan was scandalous for freely giving Communion to people such as Christine Quinn (openly ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, pro-abort NYC politician) and VP Joe Biden, then later I politely expressed disapproval of JPII's Assisi conferences with heretics & Koran kissing. It became clear that they believed in universal salvation, wether they were willing to admit it or not. The Modernists have done a good job of spreading their heresy over the past 50+ years.
-
I heard someone say recently, "I'm not more Catholic than the Pope, but I AM more Catholic than Jorge Bergoglio." I think more and more people are going to start feeling this way.
-
I see we've got two threads going. I'll say what I said in the other one. Wife made an interesting point when I told her about this, said according to this logic, an atheist sins if he begins to believe in God.
My own comment: this man is a pile of relativistic slime. As Bishop Williamson said when he was here, "there's almost nothing Catholic about him at all."
-
I see we've got two threads going. I'll say what I said in the other one. ...
Indeed, but this one was started first so I'll go with this one.
-
Does anyone remember a movie called "Dave" where some average guy is brought in to pretend to be the US President and just fumbles his way through everything?
-
Does anyone remember a movie called "Dave" where some average guy is brought in to pretend to be the US President and just fumbles his way through everything?
Wait I think I remember that movie, didn't it come out in 2008?
:facepalm:
Luke
-
Does anyone remember a movie called "Dave" where some average guy is brought in to pretend to be the US President and just fumbles his way through everything?
That is a movie? :surprised:
I thought it was real life.
-
Alphonso de Ligouri sad that the people most in danger of going to Hell were those who did not believe in it.
-
I start by saying – and this is the fundamental thing – that God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience. (Pope Francis)
This is nothing more than the theory of implicit faith which is believed by 99% of you believers of baptism of desire. It is providential that now Pope Francis is openly teaching it. Maybe this will convert the 99% of you believers in baptism of desire who stubbornly stick with your belief that implicit faith is true. I am presently discussing implicit faith on two other threads with two believers of the implicit faith theory. I keep describing it rather than calling it by its name (of implicit Faith), so as to avoid any wiggle room for those adherents:
The belief that a person who has no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or be baptized, or belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation can be saved.
I keep repeating that this belief is opposed to ALL of tradition and revelation, that is, opposed to ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, and the Athanasian Creed (of the Fathers!). I keep repeating that No Father, Doctor, Saint, ever taught that. Yet, I am fought at every turn by the believers in baptism of desire.
Well, here you have Pope Francis teaching it, where are all of those people who down thumbs me at every turn every time I bring up this dark side in the minds of baptism of desire adherents? Why aren't you defending Pope Francis like you defend Abp. Lefebvre and all of the traditionalist priests that learned from him or teach the same as him (Fr. Cekada, SSPV, SSPX, CMRI)?
From the book Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
1. Page 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”
2.Page 217: “One cannot say, then, that no one is saved in these religions…”
Pages 217-218: “This is then what Pius IX said and what he condemned. It is necessary to understand the formulation that was so often employed by the Fathers of the Church: ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’ When we say that, it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the Catholic Church go to hell. Now, I repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. This must be preached.”
__________________________________________
Bishop Bernard Fellay, Conference in Denver, Co., Feb. 18, 2006: “We know that there are two other baptisms, that of desire and that of blood. These produce an invisible but real link with Christ but do not produce all of the effects which are received in the baptism of water… And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)
---------------------------------------------------------
So much for desire to be baptized, or desire to be a Catholic, or a catechumen, or a martyr!
This is the Achilles heal of all the traditional priests ordained by the SSPX. If they can be led to accept even in implicit faith, then the accepting of the teaching that Vatican II contains no errors when interpreted accrding to tradtion, is an easy step.
-
Does anyone remember a movie called "Dave" where some average guy is brought in to pretend to be the US President and just fumbles his way through everything?
Wait I think I remember that movie, didn't it come out in 2008?
:facepalm:
Luke
A bit earlier than that, Dave (1993) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106673/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1) which was a bit of a ripoff of Moon Over Parador (1988) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095654/?ref_=sr_1)
-
I start by saying – and this is the fundamental thing – that God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience. (Pope Francis)
This is nothing more than the theory of implicit faith which is believed by 99% of you believers of baptism of desire. It is providential that now Pope Francis is openly teaching it. Maybe this will convert the 99% of you believers in baptism of desire who stubbornly stick with your belief that implicit faith is true. I am presently discussing implicit faith on two other threads with two believers of the implicit faith theory. I keep describing it rather than calling it by its name (of implicit Faith), so as to avoid any wiggle room for those adherents:
The belief that a person who has no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or be baptized, or belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation can be saved.
I keep repeating that this belief is opposed to ALL of tradition and revelation, that is, opposed to ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, and the Athanasian Creed (of the Fathers!). I keep repeating that No Father, Doctor, Saint, ever taught that. Yet, I am fought at every turn by the believers in baptism of desire.
Well, here you have Pope Francis teaching it, where are all of those people who down thumbs me at every turn every time I bring up this dark side in the minds of baptism of desire adherents? Why aren't you defending Pope Francis like you defend Abp. Lefebvre and all of the traditionalist priests that learned from him or teach the same as him (Fr. Cekada, SSPV, SSPX, CMRI)?
From the book Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
1. Page 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”
2.Page 217: “One cannot say, then, that no one is saved in these religions…”
Pages 217-218: “This is then what Pius IX said and what he condemned. It is necessary to understand the formulation that was so often employed by the Fathers of the Church: ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’ When we say that, it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the Catholic Church go to hell. Now, I repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. This must be preached.”
__________________________________________
Bishop Bernard Fellay, Conference in Denver, Co., Feb. 18, 2006: “We know that there are two other baptisms, that of desire and that of blood. These produce an invisible but real link with Christ but do not produce all of the effects which are received in the baptism of water… And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)
---------------------------------------------------------
So much for desire to be baptized, or desire to be a Catholic, or a catechumen, or a martyr!
This is the Achilles heal of all the traditional priests ordained by the SSPX. If they can be led to accept even in implicit faith, then the accepting of the teaching that Vatican II contains no errors when interpreted accrding to tradtion, is an easy step.
What about the people who live under the veil of invincible ignorance? How much of that invincible ignorance is caused by our lack of charity and sinfulness?
-
Although at this point I actually expect heretical comments from this pope, I need more here to come to any sort of conclusion in my mind.
As for the poster who is arguing against baptism of desire, I just don't get why some continue to believe it is not Church teaching. Catechisms have been teaching this for hundreds of years. This is not a novel teaching. Unless of course we are to believe that even the pre-Vatican II church allowed error into Her catechisms and allowed generations of Catholics to be taught heresy in Her catechisms, I'm not sure how anyone can refute it.
-
There is a difference between bod, rather rare, IMO, and a fully formed, but malformed conscience, the norm nowadays. God may give grace to the former, His business, not ours to be figuring out, and the latter, clear cause for condemnation. Did Hitler, Pol Pot, Charles Manson, follow their consciences? What about Martin Luther, John Calvin, Mary Baker Eddy? So, they're all in Heaven? Very much doubt it!
-
:Pope Francis told athesists that you don't have to believe in God to go to Heaven???
Does the Pope believe in God?
No wonder the laity doesn't know their Catholic faith because these bishops, cardinals, nuns and the Vatican ll hierarchy in Rome don't know the Catholic faith or maybe they are a bunch of Masonic athesists.
-
Does anyone remember a movie called "Dave" where some average guy is brought in to pretend to be the US President and just fumbles his way through everything?
Wait I think I remember that movie, didn't it come out in 2008?
:facepalm:
Luke
A bit earlier than that, Dave (1993) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106673/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1) which was a bit of a ripoff of Moon Over Parador (1988) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095654/?ref_=sr_1)
He was talking about Obama's election in 2008. "pretend to be the US President and just fumbles his way through everything".
-
Although at this point I actually expect heretical comments from this pope, I need more here to come to any sort of conclusion in my mind.
As for the poster who is arguing against baptism of desire, I just don't get why some continue to believe it is not Church teaching. Catechisms have been teaching this for hundreds of years. This is not a novel teaching. Unless of course we are to believe that even the pre-Vatican II church allowed error into Her catechisms and allowed generations of Catholics to be taught heresy in Her catechisms, I'm not sure how anyone can refute it.
Of course the pre-V2 Church had errors creeping into the catechisms, universities and etc. - the NO did not happen over night, it was centuries in the making. BOD was one of the errors and invincible ignorance is another - it is all about not needing the Church to get to heaven - that's what it is all about. That is what the whole V2, NO, BOD, invincible ignorance and "follow your own conscience to get to heaven" is all about.
Most believe a book is impossible to contain errors if the book is a catechism - never mind the catechisms have been revised who knows how many times, never mind BOD is not taught in Trent's original catechism.
As for BOD, it is a theory comprised of a mythical non-sacrament (no outward sign, no matter, form or intention) where the presumption is that the beneficiary was rewarded salvation because they acquired a desire for the sacrament within the last moment of their life because an unforeseen accident took them out of this world before they could be baptized.
BODers deny any contradiction between their theory and defined dogma, yet they never use defined dogma to support their theory, rather when they see the dogma posted, they accuse those who post the dogmas of being heretics lol.
Pretty crazy.
-
Stubborn said above --->
Of course the pre-V2 Church had errors creeping into the catechisms, universities and etc. - the NO did not happen over night, it was centuries in the making. BOD was one of the errors and invincible ignorance is another - it is all about not needing the Church to get to heaven - that's what it is all about. That is what the whole V2, NO, BOD, invincible ignorance and "follow your own conscience to get to heaven" is all about.
Which is why you should hope for BOD, you might have been baptized by one of those infiltrators who forgot to pour the water at the right time.
-
...
As for the poster who is arguing against baptism of desire, I just don't get why some continue to believe it is not Church teaching. Catechisms have been teaching this for hundreds of years. This is not a novel teaching. Unless of course we are to believe that even the pre-Vatican II church allowed error into Her catechisms and allowed generations of Catholics to be taught heresy in Her catechisms, I'm not sure how anyone can refute it.
Here my response to all of you believers in the salvation of those who have no desire to be Catholic:
To anyone else who may want to look at the other side-- I thought this link was helpful-- it's a translation from Italian of the full letter. Let's not forget the secular media has their agenda to play in the headlines. Maybe the Pope is trying to get the atheists to read what he's writing--after all Italian Catholics aren't even replacing themselves with 2 kids a family and the article was published in Italy?
http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/pope-francis-letter-to-the-founder-of-la-repubblica-italian-newspaper?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zenit%2Fenglish+%28ZENIT+English%29
and what is this "other side"? I read the entire translation and it is even worse that the secular snippet. It is however what all Catholics have been taught for the past 120 years or so in the USA, so it does not surprise me that you don't see it as bad as I do. Now, Pope Francis's teaching has no basis in revelation, the Fathers of the Church, or any Saint or Doctor. It is opposed to the dogmatic Athanasian Creed of the Fathers. Do you know what that means? It is akin to denying the Apostles Creed! It is however no different than what the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI teach and defend, the implicit faith theory, therefore, you have the company of 99% of all Catholics in your belief, and I am the oddball. However:
“Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.” (St. Augustine)
-
Does anyone remember a movie called "Dave" where some average guy is brought in to pretend to be the US President and just fumbles his way through everything?
That is a movie? :surprised:
I thought it was real life.
:roll-laugh1:
-
Stubborn said above --->Of course the pre-V2 Church had errors creeping into the catechisms, universities and etc. - the NO did not happen over night, it was centuries in the making. BOD was one of the errors and invincible ignorance is another - it is all about not needing the Church to get to heaven - that's what it is all about. That is what the whole V2, NO, BOD, invincible ignorance and "follow your own conscience to get to heaven" is all about.
Which is why you should hope for BOD, you might have been baptized by one of those infiltrators who forgot to pour the water at the right time.
Ya, you're right, I sure hope there is a BOD. Maybe God will see to it that I die via an unforeseen accident and that my implicit desire in my last breath is desire of the sacrament.
In the mean time, can I follow the dictates of my conscience?
Wish me luck!
[/sarcasm]
-
Only if your conscience is properly formed.
-
Pope(?) Jorge has taken the next step. For the longest time it was held almost unanimously that one had to believe explicitly in the Holy Trinity and in the central mysteries of the Incarnation to have the minimal material content to be able to formally have supernatural faith.
Then it became reduced to just believing in a "god" who rewards the good and punishes the wicked ... which of course can be known from natural reason alone.
Now Jorge has removed even that, declaring that there need be NO minimal material content, i.e. that God infuses supernatural faith and charity (and thus salvation) so that people can have formal faith without any material faith (which is philosophical impossibility). More and more the notion of faith has been transformed into just the formal aspect (i.e. the good conscience or seeking God or whatever you might call it). In other words, it's all SUBJECTIVE. Thus follows religious liberty and the entire new ecclesiology of Vatican II.
So Jorge does take things to the next level here, but it is nonetheless just a progression of the EENS-denial we've been talking about and should reinforce my assertion that EENS is THE theological issue of our day. This erosion has been going on steadily for the last couple hundred years or so.
I personally consider it heretical to say that one need not, at a minimum, explicitly believe in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation in order to formally possess supernatural faith.
Jorge Bergoglio needs to be formally tried for heresy.
-
Only if your conscience is properly formed.
Right - gotta remember that part - properly formed - since I have no idea what properly formed is, I'll just leave that part up to God too - and then hope for the best!
-
Point One: I believe that the End of the World is neigh.
Point Two:
Condemned error: "A faith indicated from the testimony of creation, or from a similar motive, suffices for justification." (Denz. 2123, Pope Innocent XI, 1679).
Since atheists have no faith, they cannot be justified.
-
Okay: it's been officially re-written — I mean, "properly translated"! Into English on the Italian page (apparently since it caused "a stir"):
http://www.repubblica.it/cultura/2013/09/11/news/the_pope_s_letter-66336961/
I got bored a few sentences in, but I'm curious to hear just how bad the "first translation" really was, if anyone cares to do a comparison.
:smoke-pot:
-
Point One: I believe that the End of the World is neigh.
Point Two:
Condemned error: "A faith indicated from the testimony of creation, or from a similar motive, suffices for justification." (Denz. 2123, Pope Innocent XI, 1679).
Since atheists have no faith, they cannot be justified.
Yes, this and the Athanasian Creed are why I said that I consider it De Fide that one must believe in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation in order to have supernatural faith and be saved.
-
Jorge Bergoglio needs to be formally tried for heresy.
Sadly there is no court to try him who aren't themselves heretical.
-
Jorge Bergoglio needs to be formally tried for heresy.
Sadly there is no court to try him who aren't themselves heretical.
And one day, there will be a heresy court for all the previous popes who refused to defend, teach and sanctify the Faith.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Rizi_Francisco,_Autodafe_-_Plaza_Mayor_(Madrid).png)
Rest assured, we will see it.
-
Rest assured, we will see it.
If I see it I will feel like Simeon seeing our lord before he passed away.
-
Although at this point I actually expect heretical comments from this pope, I need more here to come to any sort of conclusion in my mind.
As for the poster who is arguing against baptism of desire, I just don't get why some continue to believe it is not Church teaching. Catechisms have been teaching this for hundreds of years. This is not a novel teaching. Unless of course we are to believe that even the pre-Vatican II church allowed error into Her catechisms and allowed generations of Catholics to be taught heresy in Her catechisms, I'm not sure how anyone can refute it.
Of course the pre-V2 Church had errors creeping into the catechisms, universities and etc. - the NO did not happen over night, it was centuries in the making. BOD was one of the errors and invincible ignorance is another - it is all about not needing the Church to get to heaven - that's what it is all about. That is what the whole V2, NO, BOD, invincible ignorance and "follow your own conscience to get to heaven" is all about.
Most believe a book is impossible to contain errors if the book is a catechism - never mind the catechisms have been revised who knows how many times, never mind BOD is not taught in Trent's original catechism.
As for BOD, it is a theory comprised of a mythical non-sacrament (no outward sign, no matter, form or intention) where the presumption is that the beneficiary was rewarded salvation because they acquired a desire for the sacrament within the last moment of their life because an unforeseen accident took them out of this world before they could be baptized.
BODers deny any contradiction between their theory and defined dogma, yet they never use defined dogma to support their theory, rather when they see the dogma posted, they accuse those who post the dogmas of being heretics lol.
Pretty crazy.
So, honest question: what reference is made in the catechisms that teach BOD? Also, do those who believe BOD is not true feel the same way about baptism of blood?
-
So, honest question: what reference is made in the catechisms that teach BOD? Also, do those who believe BOD is not true feel the same way about baptism of blood?
"Baptism of blood" must be understood as essentially "baptism of desire," though to it is added the element of giving one's life for the Faith.
Ephesians 4:5 is explicit and teaches: One Lord, one faith, one Baptism. Yet the The Baltimore Catechism: (http://www.catholicbook.com/AgredaCD/Baltimore_Catechism4/bsacr-b.htm) teaches:
157. Q. How many kinds of Baptism are there?
A. There are three kinds of Baptism: Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.
160. Q. What is Baptism of blood?
A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood for the faith of Christ.
161. Q. Is Baptism of desire or blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
The NO Catechism (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm) teaches the same error:
1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.
-
Francis: You dont have to believe in God to go to Heaven.
Hey! Lighten up, everyone. That "believing in God" stuff is so Triumphalist and probably something only a Restorationist would think in a Pelagian way.
:king:
-
So, honest question: what reference is made in the catechisms that teach BOD? Also, do those who believe BOD is not true feel the same way about baptism of blood?
"Baptism of blood" must be understood as essentially "baptism of desire," though to it is added the element of giving one's life for the Faith.
Ephesians 4:5 is explicit and teaches: One Lord, one faith, one Baptism. Yet the The Baltimore Catechism: (http://www.catholicbook.com/AgredaCD/Baltimore_Catechism4/bsacr-b.htm) teaches:
157. Q. How many kinds of Baptism are there?
A. There are three kinds of Baptism: Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.
160. Q. What is Baptism of blood?
A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood for the faith of Christ.
161. Q. Is Baptism of desire or blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
The NO Catechism (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm) teaches the same error:
1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.
How many Gods are there? One. And yet there is still the Holy Trinity. I think it is wrong to say that teaching there are 3 forms of baptism somehow contradicts "one baptism".
Do you believe that those martyrs that never got baptized went to Hell? Aren't there such martyrs who have been canonized? How do we even know that all canonized martyrs were actually baptized with water?
-
How many Gods are there? One. And yet there is still the Holy Trinity. I think it is wrong to say that teaching there are 3 forms of baptism somehow contradicts "one baptism".
Do you believe that those martyrs that never got baptized went to Hell? Aren't there such martyrs who have been canonized? How do we even know that all canonized martyrs were actually baptized with water?
But there are three persons in one God, not three Gods. There are not three faiths, there is only one faith. There are not three baptisms as the catechisms teach, there is only one Baptism as Scripture teaches. Eph 4:5 is not written in the form of a parable, rather, it is explicit so as to be read literally.
As for the martyrs, it is just as easy to speculate that God provided Baptism to those glorious martyrs through an unseen miracle to supply His requisites for salvation, as it is to use our want of knowledge as proof of its dispensability. What we do not know is not a proof of anything.
If the Church honors anyone as a saint, according to her own teaching, the presumption must be that the saint was baptized.
-
Only if your conscience is properly formed.
Right - gotta remember that part - properly formed - since I have no idea what properly formed is, I'll just leave that part up to God too - and then hope for the best!
Guess what I found a High School text book titled: "Our Quest for Happiness" dated 1953, we could all use a review on our conscience, right!
(http://[URL=http://s270.photobucket.com/user/Myrnanne/media/One.jpg.html][IMG]http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj108/Myrnanne/One.jpg)[/URL][/img]
(http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj108/Myrnanne/two-1.jpg) (http://s270.photobucket.com/user/Myrnanne/media/two-1.jpg.html)
-
How many Gods are there? One. And yet there is still the Holy Trinity. I think it is wrong to say that teaching there are 3 forms of baptism somehow contradicts "one baptism".
Do you believe that those martyrs that never got baptized went to Hell? Aren't there such martyrs who have been canonized? How do we even know that all canonized martyrs were actually baptized with water?
But there are three persons in one God, not three Gods. There are not three faiths, there is only one faith. There are not three baptisms as the catechisms teach, there is only one Baptism as Scripture teaches. Eph 4:5 is not written in the form of a parable, rather, it is explicit so as to be read literally.
As for the martyrs, it is just as easy to speculate that God provided Baptism to those glorious martyrs through an unseen miracle to supply His requisites for salvation, as it is to use our want of knowledge as proof of its dispensability. What we do not know is not a proof of anything.
If the Church honors anyone as a saint, according to her own teaching, the presumption must be that the saint was baptized.
I'm going to guess that the person that liked your post was the same person that did not like my post...lol. Oh well, you win some you lose some.
Your post makes sense, but I'm still having a tough time accepting the premise that the Church universally taught heresy for hundreds of years regarding BOD and BOB. There must be some basis for it; otherwise, it wouldn't remain in the Catechisms.
-
Under normal circuмstances, the Cardinals would rise up, accuse him of heresy, and if he recanted that would be the end of it. And that's the difficult situation we find ourselves in. But, as you said, can the heretics judge heresy? Although Pope Mr. Jorge has ruffled quite a few of the conservative modernists in Rome with his "theologizing" and other antics, causing the Vatican curia to be constantly in damage-control mode.
-
What's a horrible tragedy is that I'm seeing Prots attacking Begoglio for heresy on various secular forums and the brainswashed NO "Catholics" defending him. In other words, the NO heretics are more heretical than the Prots.
-
Only if your conscience is properly formed.
Right - gotta remember that part - properly formed - since I have no idea what properly formed is, I'll just leave that part up to God too - and then hope for the best!
Guess what I found a High School text book titled: "Our Quest for Happiness" dated 1953, we could all use a review on our conscience, right!
(http://[URL=http://s270.photobucket.com/user/Myrnanne/media/One.jpg.html][IMG]http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj108/Myrnanne/One.jpg)[/URL][/img]
(http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj108/Myrnanne/two-1.jpg) (http://s270.photobucket.com/user/Myrnanne/media/two-1.jpg.html)
Yes, that book or at least what it teaches there is true, essentially it says the same thing said in another thread: Our faith teaches that when we do not know for sure, it is *always* our responsibility to find out if an act we are about to perform or a situation we are about to enter into is a sin *before* doing it. Why? you might ask, it's because what if the thing we are about to do offends Our Lord?
-
How many Gods are there? One. And yet there is still the Holy Trinity. I think it is wrong to say that teaching there are 3 forms of baptism somehow contradicts "one baptism".
Do you believe that those martyrs that never got baptized went to Hell? Aren't there such martyrs who have been canonized? How do we even know that all canonized martyrs were actually baptized with water?
But there are three persons in one God, not three Gods. There are not three faiths, there is only one faith. There are not three baptisms as the catechisms teach, there is only one Baptism as Scripture teaches. Eph 4:5 is not written in the form of a parable, rather, it is explicit so as to be read literally.
As for the martyrs, it is just as easy to speculate that God provided Baptism to those glorious martyrs through an unseen miracle to supply His requisites for salvation, as it is to use our want of knowledge as proof of its dispensability. What we do not know is not a proof of anything.
If the Church honors anyone as a saint, according to her own teaching, the presumption must be that the saint was baptized.
I'm going to guess that the person that liked your post was the same person that did not like my post...lol. Oh well, you win some you lose some.
Your post makes sense, but I'm still having a tough time accepting the premise that the Church universally taught heresy for hundreds of years regarding BOD and BOB. There must be some basis for it; otherwise, it wouldn't remain in the Catechisms.
The Church did not teach it, the catechisms did. Seems like one and the same to about everyone but that's not the way it works - as the catechisms' errors testifies.
Additionally, "the Church" teaching which actually does bind us under pain of sin, is the one which binds us to believe in the necessity of the sacrament for all people for their hope of salvation via Her infallible declarations, which all teachings including catechisms are supposed to be compared with and scrutinized against.
As I mentioned earlier, those who believe in a BOD claim there is no contradiction between the infallible papal teachings, and the catechisms/theologians, saints etc. which teach of a BOD, yet, they themselves never quote these infallible teachings which come to us ex cathedra, directly from the mouths of popes.
What's more, when we post the infallible quotes of the popes and councils, many of the BODers read the quotes, know all about them, yet say we are heretics to believe the infallible decrees . . . . . . they never figure it out that no one called the popes who proclaimed the infallible teachings heretics - but they don't hesitate to call us heretics for repeating the teachings of the popes.
As I said, it's crazy.
-
Okay: it's been officially re-written — I mean, "properly translated"! Into English on the Italian page (apparently since it caused "a stir"):
http://www.repubblica.it/cultura/2013/09/11/news/the_pope_s_letter-66336961/
I got bored a few sentences in, but I'm curious to hear just how bad the "first translation" really was, if anyone cares to do a comparison.
:smoke-pot:
Am I understanding you right that now the claim is that Francesco never said that non-believers can get to Heaven by just being a good person, but that it was mistranslated?
-
Okay: it's been officially re-written — I mean, "properly translated"! Into English on the Italian page (apparently since it caused "a stir"):
http://www.repubblica.it/cultura/2013/09/11/news/the_pope_s_letter-66336961/
I got bored a few sentences in, but I'm curious to hear just how bad the "first translation" really was, if anyone cares to do a comparison.
:smoke-pot:
Am I understanding you right that now the claim is that Francesco never said that non-believers can get to Heaven by just being a good person, but that it was mistranslated?
Why do you ask? Just read the article on the link above and see for yourself. He clearly says that people can be saved by following their conscience. Moreover he says much more, like that the Jews can be saved by following their religion. Read it and highlight it and post it for everyone to see. I forgot to do it this morning.
-
There must come a point when every genuine traditional Catholic must admit that the sedevacantist position is the correct position; that is, a public heretic is not Catholic, hence, that man cannot be a true Pope. I believe, however, that such a realization must be made as a consensus of a quorum of traditional Catholic bishops, and if they arrive at such a moral and theological conclusion, it would seem to me that they are bound to hold a new conclave to elect a true Vicar of Jesus Christ.
-
Why do you ask? Just read the article on the link above and see for yourself. He clearly says that people can be saved by following their conscience. Moreover he says much more, like that the Jews can be saved by following their religion. Read it and highlight it and post it for everyone to see. I forgot to do it this morning.
I do ask because this *subsequent link* the one I quoted (ostensibly a re-translation) *does not* say that non-believers can reach Heaven anymore.
That link is so different that what we read prior I almost think it is a different text entirely, not a 'retranslation'. That's why I ask. (Yes, material about the Jєωιѕн Faith remains, but it seems the non-believer verbiage is redacted or retranslated into oblivion)
If this is indeed a 'retranslation' the original was in egregious error.
I don't see how we could be expected to 'buy' that retranslation.
-
Under normal circuмstances, the Cardinals would rise up, accuse him of heresy, and if he recanted that would be the end of it. And that's the difficult situation we find ourselves in. But, as you said, can the heretics judge heresy?
Much like those who say, "Well, the whole world recognizes him as Pope; therefore, he's the Pope!" What's omitted - conveniently - is the fact that most of the "whole world" has lost the Faith. It could be argued, of course, that a good portion of the "whole world" never had the Faith.
-
It wasn't a re-translation. It was a different docuмent. (At least the first one wasn't as boring; the lying second one was too dry to get through. I suspect these dry docuмents are meant to put us in a stupor so that we forget why we're reading.)
-
It wasn't a re-translation. It was a different docuмent. (At least the first one wasn't as boring; the lying second one was too dry to get through. I suspect these dry docuмents are meant to put us in a stupor so that we forget why we're reading.)
Ah good, this clarifies it well.
I didnt see how it was a retranslation of what we have been talking about.
-
So, honest question: what reference is made in the catechisms that teach BOD? Also, do those who believe BOD is not true feel the same way about baptism of blood?
"Baptism of blood" must be understood as essentially "baptism of desire," though to it is added the element of giving one's life for the Faith.
Ephesians 4:5 is explicit and teaches: One Lord, one faith, one Baptism. Yet the The Baltimore Catechism: (http://www.catholicbook.com/AgredaCD/Baltimore_Catechism4/bsacr-b.htm) teaches:
157. Q. How many kinds of Baptism are there?
A. There are three kinds of Baptism: Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.
160. Q. What is Baptism of blood?
A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood for the faith of Christ.
161. Q. Is Baptism of desire or blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
The NO Catechism (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm) teaches the same error:
1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.
Would an example of Baptism of Desire apply to a Muslim who wants to become Catholic but lives in a predominantly Muslim country with no access to a Catholic Church? I saw a similar situation on Coptnet with a person who wanted to convert but there were no churches or access to priests around.
-
I've worked on some of it — ppl on FB passionate about the changes, while (LOL) those who argued adamantly for how SOUND the original was, are now crying about how unfair the world is to the much-maligned poor bergoglio.
So I obtained the original translation by Zenit (http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/pope-francis-letter-to-the-founder-of-la-repubblica-italian-newspaper?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zenit%2Fenglish+%28ZENIT+English%29) that everyone was talking about, and the Vatican's "retranslation". There are parts where "editing heavily", might indeed be what's happened. But there are sections that made my editor's compare function cough up tons of errors: these sections just couldn't be compared, they were so different. We're not talking "one bad sentence" that has the same general meaning; we're talking COMPLETE RE-WRITE.
Since I'm half-asleep, and it's so hard to follow (esp the new "translation", which is far wordier), I'll try to post the most egregious, um, "translation errors" or "lies" section. From where Jorge addresses the first of the three questions (rephrased in the new "translation"), which I lined up with the dates (which are different, too):
So I come to the three questions you put to me in the article of August 7. It seems to me that, in the first two, what is in your heart is to understand the attitude of the Church to those who don’t share faith in Jesus. First of all, you ask me if the God of Christians forgives one who doesn’t believe and doesn’t seek the faith. Premise that – and it’s the fundamental thing – the mercy of God has no limits if one turns to him with a sincere and contrite heart; the question for one who doesn’t believe in God lies in obeying one’s conscience. Sin, also for those who don’t have faith, exists when one goes against one’s conscience. To listen to and to obey it means, in fact, to decide in face of what is perceived as good or evil. And on this decision pivots the goodness or malice of our action.
The "retranslation" below — but note it's VERY DIFFICULT to fish out the original paragraph (question one) from the new, wordier translation. I mean, impossible. It's like trying to find St. John 5 in the Koran. I THINK I've got the right sections, because below both of these sections were "question 2" and "question 3" and the signature (which is also significantly different). But keep in mind, these are supposed to be the same, or a better "translation":
In your editorial of July 7th, you also asked me how to understand the originality of Christian Faith as it is actually based on the incarnation of the Son of God, with respect to other religions that instead pivot on the absolute transcendency of God.
I would say that the originality lies in the fact that faith allows us to participate, in Jesus, in the relationship that He has with God who is Abbà and, because of this, in the relationship that He has with all other men, including enemies, in the sign of love. In other words, the children of Jesus, as Christian faith presents us, are not revealed to mark an insuperabile separation between Jesus and all the others: but to tell us that, in Him, we are all called to be the children of the only Father and brothers with each other. The uniqueness of Jesus is for communication not for exclusion.
Of course a consequence of this is also - and this is not a minor thing - that distinction between the religious spere which is confirmed by "Give to God what belongs to God and give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar", distinctly confirmed by Jesus and upon which, the history of the Western world was built. In fact, the Church is called to sow the yeast and salt of the Gospel, and that is the love and mercy of God which reaches all men, indicating the definitive destination of our destiny in the hereafter, while civil and political society has the difficult duty of expressing and embodying a life that is evermore human in justice, in solidarity, in law and in peace. For those who experience the Christian faith, this does not mean escaping from the world or looking for any kind of supremacy, but being at the service of mankind, of all mankind and all men, starting from the periphery of history and keeping the sense of hope alive, striving for goodness in spite of everything and always looking beyond.
As I grow so bored and tired of modernist heretical writings, and am half-asleep, it's plausible that the junk in the first translation is somewhere within the second translation. I'll own all errors on my own part (copy/paste, or extreme boredom), and maybe they ARE "mistranslations". (They're not. AT ALL.) And note the number of words: the first quote and the second quote are supposed to be the SAME, just with a 'more accurate translation'. I call BS: they're apples and oranges. Or apples and dinosaurs. I even checked to make sure it was the RIGHT LETTERS in question, esp due to the date referred to in the letter.
(And really, read as I might, I can't figure out WHAT the Curia is even trying to suggest Frank SAID in their "re-write"; I guess they hope if they write complete nonsense, people will recognize it as "Vatican-issued".)
Btw, I think this puts that rag, La Repubblica, in the TRASH COMPACTOR. It's yellow journalism.
-
Would an example of Baptism of Desire apply to a Muslim who wants to become Catholic but lives in a predominantly Muslim country with no access to a Catholic Church? I saw a similar situation on Coptnet with a person who wanted to convert but there were no churches or access to priests around.
Nope. Too many Muslims LEAVING TOWN to find a Church that in any way recognizes Jesus as God because they want eternal life that bad. Pretty cool, actually. I hope I'd do the same (pack my bags and GO) if I were an infidel who was interested in the Lord of Life!
:smile:
-
The Church did not teach it, the catechisms did. Seems like one and the same to about everyone but that's not the way it works - as the catechisms' errors testifies.
But you're saying that the Church allowed such errors to continue to be printed and taught throughout the world for hundreds of years.
This must have been the teaching of the Church (that the Church allowed true exceptions because God has the final say in the end). Otherwise, this error would not have been taught to children all around the world for hundreds of years. We're not talking about just the JPII Catechism here.
-
Would an example of Baptism of Desire apply to a Muslim who wants to become Catholic but lives in a predominantly Muslim country with no access to a Catholic Church? I saw a similar situation on Coptnet with a person who wanted to convert but there were no churches or access to priests around.
No, that is not a BOD. A BOD only happens in the last moments of life while an unforeseen accident is happening which makes it impossible for the unbaptized Muslim to get to the sacrament, so as the guy is being killed, before he grasps for his last breath, even though he has no idea what it is, he desires baptism and is therefore welcomed into the Church and saved via his desire! It is quite foolproof according to those who believe in it - has a 100% success rate according to them.
In reality, if God can arrange for you to be in the Church, by the very same Providence He can arrange for anyone else who desires or is willing to enter it. There is absolutely no obstacle to the invincible God's achieving His designs, except the intractable wills of His children.
-
The Church did not teach it, the catechisms did. Seems like one and the same to about everyone but that's not the way it works - as the catechisms' errors testifies.
But you're saying that the Church allowed such errors to continue to be printed and taught throughout the world for hundreds of years.
This must have been the teaching of the Church (that the Church allowed true exceptions because God has the final say in the end). Otherwise, this error would not have been taught to children all around the world for hundreds of years. We're not talking about just the JPII Catechism here.
The truth is that I admit I do not understand how the errors got there or were permitted to remain there.
But there is no mistaking that they are errors. What we cannot do is look at error and say it is not error because a saint taught it or it is in catechisms. (Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. ) It contradicts the ex cathedra teachings which we know is without the possibility of error and which are bound under pain of sin to believe.
In the original edition of The Catechism, (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html) there is no mention of either BOD or BOB. In fact, one will not find the insertion of these terms therein until the late Nineteenth century. What is needed is a new edition of The Catechism, one which conforms as closely as possible to the original Latin version and is free of all Liberal and other misleading glosses.
Below is one ex cathedra pronouncement. What does this pope say about salvation outside the Church, and what is said about a BOB?
"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and teaches, that none of those who are not within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but Jews, heretics and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but are to go into the eternal fire 'prepared for the devil, and his angels' (Mt. 25: 41)., unless before the close of their lives they shall have entered into that Church; also that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is such that the Church's sacraments avail only those abiding in that Church, and that fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of piety which play their part in the Christian combat are in her alone productive of eternal rewards; moreover, that no one, no matter what alms he may have given, not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ's sake, can be saved unless he abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
Pope Eugene IV Cantate Domino, 1441
-
There must come a point when every genuine traditional Catholic must admit that the sedevacantist position is the correct position; that is, a public heretic is not Catholic, hence, that man cannot be a true Pope. I believe, however, that such a realization must be made as a consensus of a quorum of traditional Catholic bishops, and if they arrive at such a moral and theological conclusion, it would seem to me that they are bound to hold a new conclave to elect a true Vicar of Jesus Christ.
Conclavism simply doesn't work ...
1) because you'll never get anything near a universal consensus on the issue and there's no juridical authority there to actually do anything and
2) despite the fact that one may come to the conclusion by way of private opinion that the Holy See is vacant, the papa haereticus ipso facto depositus theory isn't tenable, except as an ontological principle describing how the deposition gets effected, since the Church cannot depose. But at some point you NEED the Church to DECLARE a pope deposed ... along the lines of the material / formal theory. Even among sedevacantists you have the material/formal folks who would not believe that a conclave can happen because the current occupant materially occupies the office. I tend to agree with that myself. Anything else just becomes a disaster, and we'd just be setting up yet another pope in a line of several who came to this same conclusion.
Only God can solve this mess. We just need to keep the faith.
-
The Church did not teach it, the catechisms did. Seems like one and the same to about everyone but that's not the way it works - as the catechisms' errors testifies.
But you're saying that the Church allowed such errors to continue to be printed and taught throughout the world for hundreds of years.
This must have been the teaching of the Church (that the Church allowed true exceptions because God has the final say in the end). Otherwise, this error would not have been taught to children all around the world for hundreds of years. We're not talking about just the JPII Catechism here.
The truth is that I admit I do not understand how the errors got there or were permitted to remain there.
But there is no mistaking that they are errors. What we cannot do is look at error and say it is not error because a saint taught it or it is in catechisms. (Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. ) It contradicts the ex cathedra teachings which we know is without the possibility of error and which are bound under pain of sin to believe.
In the original edition of The Catechism, (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html) there is no mention of either BOD or BOB. In fact, one will not find the insertion of these terms therein until the late Nineteenth century. What is needed is a new edition of The Catechism, one which conforms as closely as possible to the original Latin version and is free of all Liberal and other misleading glosses.
Below is one ex cathedra pronouncement. What does this pope say about salvation outside the Church, and what is said about a BOB?
"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and teaches, that none of those who are not within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but Jews, heretics and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but are to go into the eternal fire 'prepared for the devil, and his angels' (Mt. 25: 41)., unless before the close of their lives they shall have entered into that Church; also that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is such that the Church's sacraments avail only those abiding in that Church, and that fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of piety which play their part in the Christian combat are in her alone productive of eternal rewards; moreover, that no one, no matter what alms he may have given, not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ's sake, can be saved unless he abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
Pope Eugene IV Cantate Domino, 1441
The Church allowed what errors? Let's be precise, the faithfull were not taught anything but that John 3:5 is to be taken literally, exactly as it is written and it says, "Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). The faithful were not taught otherwise for almost 1900 years. Then they were taught in the Baltimore catechism that a catechumen may be saved if he died by accident. No big deal, it affects numerically speaking, no one. I've never known of, nor heard of anyone that knows a person who knew a case of a catechumen who died unbaptized , and could take advantage of this exception. Then in the 20th century they foisted upon the faithful the theory of salvation by implicit faith in Christ, which basically says that anyone can be saved, even those that have no explicit desire to be a catechumen, a Catholic, or be baptized , nor belief in the Incarnation (Christ) or the Trinity.
That is not "allowing such errors to continue to be printed and taught throughout the world for hundreds of years". It is only for like 100 years.
-
As I grow so bored and tired of modernist heretical writings, and am half-asleep, it's plausible that the junk in the first translation is somewhere within the second translation....
(And really, read as I might, I can't figure out WHAT the Curia is even trying to suggest Frank SAID in their "re-write"; I guess they hope if they write complete nonsense, people will recognize it as "Vatican-issued".)
.
I too read the translation I concur 100%. It is the first writing by Francis that I ever read, and the last. Normally when I read meaningless beating around the bush to offend no one political speak like this language I stop reading upon the first sign of it. I stuck to it on this one since it was only four pages. Pope Francis and all modernists are a punishment upon the world. However, God is merciful, therefore He allows the modernist to be so enamored of his new clothes (the newspeek), that he does not see that no one really understands a word he is saying.
Here is a perfect parody of the "all wise" Vatican II popes. ENJOY!
http://www.irwincorey.org/commit.html
-
For those that don't have the stomach to read this "superior wisdom" of Pope Francis. Here is a part of the translation which no one mentioned:
"At the end of your first article, you also ask me what to say to our Jєωιѕн brothers about the promise God made to them: Has this been forgotten? And this - believe me - is a question that radically involves us as Christians because, with the help of God, starting from the Second Vatican Council, we have discovered that the Jєωιѕн people are still, for us, the holy root from which Jesus originated. I too, in the friendship I have cultivated in all of these long years with our Jєωιѕн brothers, in Argentina, many times while praying have asked God, especially when I remember the terrible experience of the Shoah. What I can say, with the Apostle Paul, is that God has never stopped believing in the alliance made with Israel and that, through the terrible trials of these past centuries, the Jews have kept their faith in God. And for this, we will never be grateful enough to them, as the Church, but also as humanity at large. Persevering in their faith in God and in the alliance, they remind everyone, even us as Christians that we are always awaiting, the return of the Lord and that therefore we must remain open to Him and never take refuge in what we have already achieved".
-
...
As for the poster who is arguing against baptism of desire, I just don't get why some continue to believe it is not Church teaching. Catechisms have been teaching this for hundreds of years. This is not a novel teaching. Unless of course we are to believe that even the pre-Vatican II church allowed error into Her catechisms and allowed generations of Catholics to be taught heresy in Her catechisms, I'm not sure how anyone can refute it.
Here my response to all of you believers in the salvation of those who have no desire to be Catholic:
To anyone else who may want to look at the other side-- I thought this link was helpful-- it's a translation from Italian of the full letter. Let's not forget the secular media has their agenda to play in the headlines. Maybe the Pope is trying to get the atheists to read what he's writing--after all Italian Catholics aren't even replacing themselves with 2 kids a family and the article was published in Italy?
http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/pope-francis-letter-to-the-founder-of-la-repubblica-italian-newspaper?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zenit%2Fenglish+%28ZENIT+English%29
and what is this "other side"? I read the entire translation and it is even worse that the secular snippet. It is however what all Catholics have been taught for the past 120 years or so in the USA, so it does not surprise me that you don't see it as bad as I do. Now, Pope Francis's teaching has no basis in revelation, the Fathers of the Church, or any Saint or Doctor. It is opposed to the dogmatic Athanasian Creed of the Fathers. Do you know what that means? It is akin to denying the Apostles Creed! It is however no different than what the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI teach and defend, the implicit faith theory, therefore, you have the company of 99% of all Catholics in your belief, and I am the oddball. However:
“Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.” (St. Augustine)
So what about the unanimous teaching of all the Fathers that heretics are ipso facto excommunicated and have no authority in the Church? Why do you keep calling this clown "pope"? Do you realize how ridiculous you look when you actually believe this antichrist apostate is the Vicar of Christ?
You claim you follow all the Fathers and Saints against implicit faith, well what about the unanimous teaching of all the Fathers, the teaching of Popes and even Canon Law, you name it, that a heretic can't be a Pope and that even a real Pope ceases to be one ipso facto if he becomes a manifest heretic?
Selective beliefs indeed.
-
Pope(?) Jorge has taken the next step. For the longest time it was held almost unanimously that one had to believe explicitly in the Holy Trinity and in the central mysteries of the Incarnation to have the minimal material content to be able to formally have supernatural faith.
Then it became reduced to just believing in a "god" who rewards the good and punishes the wicked ... which of course can be known from natural reason alone.
Now Jorge has removed even that, declaring that there need be NO minimal material content, i.e. that God infuses supernatural faith and charity (and thus salvation) so that people can have formal faith without any material faith (which is philosophical impossibility). More and more the notion of faith has been transformed into just the formal aspect (i.e. the good conscience or seeking God or whatever you might call it). In other words, it's all SUBJECTIVE. Thus follows religious liberty and the entire new ecclesiology of Vatican II.
So Jorge does take things to the next level here, but it is nonetheless just a progression of the EENS-denial we've been talking about and should reinforce my assertion that EENS is THE theological issue of our day. This erosion has been going on steadily for the last couple hundred years or so.
I personally consider it heretical to say that one need not, at a minimum, explicitly believe in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation in order to formally possess supernatural faith.
Actually, he's saying nothing new. Isn't the salvation of atheists already in Lumen Gentium?
Jorge Bergoglio needs to be formally tried for heresy.
By who? By Mueller, who denies the Resurrection? Or by Kasper maybe? Or maybe Koch?
Wake up. He's nothing but a layman.
-
I have nothing against SV's, I can perfectly understand why you believe what you believe. The only problem I have is with those sedes that speak like you do here. You are not going to make any converts to your belief with your attitude. Learn from your mistakes.
-
So what about the unanimous teaching of all the Fathers that heretics are ipso facto excommunicated and have no authority in the Church? Why do you keep calling this clown "pope"? Do you realize how ridiculous you look when you actually believe this antichrist apostate is the Vicar of Christ?
You claim you follow all the Fathers and Saints against implicit faith, well what about the unanimous teaching of all the Fathers, the teaching of Popes and even Canon Law, you name it, that a heretic can't be a Pope and that even a real Pope ceases to be one ipso facto if he becomes a manifest heretic?
Selective beliefs indeed.
I have nothing against SV's, I can perfectly understand why you believe what you believe. The only problem I have is with those sedes that speak like you do here. You are not going to make any converts to your belief with your attitude. Learn from your mistakes.
Your own posts here against implicit faith were more "aggressive" than what i said, so what are you talking about?
I'm not seeking to convince anyone, I'm simply asking you a question and you didn't answer it.
-
bowler you mean the reason you are here is to convert. LOL!
When standing before God, better to point to the catechism of the Church than to point to the instructions of an excommunicated priest.
-
bowler you mean the reason you are here is to convert. LOL!
When standing before God, better to point to the catechism of the Church than to point to the instructions of an excommunicated priest.
"Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed; then Eve. And Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression".(1 Timothy 2:11-14)
If there were no women, the Novus Ordo would have died a fast death.
Women should stick to downthumbing the mens opinions they disagree with, if that.
-
bowler you mean the reason you are here is to convert. LOL!
When standing before God, better to point to the catechism of the Church than to point to the instructions of an excommunicated priest.
"Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed; then Eve. And Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression".(1 Timothy 2:11-14)
If there were no women, the Novus Ordo would have died a fast death.
I guess that rules out teaching nuns.
-
bowler you mean the reason you are here is to convert. LOL!
When standing before God, better to point to the catechism of the Church than to point to the instructions of an excommunicated priest.
"Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed; then Eve. And Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression".(1 Timothy 2:11-14)
If there were no women, the Novus Ordo would have died a fast death.
I guess that rules out teaching nuns.
Yes it does for men (little children are not men). Tell that to Sister Feelings who run all the Novus Ordo dioceses.
-
bowler you mean the reason you are here is to convert. LOL!
When standing before God, better to point to the catechism of the Church than to point to the instructions of an excommunicated priest.
"Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed; then Eve. And Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression".(1 Timothy 2:11-14)
If there were no women, the Novus Ordo would have died a fast death.
I guess that rules out teaching nuns.
Yes it does for men (little children are not men).
Oh yeah, you´re right.
Tell that to Sister Feelings who run all the Novus Ordo dioceses.
They will burn you at the stake for sure!
-
Bowler absolutely nailed it with his comment regarding the novus ordo dying a fast death if it weren't for the women.
-
In fact, one will not find the insertion of these terms therein until the late Nineteenth century.
That's actually not true:
This is from the Douay Catechism of 1649:
Q. Can a man be saved without baptism?
A. He cannot, unless he have it either actual or in desire, with contrition, or to be baptized in his blood as the holy Innocents were, which suffered for Christ.
-
The Church allowed what errors? Let's be precise, the faithfull were not taught anything but that John 3:5 is to be taken literally, exactly as it is written and it says, "Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). The faithful were not taught otherwise for almost 1900 years. Then they were taught in the Baltimore catechism that a catechumen may be saved if he died by accident. No big deal, it affects numerically speaking, no one. I've never known of, nor heard of anyone that knows a person who knew a case of a catechumen who died unbaptized , and could take advantage of this exception. Then in the 20th century they foisted upon the faithful the theory of salvation by implicit faith in Christ, which basically says that anyone can be saved, even those that have no explicit desire to be a catechumen, a Catholic, or be baptized , nor belief in the Incarnation (Christ) or the Trinity.
That is not "allowing such errors to continue to be printed and taught throughout the world for hundreds of years". It is only for like 100 years.
Again, not true. The Catechism in 1649 speaks of baptism of blood and desire. You are saying that for almost 400 years that catechism and those subsequent to it (which are most certainly used to teach the Faithful) was wrong.
You're also saying that the Catholic Church allowed those catechisms to remain in error....for the same number of years.
-
Bowler absolutely nailed it with his comment regarding the novus ordo dying a fast death if it weren't for the women.
To some extent I agree with him as well, but probably not for the same reasons as him.
-
Your own posts here against implicit faith were more "aggressive" than what i said, so what are you talking about?
I'm not seeking to convince anyone, I'm simply asking you a question and you didn't answer it.
I agree. He may have a point about certain SV's but your posts here did not come off with an attitude. I also would like to hear more about what you are asking him.
I read threads discussing both sides (SV and SSPX) and I honestly can't seem to come to a conclusion on who is right.
-
Your own posts here against implicit faith were more "aggressive" than what i said, so what are you talking about?
I'm not seeking to convince anyone, I'm simply asking you a question and you didn't answer it.
I agree. He may have a point about certain SV's but your posts here did not come off with an attitude. I also would like to hear more about what you are asking him.
I read threads discussing both sides (SV and SSPX) and I honestly can't seem to come to a conclusion on who is right.
What i asked him was clear: how can he claim to follow the unanimous teaching of the Fathers to reject implicit faith/bod, but at the same time not follow them when they all taught that manifest heretics lose all offices and jurisdiction, as St. Robert Bellarmine taught.
But you don't need the Fathers for this anyways, the Church plainly teaches this through Her laws.
-
In fact, one will not find the insertion of these terms therein until the late Nineteenth century.
That's actually not true:
This is from the Douay Catechism of 1649:
Q. Can a man be saved without baptism?
A. He cannot, unless he have it either actual or in desire, with contrition, or to be baptized in his blood as the holy Innocents were, which suffered for Christ.
I won't argue that point - for all I know there was such a thing written back then, but even at that, all that is showing is that error in a catechism goes back farther than the 19th century.
Why people think the catechism cannot contain error I do not know. It is a text book, it is written by men, it is not Scripture.
Here is another New Catechism (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=OBw1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=0_ADAAAAIBAJ&pg=4791,3698297&dq=boston+heresy+case+new+catechism&hl=en) - take a minute and read the article.
Regardless, we are supposed to know error when we see it, and we should know error is error no matter where it is found...............so will you rely on a text book with errors written by men who most likely added the error on purpose - or will you rely on Pope Eugene's infallible declaration?
Again, in the original edition of The Catechism, (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html) there is no mention of either BOD or BOB. Why is that? Someone who believes in the teachings of BOD thanks to catechisms needs to read *this original catechism* and tell us what Trent taught about the desire for Baptism.
And since no one answered last time, I will ask again: Below is one ex cathedra pronouncement which we are bound to believe under pain of sin. What does this pope say about salvation outside the Church, and what does he say about a BOB? Which will you choose to believe, the catechism or the Pope?
"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and teaches, that none of those who are not within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but Jews, heretics and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but are to go into the eternal fire 'prepared for the devil, and his angels' (Mt. 25: 41)., unless before the close of their lives they shall have entered into that Church; also that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is such that the Church's sacraments avail only those abiding in that Church, and that fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of piety which play their part in the Christian combat are in her alone productive of eternal rewards; moreover, that no one, no matter what alms he may have given, not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ's sake, can be saved unless he abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
Pope Eugene IV Cantate Domino, 1441
-
What i asked him was clear: how can he claim to follow the unanimous teaching of the Fathers to reject implicit faith/bod, but at the same time not follow them when they all taught that manifest heretics lose all offices and jurisdiction, as St. Robert Bellarmine taught.
But you don't need the Fathers for this anyways, the Church plainly teaches this through Her laws.
Do you actually believe that the Church teaches that it is everyone's right, duty and /or responsibility to kick the man in the chair out of office because he is a heretic? Because he is no longer Catholic?
No SV ever answered my question from last week or so.........
If, what you say is of the faith: "...manifest heretics lose all offices and jurisdiction..." then why all the fuss about ONLY the popes?
What about all priests, Cardinals and Bishops for the last 2000 years - one in particular I pointed out was Archbishop of Boston Cushing in the 40s, he was a public heretic. Why didn't the pope (or the people according to SV reasoning) remove him from office or excommunicate him? Oops, he did, he did lose his office alright - he was made a Cardinal. - - - hhmmmm, maybe there is a flaw in your reasoning?
-
one in particular I pointed out was Archbishop of Boston Cushing in the 40s, he was a public heretic.
Most people don't think Cushing was a heretic. Remember, he was the good guy. Feeney was the heretic. :popcorn:
-
Again, in the original edition of The Catechism, (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html) there is no mention of either BOD or BOB. Why is that? Someone who believes in the teachings of BOD thanks to catechisms needs to read *this original catechism* and tell us what Trent taught about the desire for Baptism.
And since no one answered last time, I will ask again: Below is one ex cathedra pronouncement which we are bound to believe under pain of sin. What does this pope say about salvation outside the Church, and what does he say about a BOB? Which will you choose to believe, the catechism or the Pope?
"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and teaches, that none of those who are not within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but Jews, heretics and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but are to go into the eternal fire 'prepared for the devil, and his angels' (Mt. 25: 41)., unless before the close of their lives they shall have entered into that Church; also that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is such that the Church's sacraments avail only those abiding in that Church, and that fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of piety which play their part in the Christian combat are in her alone productive of eternal rewards; moreover, that no one, no matter what alms he may have given, not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ's sake, can be saved unless he abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
Pope Eugene IV Cantate Domino, 1441
According to the Catechism of Council of Trent:
On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.
Maybe not exactly the same thing, but there is definitely exceptions made wrt Baptism by water.
So, I guess that must mean that the original catechism also has error in it?
I do not have an answer for you regarding the papal quote you have provided. I certainly have not done enough research on the topic. Having said that, I've got to think that there are other quotes by popes that would offer some support for rare exceptions allowed by God since isn't it Church teaching that God is not bound by His Sacraments (which I think is ultimately the issue here)?
-
According to the Catechism of Council of Trent:
On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.
Maybe not exactly the same thing, but there is definitely exceptions made wrt Baptism by water.
So, I guess that must mean that the original catechism also has error in it?
No, there is no error.
The error is yours here because you are *not* reading what is written.
The catechism snip makes no mention of death *or* salvation.
The catechism does not reward salvation via a BOD.
The catechism does not even promise them grace and righteousness.
The "unforeseen accident" can easily be that the priest who was supposed to administer the sacrament that day was hit by a car.
When reading what is written, the catechism teaches that their contrition, and desire will *avail* them to *grace and righteousness* - IOW, it will put them "in the way" of grace - or to put it another way, before they can be baptized, the person *must* be in the way of grace via the proper intention - i.e. they must "desire" to be baptized prior to actually receiving the sacrament.
What you did, was take what the catechism teaches regarding the Desire for Baptism, and changed it into teaching a Baptism of Desire.
I do not have an answer for you regarding the papal quote you have provided. I certainly have not done enough research on the topic. Having said that, I've got to think that there are other quotes by popes that would offer some support for rare exceptions allowed by God since isn't it Church teaching that God is not bound by His Sacraments (which I think is ultimately the issue here)?
After the pope speaks ex cathedra, it does not nor would not matter what any other pope, doctor, theologian, saint or doctor of the Church said from the beginning of the Church till the end of time if they in any way deviate from the ex cathedra declaration.
Once the pope speaks ex cathedra, that teaching will remain without the possibility of error forever. Which is why we must use such declarations as the start point from which we scrutinize all other teachings on the subject - if the teachings disagree with that which is infallible, then no matter who or where the teaching comes from, the teaching is condemned as error till the end of time.
Such is the case with BOB and BOD and any hope of salvation for those outside the Church.
-
According to the Catechism of Council of Trent:
On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.
Maybe not exactly the same thing, but there is definitely exceptions made wrt Baptism by water.
So, I guess that must mean that the original catechism also has error in it?
No, there is no error.
The error is yours here because you are *not* reading what is written.
The catechism snip makes no mention of death *or* salvation.
The catechism does not reward salvation via a BOD.
The catechism does not even promise them grace and righteousness.
The "unforeseen accident" can easily be that the priest who was supposed to administer the sacrament that day was hit by a car.
When reading what is written, the catechism teaches that their contrition, and desire will *avail* them to *grace and righteousness* - IOW, it will put them "in the way" of grace - or to put it another way, before they can be baptized, the person *must* be in the way of grace via the proper intention - i.e. they must "desire" to be baptized prior to actually receiving the sacrament.
What you did, was take what the catechism teaches regarding the Desire for Baptism, and changed it into teaching a Baptism of Desire.
I do not have an answer for you regarding the papal quote you have provided. I certainly have not done enough research on the topic. Having said that, I've got to think that there are other quotes by popes that would offer some support for rare exceptions allowed by God since isn't it Church teaching that God is not bound by His Sacraments (which I think is ultimately the issue here)?
After the pope speaks ex cathedra, it does not nor would not matter what any other pope, doctor, theologian, saint or doctor of the Church said from the beginning of the Church till the end of time if they in any way deviate from the ex cathedra declaration.
Once the pope speaks ex cathedra, that teaching will remain without the possibility of error forever. Which is why we must use such declarations as the start point from which we scrutinize all other teachings on the subject - if the teachings disagree with that which is infallible, then no matter who or where the teaching comes from, the teaching is condemned as error till the end of time.
Such is the case with BOB and BOD and any hope of salvation for those outside the Church.
What if there was an ex cathedra statement prior to the one you quoted?
-
What if there was an ex cathedra statement prior to the one you quoted?
There are three ex-cathedra statements before the one Stubborn quoted, and they say the same thing, however, not as detailed:
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, …
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“… this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, … every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:
“… one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An ex-cathedra decree can never change what has always been.
ST. VINCENT OF LERINS [ A. D. 434 ]
[Author - Vincent shows himself also as a man of such remarkable perception that there is a certain timelessness to his writing. What he has to say of preserving the faith and of keeping to the rule of faith fits any period and all times, and might have been written yesterday.
Vincent develops the notion that our faith is based on the authority of divine Law, which must be understood and interpreted in the light of the Tradition of the Church. And this Tradition, if it need be discovered, is quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus crediturn est: what has been believed in the Church everywhere, always, and by all. Vincent’s doctrinal principle does not exclude progress and development; but it does exclude change. For Vincent, progress is a developmental growth of doctrine in its own sphere; change, however, implies a transformation into something different.
ST. VINCENT OF LERINS says:
With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how I might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way, distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity. I received almost always the same answer from all of them, that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and sound in a sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority of the divine law; and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church. [Here, perhaps, someone may ask: “If the canon of the Scriptures be perfect, and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?” Because, quite plainly, Sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning. The same passage is interpreted in one way by some, in another by others, so that it can almost appear as if there are as many opinions as there are men. Novatian explains a passage in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another; Anus, Eunomius, Macedonius in another; Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian in another; Jovinian, Pelagius, Caelestius in another; and afterwards in still another, Nestorius. And thus, because of so many distortions of such various errors, it is highly necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed in accord with the norm of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning. In the Catholic Church herself every care must be taken that we may hold fast to that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. For this is then truly and properly Catholic. That is what the force and meaning of the name itself declares, a name that embraces all almost universally. This general rule will be correctly applied if we pursue universality, antiquity, and agreement. And we follow universality in this way, if we confess this one faith to be true, which is confessed by the whole Church throughout the whole world; antiquity, however, if we in no way depart from those interpretations which, it is clear our holy predecessors and fathers solemnized; and likewise agreement, if, in this very antiquity, we adopt the definitions and theses of all or certainly of almost all priests and teachers.
To announce, therefore, to Catholic Christians something other than that which they have received has never been permitted, is nowhere permitted, and never will be permitted. And to anathematize those who announce anything other than that which has been received once and for all has never been unnecessary, is nowhere unnecessary and never will be unnecessary.
He is a true and genuine Catholic who loves the truth of God, the Church, and the Body of Christ; who puts nothing else before divine religion and the Catholic Faith, neither the authority nor the love nor the genius nor the eloquence nor the philosophy of any man whatsoever, but, despising all that and being fixed, stable, and persevering in his faith, is determined in himself to hold and believe that only which he knows the Catholic Church has held universally and from ancient times.
"Guard" he says, "what has been committed." What does it mean, "what has been committed”? It is what has been faithfully entrusted to you, not what has been discovered by you; what you have received, not what you have thought up; a matter not of ingenuity, but of doctrine; not of private acquisition, but of public Tradition; a matter brought to you, not put forth by you, in which you must be not the author but the guardian, not the founder but the sharer, not the leader, but the follower. "Guard," he says, "what has been committed. "Keep the talent of the Catholic Faith inviolate and unimpaired. What has been faithfully entrusted, let it remain in your possession, let it be handed on by you. You have received gold, so give gold. For my part I do not want you to substitute one thing for mother; I do not want you impudently to put lead in place of gold, or, fraudulently brass. I do not want the appearance of gold, but the real thing. O Timothy, O priest. O interpreter, O teacher, if a divine gift has made you suitable in genius, in experience, in doctrine to be the Beseleel of the spiritual tabernacle, cut out the precious gems of divine dogma, shape them faithfully, ornament them wisely, add splendor, grace and beauty to them! By your expounding it, may that now be understood more clearly which formerly was believed even in its obscurity. May posterity, by means of you, rejoice in understanding what in times past was venerated without understanding, Nevertheless, teach the same that you have learned, so that if you say something anew, it is not something new that you say.
But perhaps someone is saying: "Will there, then, be no progress of religion in the Church of Christ?" Certainly there is, and the greatest. For who is there so envious toward men and so exceedingly hateful toward God, that he would try to prohibit progress? But it is truly progress and not a change of faith. What is meant by progress is that something is brought to an advancement within itself, by change, something is transformed from one thing into another. It is necessary, therefore, that understanding, knowledge, and wisdom grow and advance strongly and mightily as much in individuals as in the group, as much in one man as in the whole Church, and this gradually according to age and the times; and this must take place precisely within its own kind, that is, in the same teaching, in the same meaning, and in the same opinion. The progress of religion in souls is like the growth of bodies, which, in the course of years, evolve and develop, but still remain what they were. . . . For example: Our fathers of old sowed the seeds of the wheat of faith in this field which is the Church. Certainly it would be unjust and incongruous if we, their descendents, were to gather, instead of the genuine truth of wheat, the noxious error of weeds. On the contrary, it is right and logically proper that there be no discrepancy between what is first and what is last and that we reap, in the increment of wheat from the wheat of instruction, the fruit also of dogma. And thus, although in the course of time something evolved from those first seeds and has now expanded under careful cultivation, nothing of the characteristics of the seeds is changed. Granted that appearance, beauty, and distinction has been added, still, the same nature of each kind remains. May it never happen that the rose garden of the Catholic sense be turned into thistles and thorns. May it never happen, I say, that darnel and monk's hood suddenly spring up in the spiritual paradise of shoots of cinnamon and balsam.
We must most studiously investigate and follow this ancient agreement of the holy fathers, not in all the lesser questions of the divine Law, but certainly and especially in the rule of faith. . . . But only those opinions of the fathers are to he brought forward which were expressed by those who lived, taught, and persevered wisely and constantly in the holy Catholic faith and communion, and who merited either to die faithfully in Christ or to be killed gloriously for Christ. Those men, moreover, are to be believed, in accord with the rule that only that is to be held as undoubted, certain, and valid, which either all or most of them have confirmed by receiving, holding, and handing on in one and the same sense, manifestly, frequently, and persistently, as if by a council of teachers in mutual agreement. But whatever was thought outside of or even against the opinion of all, although it be by a holy and learned man, or although by a confessor and martyr, must be removed from the authority of the common and public and general opinion, as being among his personal and peculiar and private views. In this way we shall not, as is the sacrilegious custom of heretics and schismatics, reject the ancient truth of universal dogma, to pursue, with great danger to our eternal salvation, the novel error of one man.<p>
-
What i asked him was clear: how can he claim to follow the unanimous teaching of the Fathers to reject implicit faith/bod, but at the same time not follow them when they all taught that manifest heretics lose all offices and jurisdiction, as St. Robert Bellarmine taught.
But you don't need the Fathers for this anyways, the Church plainly teaches this through Her laws.
Do you actually believe that the Church teaches that it is everyone's right, duty and /or responsibility to kick the man in the chair out of office because he is a heretic? Because he is no longer Catholic?
No SV ever answered my question from last week or so.........
I don't know where you got this idea.
Is this what the Church says? No. The Church says that IF there is a valid Pope, he loses his office ipso facto, without any declaration, and that a public heretic cannot be Pope, because public heresy/apostasy/schism are incompatible with being inside the Church, holding any office and much less having any authority.
The sins of heresy/apostasy/schism automatically sever you from the Church and when they are public you lose any office you held.
"It is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church" -Pope Leo XIII satis cognitum.
Why do you come up with that strawman, namely, that "Do you actually believe that the Church teaches that it is everyone's right, duty and /or responsibility to kick the man in the chair out of office because he is a heretic? Because he is no longer Catholic?" when the teaching of the Church plainly says this all happens ipso facto, by the very fact?
If, what you say is of the faith: "...manifest heretics lose all offices and jurisdiction..." then why all the fuss about ONLY the popes?
What about all priests, Cardinals and Bishops for the last 2000 years - one in particular I pointed out was Archbishop of Boston Cushing in the 40s, he was a public heretic. Why didn't the pope (or the people according to SV reasoning) remove him from office or excommunicate him? Oops, he did, he did lose his office alright - he was made a Cardinal. - - - hhmmmm, maybe there is a flaw in your reasoning?
He may well have been a true heretic, but so far all i have seen is hearsay, nothing direct about him. I have never seen any quote or writing or anything showing he publicly taught/said/did heresy, only hearsay.
I'm not defending him in any way, but why do you say he was a public heretic? Can you show me evidence of his public heresy?
And if he indeed was a public heretic, then he DID lose his office, regardless of how many people realized it and regardless of whether they publicly excommunicated him or not.
Did not Nestorius fell outside the Church automatically and lost all authority as soon as he preached his heresy publicly? Did not Arius? Did not all the other heresiarchs? So what's the deal with these modern clowns, who are worse than all the heresiarchs combined?
And you of all people should know how the situation was in those times, so why are you surprised he was made a Cardinal? Wasn't Newman made one too? And wasn't Bea Pius XII's confessor? And wasn't Montini in a high position, whatever he was?
-
What if there was an ex cathedra statement prior to the one you quoted?
Bowler gave an excellent reply and as he posted, the other ex cathedra declarations often referenced were made prior to the one I quoted.
If you were thinking that prior ex cathedra teachings can something contrary, we can say with absolute certainty that such a thing can never happen because -
And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. Mark 3:24
-
What i asked him was clear: how can he claim to follow the unanimous teaching of the Fathers to reject implicit faith/bod, but at the same time not follow them when they all taught that manifest heretics lose all offices and jurisdiction, as St. Robert Bellarmine taught.
But you don't need the Fathers for this anyways, the Church plainly teaches this through Her laws.
Do you actually believe that the Church teaches that it is everyone's right, duty and /or responsibility to kick the man in the chair out of office because he is a heretic? Because he is no longer Catholic?
No SV ever answered my question from last week or so.........
I don't know where you got this idea.
Is this what the Church says? No. The Church says that IF there is a valid Pope, he loses his office ipso facto, without any declaration, and that a public heretic cannot be Pope, because public heresy/apostasy/schism are incompatible with being inside the Church, holding any office and much less having any authority.
The sins of heresy/apostasy/schism automatically sever you from the Church and when they are public you lose any office you held.
"It is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church" -Pope Leo XIII satis cognitum.
Why do you come up with that strawman, namely, that "Do you actually believe that the Church teaches that it is everyone's right, duty and /or responsibility to kick the man in the chair out of office because he is a heretic? Because he is no longer Catholic?" when the teaching of the Church plainly says this all happens ipso facto, by the very fact?
Once again, you not reading what is written. Pope Leo is not speaking about "because the pope is a heretic, it's absurd to think he is pope".
First off, the paragraph is speaking about Bishops Separated from Peter and His Successors, Lose All Jurisdiction
He is speaking about those who choose to be in schism by separating themselves from the pope - it is they who put themselves outside the Church by their schism. Then he rightfully says - (1) men forget - they cannot judge the pope, (2) it's absurd to imagine that those who judged the pope and have placed themselves in schism, think they can share in his authority, (3) and as such think themselves have the authority to command the Church.
Again, read what is written, not what you want it to say:
......"Heresies and schisms have no other origin than that obedience is refused to the priest of God, and that men lose sight of the fact that there is one judge in the place of Christ in this world". No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.
So once again, I'm sorry but you're the one with the straw man. Again, you must carefully, read what is written.
And if he indeed was a public heretic, then he DID lose his office, regardless of how many people realized it and regardless of whether they publicly excommunicated him or not.
If what you say actually was a teaching of the Church, then we can easily speculate that all those modernist priests, bishops and cardinals whom Pope St. Pius X warned us about - who were already *prior* to his time "within" the Church - were all excommunicated and therefore, according to SVism, not Catholic, therefore, again according to SVism, outside the Church due to their heresies, and therefore lost their offices and authorities.
As such, we can also speculate that a good number of Cardinals, and also bishops who were promoted to Cardinal since the mid 1800s were really not even Catholic therefore the votes they cast in the elections of Popes from the time of say, Leo XIII till today were null and did not count - if what you say was the teaching of the Church that is.
We can further speculate that many of the excommunicated Cardinal's votes were the deciding votes in which the pope elect depended. Since the modernist cardinals were not cardinals, the votes were not votes, Leo XIII was not pope and none of the popes after him are popes either - if what you say actually was the teaching of the Church that is.
-
What if there was an ex cathedra statement prior to the one you quoted?
Bowler gave an excellent reply and as he posted, the other ex cathedra declarations often referenced were made prior to the one I quoted.
If you were thinking that prior ex cathedra teachings can something contrary, we can say with absolute certainty that such a thing can never happen because -
And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. Mark 3:24
I was thinking along those lines. If many of us can think that the post Vatican II popes have taught contradictions, then I'm not so sure that my thinking is so out of line. Isn't this exactly what we're dealing with right now? Contradictions in teachings?
Like I said before, I have not done much research on this, but what if there was a teaching by a pope that would allow for BOD and BOB? You and bowler have certainly provided certain statements that support your view, but what if there were similar statements that support the opposing view?
We now have trads not only saying that post Vatican II popes were heretics, but that pre-Vatican II popes were heretics (as in Pope Pius IX and his teachings on invincible ignorance). Here we have yet another contradiction and it is pre-Vatican II. Why couldn't there be yet another contradiction even earlier? Maybe the original teaching is of BOB and BOD and the support you and bowler have provided are the contradictory ones?
-
We now have trads not only saying that post Vatican II popes were heretics, but that pre-Vatican II popes were heretics (as in Pope Pius IX and his teachings on invincible ignorance). Here we have yet another contradiction and it is pre-Vatican II. Why couldn't there be yet another contradiction even earlier? Maybe the original teaching is of BOB and BOD and the support you and bowler have provided are the contradictory ones?
I didn't see anyone saying that Pius IX was a heretic, and I and others said many times that that whole thread was a strawman, and idiotic.
1) Pius IX's comment is being mis-interpreted and USED by the liberals to promote salvation for anyone. The person who started the thread is one of those liberals (yes there are trad and SV liberals on certain points).
2) The thread is a strawman because he misinterprets the writing, and thus sets up those who oppose his interpretation with only two options accept his interpretation or call Pius IX a heretic.
Note: Anyhow, the writing by Pius IX can contain errors, it is not infallible. Therefore, it can't be considered anything more than an opinion of an authority. Many saints have taught errors, and I don't see anyone calling them heretics and dismissing everything they ever said.
-
We now have trads not only saying that post Vatican II popes were heretics, but that pre-Vatican II popes were heretics (as in Pope Pius IX and his teachings on invincible ignorance). Here we have yet another contradiction and it is pre-Vatican II. Why couldn't there be yet another contradiction even earlier? Maybe the original teaching is of BOB and BOD and the support you and bowler have provided are the contradictory ones?
I didn't see anyone saying that Pius IX was a heretic, and that that whole thread was a strawman, and idiotic.
1) Pius IX's comment is being mis-interpreted and USED by the liberals to promote salvation for anyone. The person who started the thread is one of those liberals.
2) The thread is a strawman because he misinterprets the writing, and thus sets up those who oppose his interpretation with only two options accept his interpretation or call Pius IX a heretic.
3) the writing by Pius IX can contain errors, it is not infallible. Therefore, it can't be considered anything more than an opinion of an authority. Many saints have taught errors.
But Pius IX also said this (ex-cathedra):
This true catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold, is what I shall steadfastly maintain and confess, by the help of God, in all its completeness and purity until my dying breath, and I shall do my best to ensure [2] that all others do the same. This is what I, the same Pius, promise, vow and swear. So help me God and these holy gospels of God.
So is he contradicting himself or is it possible that he knows (better than random internet posters ... and the Brothers Dimond) that Church teaching has also provided for rare, extraordinary exceptions through God;s mercy? Again, that God is NOT bound by His Sacraments.
-
What if there was an ex cathedra statement prior to the one you quoted?
Bowler gave an excellent reply and as he posted, the other ex cathedra declarations often referenced were made prior to the one I quoted.
If you were thinking that prior ex cathedra teachings can something contrary, we can say with absolute certainty that such a thing can never happen because -
And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. Mark 3:24
I was thinking along those lines. If many of us can think that the post Vatican II popes have taught contradictions, then I'm not so sure that my thinking is so out of line. Isn't this exactly what we're dealing with right now? Contradictions in teachings?
Yes, this is what we are dealing with - but the conciliar popes have not even attempted to teach ex cathedra error and contradictions. Many people think that popes are incapable of error, but that thinking is also error.
The pope is a man, as a man, he is perfectly capable of committing sin and teaching error - it would be impossible however were he to try to teach error ex cathedra.
Again, we are expected to know error when we see it no matter where we see it - whether it is written in a book or taught by a saint or a pope or even if St. Michael the archangel himself tried to teach us error........But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. Gal 1:8
Like I said before, I have not done much research on this, but what if there was a teaching by a pope that would allow for BOD and BOB? You and bowler have certainly provided certain statements that support your view, but what if there were similar statements that support the opposing view?
We now have trads not only saying that post Vatican II popes were heretics, but that pre-Vatican II popes were heretics (as in Pope Pius IX and his teachings on invincible ignorance). Here we have yet another contradiction and it is pre-Vatican II. Why couldn't there be yet another contradiction even earlier? Maybe the original teaching is of BOB and BOD and the support you and bowler have provided are the contradictory ones?
There cannot be any ex cathedra teaching that disagrees with that which has already been guaranteed to be free from the possibility of error forever. That such a thing as a contradictory infallible statement could occur is an absolute impossibility. Which is how we know the Novus Ordo, the catechisms, the conciliar popes, BOD and etc. are full of error, because they all preach "a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you...."
When a pope speaks ex cathedra, his words are safeguarded from the *possibility* of error forever. Because the eternal God Himself in the person of the Holy Ghost is guarding the words, we know that from all eternity and for all eternity those words will always remain true, their meaning is exact and can never change.
Which is why, if a pope ever does decide to define ex cathedra baptism again, he can only repeat with perhaps different or stronger words, that which has already been defined, but he cannot say there are three baptisms when past ex cathedra teachings teach that here is only one. He cannot teach that there are three baptisms when Scripture clearly teaches there is only one.
If he ever does such a thing as proclaim three baptisms ex cathedra , then we will know that no matter what, it is error, not ex cathedra teaching and not a change in teaching - or that the new teaching voids the old.
-
Note: Anyhow, the writing by Pius IX can contain errors, it is not infallible. Therefore, it can't be considered anything more than an opinion of an authority. Many saints have taught errors, and I don't see anyone calling them heretics and dismissing everything they ever said.
Well, not the kind of errors you are implying. This is wrong and the opinion of one who is not an authority. I blame Matthew for allowing blatant errors such as this to be constantly promoted on this forum. Like I mentioned before, he must harbor some sympathy for this error or see the banning of such discussion would "hurt" the forum. Either way, it's not good.
-
There is a difference between bod, rather rare, IMO, and a fully formed, but malformed conscience, the norm nowadays. God may give grace to the former, His business, not ours to be figuring out, and the latter, clear cause for condemnation.
Exactly. And what the Pope is talking about here is NOT the same thing as BOD.
-
Once again, you not reading what is written. Pope Leo is not speaking about "because the pope is a heretic, it's absurd to think he is pope".
First off, the paragraph is speaking about Bishops Separated from Peter and His Successors, Lose All Jurisdiction
He is speaking about those who choose to be in schism by separating themselves from the pope - it is they who put themselves outside the Church by their schism. Then he rightfully says - (1) men forget - they cannot judge the pope, (2) it's absurd to imagine that those who judged the pope and have placed themselves in schism, think they can share in his authority, (3) and as such think themselves have the authority to command the Church.
Again, read what is written, not what you want it to say:
......"Heresies and schisms have no other origin than that obedience is refused to the priest of God, and that men lose sight of the fact that there is one judge in the place of Christ in this world". No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.
So once again, I'm sorry but you're the one with the straw man. Again, you must carefully, read what is written.
I know he was speaking about Bishops obviously, but the principle is the same: those who are outside cannot command within, even a would-be pope.
And yes what you are still pulling up a strawman, here it is again:
Why do you come up with that strawman, namely, that "Do you actually believe that the Church teaches that it is everyone's right, duty and /or responsibility to kick the man in the chair out of office because he is a heretic? Because he is no longer Catholic?" when the teaching of the Church plainly says this all happens ipso facto, by the very fact?
And if he indeed was a public heretic, then he DID lose his office, regardless of how many people realized it and regardless of whether they publicly excommunicated him or not.
If what you say actually was a teaching of the Church, then we can easily speculate that all those modernist priests, bishops and cardinals whom Pope St. Pius X warned us about - who were already *prior* to his time "within" the Church - were all excommunicated and therefore, according to SVism, not Catholic, therefore, again according to SVism, outside the Church due to their heresies, and therefore lost their offices and authorities.
As such, we can also speculate that a good number of Cardinals, and also bishops who were promoted to Cardinal since the mid 1800s were really not even Catholic therefore the votes they cast in the elections of Popes from the time of say, Leo XIII till today were null and did not count - if what you say was the teaching of the Church that is.
We can further speculate that many of the excommunicated Cardinal's votes were the deciding votes in which the pope elect depended. Since the modernist cardinals were not cardinals, the votes were not votes, Leo XIII was not pope and none of the popes after him are popes either - if what you say actually was the teaching of the Church that is.
No, you're completely wrong.
You are not making the distinction of PUBLIC and SECRET heretics.
SECRET heretics/modernists are cut off from the Church internally and of course there were hordes of these already being outside the Church, but yet SECRET heretics/modernists are still considered as members and still retain their offices/authority for the sake of others because, once again, their sins are SECRET and there is no way of knowing it. They don't affect the life of the Church or the faithful because no one knows about it.
PUBLIC heretics and modernists, on the other hand, are automatically and ipso facto excommunicated and lose all authority and offices, and you cannot be in communion with them.
So you're just wrong and what you said is irrelevant and false.
The Church goes by the external forum.
I don't know why you refuse to see the plain truth and why you don't make any distinctions.
That's why i asked you to show me evidence of Cushing's PUBLIC heresy, but you didn't did you?
-
I know he was speaking about Bishops obviously, but the principle is the same: those who are outside cannot command within, even a would-be pope.
The principle is only the same if you read what you want it to say instead of reading what is written.
No, you're completely wrong.
You are not making the distinction of PUBLIC and SECRET heretics.
SECRET heretics/modernists are cut off from the Church internally and of course there were hordes of these already being outside the Church, but yet SECRET heretics/modernists are still considered as members and still retain their offices/authority for the sake of others because, once again, their sins are SECRET and there is no way of knowing it. They don't affect the life of the Church or the faithful because no one knows about it.
PUBLIC heretics and modernists, on the other hand, are automatically and ipso facto excommunicated and lose all authority and offices, and you cannot be in communion with them.
So you're just wrong and what you said is irrelevant and false.
The Church goes by the external forum.
I don't know why you refuse to see the plain truth and why you don't make any distinctions.
You just contradicted what you posted earlier. Either way, you are on the wrong track altogether.
Modernists were already within the Church before pope st. Pius X was elected - according to you, those modernist cardinals ipso facto lost their offices, according to you, those cardinals who were modernists were not cardinals at all, as such, their votes were null..........so when they elected pope Leo XIII and Pius X, and all the rest, the popes were not popes because the elections were won by votes that did not exist.............according to you.
That's why i asked you to show me evidence of Cushing's PUBLIC heresy, but you didn't did you?
You can look up his heretical activities as easy as I can, use google.
-
I know he was speaking about Bishops obviously, but the principle is the same: those who are outside cannot command within, even a would-be pope.
The principle is only the same if you read what you want it to say instead of reading what is written.
Can a public heretic have authority in the Church?
No, you're completely wrong.
You are not making the distinction of PUBLIC and SECRET heretics.
SECRET heretics/modernists are cut off from the Church internally and of course there were hordes of these already being outside the Church, but yet SECRET heretics/modernists are still considered as members and still retain their offices/authority for the sake of others because, once again, their sins are SECRET and there is no way of knowing it. They don't affect the life of the Church or the faithful because no one knows about it.
PUBLIC heretics and modernists, on the other hand, are automatically and ipso facto excommunicated and lose all authority and offices, and you cannot be in communion with them.
So you're just wrong and what you said is irrelevant and false.
The Church goes by the external forum.
I don't know why you refuse to see the plain truth and why you don't make any distinctions.
You just contradicted what you posted earlier. Either way, you are on the wrong track altogether.
Modernists were already within the Church before pope st. Pius X was elected - according to you, those modernist cardinals ipso facto lost their offices, according to you, those cardinals who were modernists were not cardinals at all, as such, their votes were null..........so when they elected pope Leo XIII and Pius X, and all the rest, the popes were not popes because the elections were won by votes that did not exist.............according to you.
No you're just trolling now and you can't even have an honest conversation.
Make the distinction of PUBLIC AND SECRET HERESY.
-
Vinikias, I meant to thumbs up your post but accidentally thumbed it down.
-
it would be impossible however were he to try to teach error ex cathedra.
But wasn't Vatican II error and even heresy ex-cathedra?
-
Can a public heretic have authority in the Church?
Yes. Until his superior takes away his authority and removes him from his office, he remains in his office with his full authority.
No you're just trolling now and you can't even have an honest conversation.
Make the distinction of PUBLIC AND SECRET HERESY.
Oh, because you do not like the conclusion of your theory you decide I'm trolling now. As I told you already, read what is written as it is written, if you do that, you will be unable to come up with your conclusion that heretics, if they be pope, lose their office for the oh so simple reason that he has no superior to take away his authority and remove him, as such, he retains his authority and office no matter how much you don't like it.
-
it would be impossible however were he to try to teach error ex cathedra.
But wasn't Vatican II error and even heresy ex-cathedra?
Nope, that would be impossible.
-
Vinikias, I meant to thumbs up your post but accidentally thumbed it down.
I thought you had a better understanding than that Mith.
-
Can a public heretic have authority in the Church?
Yes. Until his superior takes away his authority and removes him from his office, he remains in his office with his full authority.
You're just a flat out liar.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Papal Elections,” 1914, Vol. 11, p. 456: "Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female [as Pope] would be null and void."
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. De great. Christ. Cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope."
St. Francis De Sales (17th century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic Controversy, pp. 305-306: "Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church..."
St. Antoninus (1459): "In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church." (Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)
I could quote you more things, but being the liar that you are, you will just dismiss it al the same won't you?
No you're just trolling now and you can't even have an honest conversation.
Make the distinction of PUBLIC AND SECRET HERESY.
Oh, because you do not like the conclusion of your theory you decide I'm trolling now. As I told you already, read what is written as it is written, if you do that, you will be unable to come up with your conclusion that heretics, if they be pope, lose their office for the oh so simple reason that he has no superior to take away his authority and remove him, as such, he retains his authority and office no matter how much you don't like it.
You're just an outrageous LIAR on the road to Hell.
Is your name Stanley, by any chance? You know, like that TROLL from the 90's movie A Troll in Central Park?
-
You're just an outrageous LIAR on the road to Hell.
Don't say he is on the road to hell because he is not a sedevacantist.
-
Can a public heretic have authority in the Church?
Yes. Until his superior takes away his authority and removes him from his office, he remains in his office with his full authority.
You're just a flat out liar.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Papal Elections,” 1914, Vol. 11, p. 456: "Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female [as Pope] would be null and void."
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. De great. Christ. Cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope."
St. Francis De Sales (17th century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic Controversy, pp. 305-306: "Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church..."
St. Antoninus (1459): "In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church." (Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)
I could quote you more things, but being the liar that you are, you will just dismiss it al the same won't you?
No you're just trolling now and you can't even have an honest conversation.
Make the distinction of PUBLIC AND SECRET HERESY.
Oh, because you do not like the conclusion of your theory you decide I'm trolling now. As I told you already, read what is written as it is written, if you do that, you will be unable to come up with your conclusion that heretics, if they be pope, lose their office for the oh so simple reason that he has no superior to take away his authority and remove him, as such, he retains his authority and office no matter how much you don't like it.
You're just an outrageous LIAR on the road to Hell.
Is your name Stanley, by any chance? You know, like that TROLL from the 90's movie A Troll in Central Park?
LOL You've been here for a whole 25 posts and I'm a troll and a liar and on my way to hell?
You simply refuse to get the clue after repeatedly telling you what it is that you are to do - it sure seems to aggravate you a lot, but that happens whenever anyone tries to twist the truth into saying something it does not say then making a dogma out of it.
:pop:
-
You're just an outrageous LIAR on the road to Hell.
Don't say he is on the road to hell because he is not a sedevacantist.
Thanks Matto but no worries, he can say whatever he wants, I just hope he does not lead those on the fence about this issue into the pit - - - when the blind lead the blind, that's where they both end up.
-
Stubborn, can you plainly say why you disagree with Vinikias. Is it simply that you believe that a heretic doesn't automatically lose his title? Because, I got to tell you, what Vinikias is saying is making a whole lot of sense to me and it appears that Church teaching supports him.
-
You're just an outrageous LIAR on the road to Hell.
Don't say he is on the road to hell because he is not a sedevacantist.
It's not because of that, it is because he is lying on a very grave matter.
Are you going to say lying isn't a sin, and especially with such a grave matter as this?
If he can lie so boldly about such a thing on an internet forum, i wonder what he really is like in real life.
-
Can a public heretic have authority in the Church?
Yes. Until his superior takes away his authority and removes him from his office, he remains in his office with his full authority.
You're just a flat out liar.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Papal Elections,” 1914, Vol. 11, p. 456: "Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female [as Pope] would be null and void."
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. De great. Christ. Cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope."
St. Francis De Sales (17th century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic Controversy, pp. 305-306: "Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church..."
St. Antoninus (1459): "In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church." (Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)
I could quote you more things, but being the liar that you are, you will just dismiss it al the same won't you?
No you're just trolling now and you can't even have an honest conversation.
Make the distinction of PUBLIC AND SECRET HERESY.
Oh, because you do not like the conclusion of your theory you decide I'm trolling now. As I told you already, read what is written as it is written, if you do that, you will be unable to come up with your conclusion that heretics, if they be pope, lose their office for the oh so simple reason that he has no superior to take away his authority and remove him, as such, he retains his authority and office no matter how much you don't like it.
You're just an outrageous LIAR on the road to Hell.
Is your name Stanley, by any chance? You know, like that TROLL from the 90's movie A Troll in Central Park?
LOL You've been here for a whole 25 posts and I'm a troll and a liar and on my way to hell?
You simply refuse to get the clue after repeatedly telling you what it is that you are to do - it sure seems to aggravate you a lot, but that happens whenever anyone tries to twist the truth into saying something it does not say then making a dogma out of it.
:pop:
What you are doing is utterly abominable, and even Vermont can see what a liar you are.
Truly, you are a disgrace.
-
Eh, I never said he was a liar.
-
Stubborn, can you plainly say why you disagree with Vinikias. Is it simply that you believe that a heretic doesn't automatically lose his title? Because, I got to tell you, what Vinikias is saying is making a whole lot of sense to me and it appears that Church teaching supports him.
The Church is not a democracy, Our Lord set it up as a monarchical form of government - Pope is supreme, there is no authority on earth above him, there is no tribunal which can judge him or remove him from office.
Even though Vini wants to proclaim the pope cannot be the pope due to the popes' obvious public heresies, that is not within his rights anymore than it is with your rights - if such a thing were within our rights, there would be nothing to ever stop us from dethroning a good pope no matter what the good St. Robert said.
It is not our business to busy ourselves telling the world that the pope is not the pope when there is no way of proving it - anymore than than we can prove that NO consecration of the Blessed Sacrament is positively invalid.
Even if the pope really is not the pope, there is no way to prove it, we certainly do not have the authority to make such declarations, there is nothing we can do about it because the Church set up the process and procedure of what happens when one incurs the penalty of excommunication - and it takes the superior of the one who is excommunicated to actually do anything about it - the pope has never had and never will have a superior.
All we can and should do is point out his errors and heresies so that others do not follow him in his heresies. That is our duty.
-
Eh, I never said he was a liar.
Well at least you can see what i am saying is true, not what he says.
-
Vini, it is not surprising you spew the vileness at me - it must frustrate you a lot that the pope is a heretic and there is not one single thing you can do about it - but if you would accept the truth that there is nothing you will ever be able to do about it, your conscience would rest much easier I'm sure.
-
Stubborn, can you plainly say why you disagree with Vinikias. Is it simply that you believe that a heretic doesn't automatically lose his title? Because, I got to tell you, what Vinikias is saying is making a whole lot of sense to me and it appears that Church teaching supports him.
The Church is not a democracy, Our Lord set it up as a monarchical form of government - Pope is supreme, there is no authority on earth above him, there is no tribunal which can judge him or remove him from office.
Even though Vini wants to proclaim the pope cannot be the pope due to the popes' obvious public heresies, that is not within his rights anymore than it is with your rights - if such a thing were within our rights, there would be nothing to ever stop us from dethroning a good pope no matter what the good St. Robert said.
It is not our business to busy ourselves telling the world that the pope is not the pope when there is no way of proving it - anymore than than we can prove that NO consecration of the Blessed Sacrament is positively invalid.
Even if the pope really is not the pope, there is no way to prove it, we certainly do not have the authority to make such declarations, there is nothing we can do about it because the Church set up the process and procedure of what happens when one incurs the penalty of excommunication - and it takes the superior of the one who is excommunicated to actually do anything about it - the pope has never had and never will have a superior.
All we can and should do is point out his errors and heresies so that others do not follow him in his heresies. That is our duty.
You keep on piling up more punishments for yourself.
Go on.
-
Stubborn, can you plainly say why you disagree with Vinikias. Is it simply that you believe that a heretic doesn't automatically lose his title? Because, I got to tell you, what Vinikias is saying is making a whole lot of sense to me and it appears that Church teaching supports him.
The Church is not a democracy, Our Lord set it up as a monarchical form of government - Pope is supreme, there is no authority on earth above him, there is no tribunal which can judge him or remove him from office.
Even though Vini wants to proclaim the pope cannot be the pope due to the popes' obvious public heresies, that is not within his rights anymore than it is with your rights - if such a thing were within our rights, there would be nothing to ever stop us from dethroning a good pope no matter what the good St. Robert said.
It is not our business to busy ourselves telling the world that the pope is not the pope when there is no way of proving it - anymore than than we can prove that NO consecration of the Blessed Sacrament is positively invalid.
Even if the pope really is not the pope, there is no way to prove it, we certainly do not have the authority to make such declarations, there is nothing we can do about it because the Church set up the process and procedure of what happens when one incurs the penalty of excommunication - and it takes the superior of the one who is excommunicated to actually do anything about it - the pope has never had and never will have a superior.
All we can and should do is point out his errors and heresies so that others do not follow him in his heresies. That is our duty.
You keep on piling up more punishments for yourself.
Go on.
So you *are* a dogmatic sede! Well shoot, FYI, that non-doctrine is not allowed here at CI so watch yourself - - just letting you know.
-
Vini, it is not surprising you spew the vileness at me - it must frustrate you a lot that the pope is a heretic and there is not one single thing you can do about it - but if you would accept the truth that there is nothing you will ever be able to do about it, your conscience would rest much easier I'm sure.
Actually, since im not a liar like you, i already know and am at peace knowing these clowns are NOT and never have been real popes.
Once i accepted that FACT and the reality of the situation, i felt a great relief knowing that these brigands do not represent the Church and that i have nothing to do with them. I have never had to make any excuses for these antichrists unlike other people.
Your position is completely heretical and it is exactly what Wathen espoused.
Are you a Wathenite?
-
Stubborn, can you plainly say why you disagree with Vinikias. Is it simply that you believe that a heretic doesn't automatically lose his title? Because, I got to tell you, what Vinikias is saying is making a whole lot of sense to me and it appears that Church teaching supports him.
The Church is not a democracy, Our Lord set it up as a monarchical form of government - Pope is supreme, there is no authority on earth above him, there is no tribunal which can judge him or remove him from office.
Even though Vini wants to proclaim the pope cannot be the pope due to the popes' obvious public heresies, that is not within his rights anymore than it is with your rights - if such a thing were within our rights, there would be nothing to ever stop us from dethroning a good pope no matter what the good St. Robert said.
It is not our business to busy ourselves telling the world that the pope is not the pope when there is no way of proving it - anymore than than we can prove that NO consecration of the Blessed Sacrament is positively invalid.
Even if the pope really is not the pope, there is no way to prove it, we certainly do not have the authority to make such declarations, there is nothing we can do about it because the Church set up the process and procedure of what happens when one incurs the penalty of excommunication - and it takes the superior of the one who is excommunicated to actually do anything about it - the pope has never had and never will have a superior.
All we can and should do is point out his errors and heresies so that others do not follow him in his heresies. That is our duty.
You keep on piling up more punishments for yourself.
Go on.
So you *are* a dogmatic sede! Well shoot, FYI, that non-doctrine is not allowed here at CI so watch yourself - - just letting you know.
Dogmatic what?
I am calling you out on your LIES.
Are people banned here for pointing out lies?
Gee whiz!
-
Are you a Wathenite?
Yes, I believe Stubborn does think highly of the late Father Wathen, though I don't know all the details on where they agree and disagree on.
-
Your position has zero credibility and logic.
Just try to convert a protestant or any non-Catholic right now.
Go tell him these popes are heretical apostates, but yet they still are popes.
See how that goes.
-
Are you a Wathenite?
Yes, I believe Stubborn does think highly of the late Father Wathen, though I don't know all the details on where they agree and disagree on.
It is obvious he is. He has a quote from him on his signature, i just noticed.
Well, that explains everything.
It is clear he will follow Wathen over the teaching authority of the Church and all the Saints and Doctors.
Stubborn has now been upgraded - or downgraded, depending how you want to look at it - to an idolater.
-
Stubborn has now been upgraded - or downgraded, depending how you want to look at it - to an idolater.
You don't have to be an asshole when you argue.
-
Stubborn has now been upgraded - or downgraded, depending how you want to look at it - to an idolater.
You don't have to be an asshole when you argue.
I never use that word. But you have no problem with it.
And you seem to have no problem with what Stubborn says, which is outrageous and false and overthrows the Church.
It is clear he has Fr. Wathen on a pedestal and that he will - for some unknown reason which would be enlightening and interesting to know - follow him to the end, even if it were to lead him to Hell it seems.
He blatantly rejects all that the Saints and Doctors, and even the Church itself, taught on the issue, and instead - quite ironically - stubbornly clings to the blasphemous and heretical things Wathen said.
If that is not idolatry, following a mere man instead of the Church of God, then what is?
And why don't you actually raise an argument or prove what i said was false, if it was?
I see this is a common trend in this place, the ad hominem.
I don't know about you, but i can't stand falsehood and lies.
-
I never use that word. But you have no problem with it.
It is far worse to call someone an idolater than to call someone an asshole. You can be an asshole and get to heaven, but idolaters are damned.
-
I never use that word. But you have no problem with it.
You can be an asshole and get to heaven, but idolaters are damned.
Depends what kind of an a-hole you are doesn't it?
It is far worse to call someone an idolater than to call someone an asshole.
Does he, or does he not place Wathen's heretical and blasphemous ideas over and above what the Saints and Doctors and even the Church itself teaches?
And is that not idolatry, to follow a man instead of the Church?
-
I can tell you Vini that in my past, I've been truly humbled by bigger idiots than you, so I suggest that you concentrate your efforts on learning the faith because your attempt at insulting me into submission to your errors is beyond futile.
Perhaps one day you will try to learn how the laws of the Church operate - if you ever do, you will find that you (of all people) have zero right to proclaim that popes (of all people) are not popes no matter what they have done.
Try hard not to waste your time declaring me a liar, Fr. Wathen a heretic and the pope is not the pope, better to learn the Catholic faith without the influence of the Dimond fools then it is to waste your time with things you continually demonstrate that you know absolutely nothing about.
Like the old saying goes - "better to keep your mouth shut and let everyone only think you're a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."
-
Try hard not to waste your time declaring me a liar, Fr. Wathen a heretic and the pope is not the pope, better to learn the Catholic faith without the influence of the Dimond fools then it is to waste your time with things you continually demonstrate that you know absolutely nothing about.
The Dimonds are exactly who I thought of from his rantings.
Funny how he has such a problem with the word ASSHOLE but doesn't have any problem being one. This isn't the first thread that he has proved himself an ASSHOLE in either.
-
I can tell you Vini that in my past, I've been truly humbled by bigger idiots than you, so I suggest that you concentrate your efforts on learning the faith because your attempt at insulting me into submission to your errors is beyond futile.
Perhaps one day you will try to learn how the laws of the Church operate - if you ever do, you will find that you (of all people) have zero right to proclaim that popes (of all people) are not popes no matter what they have done.
Try hard not to waste your time declaring me a liar, Fr. Wathen a heretic and the pope is not the pope, better to learn the Catholic faith without the influence of the Dimond fools then it is to waste your time with things you continually demonstrate that you know absolutely nothing about.
Like the old saying goes - "better to keep your mouth shut and let everyone only think you're a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."
I suggest that you concentrate your efforts on learning the faith because your attempt at insulting me into submission to your errors is beyond futile.
Perhaps one day you will try to learn how the laws of the Church operate - if you ever do, you will find that public heretics fall outside the Church ipso facto.
Better to learn the Catholic faith without the influence of the Dimond fools Fr. Wathen then it is to waste your time with things you continually demonstrate that you know absolutely nothing about.
Like the old saying goes - "better to keep your mouth shut and let everyone only think you're a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."
See, i can do it too.
-
Try hard not to waste your time declaring me a liar, Fr. Wathen a heretic and the pope is not the pope, better to learn the Catholic faith without the influence of the Dimond fools then it is to waste your time with things you continually demonstrate that you know absolutely nothing about.
The Dimonds are exactly who I thought of from his rantings.
Funny how he has such a problem with the word ASSHOLE but doesn't have any problem being one. This isn't the first thread that he has proved himself an ASSHOLE in either.
Let me guess, you're another r&r "devout Catholic" like Stubborn aren't ya? Another one "really holding the line of Tradition" as opposed to those crazy sedevacantists right?
The more hate you spew from your trap the more credibility you give to me because it proves what a nitwit you are that you can't even attempt to bring up a logical and rational argument against what I say but instead you are reduced to pathetic name-calling.
Even a barbarian can do that.
-
Stubborn, can you plainly say why you disagree with Vinikias. Is it simply that you believe that a heretic doesn't automatically lose his title? Because, I got to tell you, what Vinikias is saying is making a whole lot of sense to me and it appears that Church teaching supports him.
The Church is not a democracy, Our Lord set it up as a monarchical form of government - Pope is supreme, there is no authority on earth above him, there is no tribunal which can judge him or remove him from office.
Even though Vini wants to proclaim the pope cannot be the pope due to the popes' obvious public heresies, that is not within his rights anymore than it is with your rights - if such a thing were within our rights, there would be nothing to ever stop us from dethroning a good pope no matter what the good St. Robert said.
It is not our business to busy ourselves telling the world that the pope is not the pope when there is no way of proving it - anymore than than we can prove that NO consecration of the Blessed Sacrament is positively invalid.
Even if the pope really is not the pope, there is no way to prove it, we certainly do not have the authority to make such declarations, there is nothing we can do about it because the Church set up the process and procedure of what happens when one incurs the penalty of excommunication - and it takes the superior of the one who is excommunicated to actually do anything about it - the pope has never had and never will have a superior.
All we can and should do is point out his errors and heresies so that others do not follow him in his heresies. That is our duty.
I get that we have no control over the "official" judgment and removal of a pope. However, clearly some of the things Vinikias has posted (backed by Church teaching) points to the fact that a heretical pope's actions automatically and ipso facto removes him from the Church and the title of Pope (even if it doesn't appear to be so to the rest of the world including us).
I don't see this so much as our judgment but God's judgment as revealed to us by Church teachings.
-
Try hard not to waste your time declaring me a liar, Fr. Wathen a heretic and the pope is not the pope, better to learn the Catholic faith without the influence of the Dimond fools then it is to waste your time with things you continually demonstrate that you know absolutely nothing about.
The Dimonds are exactly who I thought of from his rantings.
Funny how he has such a problem with the word ASSHOLE but doesn't have any problem being one. This isn't the first thread that he has proved himself an ASSHOLE in either.
I think that certain other forums should read posts like those when determining what is rude and what is not.
Vinikias, please reign it in. I think you have something to offer here but stop acting like the Dimond Brothers. We don't have to be nicey-nice all of the time, but you are way over the top.
-
Let me guess, you're another r&r "devout Catholic" like Stubborn aren't ya? Another one "really holding the line of Tradition" as opposed to those crazy sedevacantists right?
The more hate you spew from your trap the more credibility you give to me because it proves what a nitwit you are that you can't even attempt to bring up a logical and rational argument against what I say but instead you are reduced to pathetic name-calling.
Even a barbarian can do that.
In your typical rashness, you guessed wrong. I agree with most of what you say here and in the thread about protestant "theologians." I disagree with your approach being that of a complete & total asshole. There is a difference in being firm in your presentation and just being an asshole. And calling Stubborn a liar.... I have no doubt that Stubbon believes his position is correct. A lot of people believe the way he does--one's beliefs doesn't make him a liar.
I, too, happen to be a fan of Fr. Wathen. Comparing him to the Dimonds is utterly ridiculous.
If I were to guess a thing or two about you, I would guess that you're either a home-aloner or attend with the only (or perhaps 1 of 3) valid priest remaining in the world.
I believe the sede position is more than likely correct. But I don't believe one has to accept the sede position to get to Heaven. Do you think they do have to accept the sede position to get to Heaven? Do you think I'm going to hell because of my position that others don't have to accept the sede position? Because I'm not 100% certain that the sede position is correct?
-
I get that we have no control over the "official" judgment and removal of a pope. However, clearly some of the things Vinikias has posted (backed by Church teaching) points to the fact that a heretical pope's actions automatically and ipso facto removes him from the Church and the title of Pope (even if it doesn't appear to be so to the rest of the world including us).
I don't see this so much as our judgment but God's judgment as revealed to us by Church teachings.
Ok, FWIW, I will post a few Papal quotes quotes from Pope Paul IV, in 1559.
Most sedevacantists that I know are very familiar with cuм ex Apostolatus Officio (http://sedevacantist.com/encyclicals/Paul04/cuмex.html). The ones I've debated with in the past seem to use it as bible, it seems to be their main constitution to justify their belief that the Chair is vacant due to the pope's heresies.
I tried to point out to a similar poster, Cathedra, before he got banned, that cuм ex Apostolatus Officio instructs us what we are to do, what our course of action is to be when we have a pope(s) who is a heretic and / or presumably excommunicated.
cuм ex Apostolatus Officio:
In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff,who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith.[/b]
The above quote demonstrates:
1) That popes can indeed deviate from (lose) the faith.
2) When popes lose the faith, we are instructed to contradict (resist) them in their errors.
We see that Pope Paul IV told us we are to contradict heretical popes, then in #7, he teaches us that we are also permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and to avoid them - nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future Roman Pontiff.
".....permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs (the same subject persons, nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Roman Pontiff canonically entering).
In the two snips above, the pope instructs us to:
1) Contradict heretical popes
2) Withdraw our obedience (to heresies) from heretical popes
3) Avoid heretical popes
4) Remain faithful and obedient any future [valid] popes
Regardless of the fact that in #6, cuм Ex explicitly teaches that heretical popes automatically lose their office, in #7 we are still explicitly instructed that we are to withdraw obedience to the heresies, avoid yet remain faithful and obedient to any future valid popes.
Pope Paul IV in no way gives anyone, let alone priests or lay people, the right, let alone the duty or responsibility, to declare or believe that the Chair is vacant even after explicitly stating that heretical popes lose their office. It is not within our rights to do such a thing, and per the Bull, those who do such a thing not only err, they are being disobedient to what the Church, through this Bull, teaches. If such a thing were within our rights or if it was our duty or responsibility, the pope certainly would have explicitly said so.
Additionally, what Pope Paul IV states in regards to the pope losing his office, he explicitly says also applies to Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates and Cardinals.
The issue gains fuel because whenever people read these types of Magisterial docuмents, it appears that they zoom right into #6 without reading or comprehending anything else it says. They do not read what is written - which is why I constantly am telling Vini to read what is written and not to read into it something it does not say.
-
Stubborn, is there anything in there that says, what to do, if the person elected was not even a Catholic in the first place.
No wonder Our Lady warned about who was entering into the seminaries, and authority should watch closer who is allowed, I believe at LaSalette. She also warned that Rome would lose the Faith and become the seat of AntiChrist. Also in the Bible it says: "Leave the harlot".
-
Stubborn, is there anything in there that says, what to do, if the person elected was not even a Catholic in the first place.
No wonder Our Lady warned about who was entering into the seminaries, and authority should watch closer who is allowed, I believe at LaSalette. She also warned that Rome would lose the Faith and become the seat of AntiChrist. Also in the Bible it says: "Leave the harlot".
Yes,
1) Contradict heretical popes
2) Withdraw our obedience (to heresies) from heretical popes
3) Avoid heretical popes
all apply to those who were heretics before their election.
-
I get that we have no control over the "official" judgment and removal of a pope. However, clearly some of the things Vinikias has posted (backed by Church teaching) points to the fact that a heretical pope's actions automatically and ipso facto removes him from the Church and the title of Pope (even if it doesn't appear to be so to the rest of the world including us).
I don't see this so much as our judgment but God's judgment as revealed to us by Church teachings.
Exactly. But he stubbornly and obstinately refuses to admit and recognize this.
He obstinately accuses sedevacantists of legally pronouncing the antipopes, antipopes, when we do not do such thing.
He obstinately makes no distinction between a factual statement and a legal one.
-
In your typical rashness, you guessed wrong. I agree with most of what you say here and in the thread about protestant "theologians." I disagree with your approach being that of a complete & total asshole. There is a difference in being firm in your presentation and just being an asshole.
Actually i didn't; i guessed you were a r&rer and i was right.
I would like you to explain how exactly was i such an a-hole, really.
And calling Stubborn a liar.... I have no doubt that Stubbon believes his position is correct. A lot of people believe the way he does--one's beliefs doesn't make him a liar.
That he is a liar is a fact.
The number of those deceived into holding his same beliefs is irrelevant.
The number of fools is infinite.
The Church, the Saints and Doctors teach that all public and manifest heretics, even if they were to be real Popes, automatically and ipso facto, without the need for any declaration, fall outside the Church and lose all authority, office, dignity etc.
He has been shown this FACT over and over and over again throughout the decades but he still obstinately says NO, THAT IS NOT TRUE, and what's more, he completely rejects ipso facto and latae sententiae excommunications, which do not need any declaration, and he says that the Church TEACHES NO SUCH THING. To make it even worse, he says sedes usurp authority and corrupt the Church's teachings. Those are serious charges, but since you simpathize with him, you make light of them.
The fact that he believes his lies are true is utterly irrelevant and you are completely wrong, one's beliefs can CERTAINLY make you a liar.
Are you going to excuse all non-Catholics now then, since they certainly believe their beliefs and convictions are correct and true?
I, too, happen to be a fan of Fr. Wathen. Comparing him to the Dimonds is utterly ridiculous.
I did not compare him to the Dimonds.
Where did i do that?
If I were to guess a thing or two about you, I would guess that you're either a home-aloner or attend with the only (or perhaps 1 of 3) valid priest remaining in the world.
Where i am there are zero traditional Priests, not one.
So, you guessed wrong.
I believe the sede position is more than likely correct. But I don't believe one has to accept the sede position to get to Heaven. Do you think they do have to accept the sede position to get to Heaven? Do you think I'm going to hell because of my position that others don't have to accept the sede position? Because I'm not 100% certain that the sede position is correct?
"More than likely"? It is a certainty.
-
Vinikias, please reign it in. I think you have something to offer here but stop acting like the Dimond Brothers. We don't have to be nicey-nice all of the time, but you are way over the top.
Fine.
-
Stubborn, is there anything in there that says, what to do, if the person elected was not even a Catholic in the first place.
No wonder Our Lady warned about who was entering into the seminaries, and authority should watch closer who is allowed, I believe at LaSalette. She also warned that Rome would lose the Faith and become the seat of AntiChrist. Also in the Bible it says: "Leave the harlot".
Yes,
1) Contradict heretical popes
2) Withdraw our obedience (to heresies) from heretical popes
3) Avoid heretical popes
all apply to those who were heretics before their election.
Yes, but what if they were never Catholics to begin with, and Masons elected their friends, therefore they were never popes, because the election was void. You see, one must be a Catholic, not a Mason to even be considered for pope. The Church is a Divine Institution, not a human organization.
-
Stubborn, is there anything in there that says, what to do, if the person elected was not even a Catholic in the first place.
No wonder Our Lady warned about who was entering into the seminaries, and authority should watch closer who is allowed, I believe at LaSalette. She also warned that Rome would lose the Faith and become the seat of AntiChrist. Also in the Bible it says: "Leave the harlot".
Yes,
1) Contradict heretical popes
2) Withdraw our obedience (to heresies) from heretical popes
3) Avoid heretical popes
all apply to those who were heretics before their election.
Yes, but what if they were never Catholics to begin with, and Masons elected their friends, therefore they were never popes, because the election was void. You see, one must be a Catholic, not a Mason to even be considered for pope. The Church is a Divine Institution, not a human organization.
I did understand your question the first time, and as I posted, 1,2 and 3 apply.................
Finally, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, define and decree]that any and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted or elevated if they had not previously deviated from the Faith,.........shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them ........(the same subject persons, nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Roman Pontiff canonically entering).
If you can show any other Magisterial docuмentation permitting us to do anything else, please feel free to post it.
-
Ok, FWIW, I will post a few Papal quotes quotes from Pope Paul IV, in 1559.
Most sedevacantists that I know are very familiar with cuм ex Apostolatus Officio (http://sedevacantist.com/encyclicals/Paul04/cuмex.html). The ones I've debated with in the past seem to use it as bible, it seems to be their main constitution to justify their belief that the Chair is vacant due to the pope's heresies.
I tried to point out to a similar poster, Cathedra, before he got banned, that cuм ex Apostolatus Officio instructs us what we are to do, what our course of action is to be when we have a pope(s) who is a heretic and / or presumably excommunicated.
cuм ex Apostolatus Officio:
In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff,who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith.[/b]
The above quote demonstrates:
1) That popes can indeed deviate from (lose) the faith.
2) When popes lose the faith, we are instructed to contradict (resist) them in their errors.
We see that Pope Paul IV told us we are to contradict heretical popes, then in #7, he teaches us that we are also permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and to avoid them - nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future Roman Pontiff.
".....permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs (the same subject persons, nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Roman Pontiff canonically entering).
In the two snips above, the pope instructs us to:
1) Contradict heretical popes
2) Withdraw our obedience (to heresies) from heretical popes
3) Avoid heretical popes
4) Remain faithful and obedient any future [valid] popes
Regardless of the fact that in #6, cuм Ex explicitly teaches that heretical popes automatically lose their office, in #7 we are still explicitly instructed that we are to withdraw obedience to the heresies, avoid yet remain faithful and obedient to any future valid popes.
Pope Paul IV in no way gives anyone, let alone priests or lay people, the right, let alone the duty or responsibility, to declare or believe that the Chair is vacant even after explicitly stating that heretical popes lose their office. It is not within our rights to do such a thing, and per the Bull, those who do such a thing not only err, they are being disobedient to what the Church, through this Bull, teaches. If such a thing were within our rights or if it was our duty or responsibility, the pope certainly would have explicitly said so.
Additionally, what Pope Paul IV states in regards to the pope losing his office, he explicitly says also applies to Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates and Cardinals.
The issue gains fuel because whenever people read these types of Magisterial docuмents, it appears that they zoom right into #6 without reading or comprehending anything else it says. They do not read what is written - which is why I constantly am telling Vini to read what is written and not to read into it something it does not say.
You see, this is what im talking about.
This guy is now trying to use cuм Ex against sedevacantism! Absurd!
But people like OHCA, prefer to excuse this man.
Where is the sense of justice and honesty here? All i see here is a false mercy, excusing sin and lies, and no zeal for the truth.
cuм ex Apostolatus Officio instructs us what we are to do, what our course of action is to be when we have a pope(s) who is a heretic and / or presumably excommunicated.
cuм ex Apostolatus Officio:
In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff,who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith.[/b]
The above quote demonstrates:
1) That popes can indeed deviate from (lose) the faith.
2) When popes lose the faith, we are instructed to contradict (resist) them in their errors.
We see that Pope Paul IV told us we are to contradict heretical popes,
What happens to those who "deviate from the faith"? Why don't you be HONEST, and actually QUOTE the Bull to show what it says about those who "deviate from the Faith"?
No, you instead LIE and say it all means we are to "resist" him while recognizing him pope which, when you get down to it, MAKES NO SENSE.
What good is it to say that the pope is a heretic, apostate, blasphemer, non-Catholic, and yet still say he's the pope, if you don't even obey him and treat him like a non-Catholic anyways?
What if you were a cleric in the Vatican? Can you tell us how r&r would work there, if some cleric still held on to the faith? What if you were the secretary of state? Are you going to be arguing 24/7 with the "pope" and telling him day and night "I must resist you!"?
What if the ENTIRE Vatican held on to the Faith, except the "pope"? Would all the clerics run around "resisting" the pope, ignoring him, calling him a heretic, apostate, blasphemer?
The ridiculousness of r&r is just overtly hilarious and would make for a great comedy!
But let's look at the Bull.
#2 says:
Hence, concerning these matters, We have held mature deliberation with our venerable brothers the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church; and, upon their advice and with their unanimous agreement, we now enact as follows:-
In respect of each and every sentence of excommunication, suspension, interdict and privation and any other sentences, censures and penalties against heretics or schismatics, enforced and promulgated in any way whatsoever by any of Our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs, or by any who were held to be such (even by their "litterae extravagantes" i.e. private letters), or by the sacred Councils received by the Church of God, or by decrees of the Holy Fathers and the statutes, or by the sacred Canons and the Constitutions and Apostolic Ordinations - all these measures, by Apostolic authority, We approve and renew, that they may and must be observed in perpetuity and, if perchance they be no longer in lively observance, that they be restored to it.
Thus We will and decree that the aforementioned sentences, censures and penalties be incurred without exception by all members of the following categories:
(i) Anysoever who, before this date, shall have been detected to have deviated from the Catholic Faith, or fallen into any heresy, or incurred schism, or provoked or committed either or both of these, or who have confessed to have done any of these things, or who have been convicted of having done any of these things.
(ii) Anysoever who (which may God, in His clemency and goodness to all, deign to avert) shall in the future so deviate or fall into heresy, or incur schism, or shall provoke or commit either or both of these.
(iii) Anysoever who shall be detected to have so deviated, fallen, incurred, provoked or committed, or who shall confess to have done any of these things, or who shall be convicted of having done any of these things.
So, this is what happens to those who "deviate from the Faith", NOT your concocted "resistance".
Regardless of the fact that in #6, cuм Ex explicitly teaches that heretical popes automatically lose their office, in #7 we are still explicitly instructed that we are to withdraw obedience to the heresies, avoid yet remain faithful and obedient to any future valid popes.
Pope Paul IV in no way gives anyone, let alone priests or lay people, the right, let alone the duty or responsibility, to declare or believe that the Chair is vacant even after explicitly stating that heretical popes lose their office. It is not within our rights to do such a thing, and per the Bull, those who do such a thing not only err, they are being disobedient to what the Church, through this Bull, teaches. If such a thing were within our rights or if it was our duty or responsibility, the pope certainly would have explicitly said so.
You contradicted yourself, you speak out of both sides of your mouth, and you condemned yourself.
-
The ridiculousness of r&r is just overtly hilarious and would make for a great comedy!
But let's look at the Bull.
#2 says:
Hence, concerning these matters, We have held mature deliberation with our venerable brothers the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church; and, upon their advice and with their unanimous agreement, we now enact as follows:................
When they say "we", they do not mean "we" as in you and them.
OTOH, they say that "we" as in you and the rest of us, are only permitted to:
1) Contradict heretical popes
2) Withdraw our obedience (to heresies) from heretical popes
3) Avoid heretical popes
As I already said - If you can show any other Magisterial docuмentation permitting us to do anything else, please feel free to post it.
If you want to ever understand what was written, you will need to read what is written. I feel confident that if you try really hard, try with all your might to just read what is written that you'll be able to do it!
Best of luck to you!
-
The ridiculousness of r&r is just overtly hilarious and would make for a great comedy!
But let's look at the Bull.
#2 says:
Hence, concerning these matters, We have held mature deliberation with our venerable brothers the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church; and, upon their advice and with their unanimous agreement, we now enact as follows:................
When they say "we", they do not mean "we" as in you and them.
OTOH, they say that "we" as in you and the rest of us, are only permitted to:
1) Contradict heretical popes
2) Withdraw our obedience (to heresies) from heretical popes
3) Avoid heretical popes
As I already said - If you can show any other Magisterial docuмentation permitting us to do anything else, please feel free to post it.
If you want to ever understand what was written, you will need to read what is written. I feel confident that if you try really hard, try with all your might to just read what is written that you'll be able to do it!
Best of luck to you!
Keep telling that to yourself, you are nothing but a L-I-A-R, and you have been amply refuted already, and you have no other option but to repeat the same things over and over again.
I have no interest in wasting my time with your ilk.
Goodbye Stanley.
-
For real, the explanations you claim are lies are direct quotes from Pope Paul IV = I'm sorry to say that you have a serious internal problem in your mind or soul or both.
-
I guess I don't see resistance and sedevacantism as necessarily being opposed when reading that. To "contradict" a heretical pope doesn't necessarily mean that that pope doesn't lose his office ipso facto too.
-
I guess I don't see resistance and sedevacantism as necessarily being opposed when reading that. To "contradict" a heretical pope doesn't necessarily mean that that pope doesn't lose his office ipso facto too.
He said a pope caught deviating from the faith is to be contradicted.
What was it that the Bull says happens to those who deviate from the Faith?
I already showed it: they incur all the sentences heretics and schismatics incur which are, among other things, excommunication.
To imagine that the "contradiction" Pope Paul IV meant for a pope who deviates from the Faith is to "resist" him and the entire Hierarchy that deviates from the Faith along with him, for 40+ years, to "resist" a Council, all the laws, doctrines, liturgy and teaching etc., is nothing short of ludicrous and absurd and un-supported by Catholic teaching and theology.
You can show no teaching which says that the faithful at large can "resist" a Pope's teachings, discipline, laws and liturgy and decide what they will accept and reject from a Pope for decades on end, NONE.
-
I guess I don't see resistance and sedevacantism as necessarily being opposed when reading that. To "contradict" a heretical pope doesn't necessarily mean that that pope doesn't lose his office ipso facto too.
He said a pope caught deviating from the faith is to be contradicted.
What was it that the Bull says happens to those who deviate from the Faith?
I already showed it: they incur all the sentences heretics and schismatics incur which are, among other things, excommunication.
To imagine that the "contradiction" Pope Paul IV meant for a pope who deviates from the Faith is to "resist" him and the entire Hierarchy that deviates from the Faith along with him, for 40+ years, to "resist" a Council, all the laws, doctrines, liturgy and teaching etc., is nothing short of ludicrous and absurd and un-supported by Catholic teaching and theology.
You can show no teaching which says that the faithful at large can "resist" a Pope's teachings, discipline, laws and liturgy and decide what they will accept and reject from a Pope for decades on end, NONE.
I guess what I was trying to say is that one can resist the pope by not recognizing him as the pope. ;)
-
I guess I don't see resistance and sedevacantism as necessarily being opposed when reading that. To "contradict" a heretical pope doesn't necessarily mean that that pope doesn't lose his office ipso facto too.
He said a pope caught deviating from the faith is to be contradicted.
What was it that the Bull says happens to those who deviate from the Faith?
I already showed it: they incur all the sentences heretics and schismatics incur which are, among other things, excommunication.
Hurray! You read that much and understood it!
Now, Question: Per cuм Ex, what are YOU permitted to actually do about it?
Answer: 1) Contradict heretical popes
2) Withdraw our obedience (to heresies) from heretical popes
3) Avoid heretical popes
To imagine that the "contradiction" Pope Paul IV meant for a pope who deviates from the Faith is to "resist" him and the entire Hierarchy that deviates from the Faith along with him, for 40+ years, to "resist" a Council, all the laws, doctrines, liturgy and teaching etc., is nothing short of ludicrous and absurd and un-supported by Catholic teaching and theology.
You can show no teaching which says that the faithful at large can "resist" a Pope's teachings, discipline, laws and liturgy and decide what they will accept and reject from a Pope for decades on end, NONE.
As is typical of dogmatic sedevacantism, you imagine the Church teaches something it does not, you imagine "contradict" means something it does not mean.
You blind your own self because I have shown you over and over - and again above - that the Church, through cuм ex teaches we are permitted to resist him.
What YOU will never be able to do is show a Church teaching permitting you to do anything else above #s 1, 2 and 3 above and you will certainly never be able to find any magisterial teaching permitting you to declare that there is no pope while the entire world sees that there is one sitting in the Chair. Again, that is not within your rights no matter how hard you pound your fist or stomp your feet while demanding it is within your rights.
-
Actually i didn't; i guessed you were a r&rer and i was right.
Though I believe the sede position is most likely correct, you have me as an r&rer?
I would like you to explain how exactly was i such an a-hole, really.
Relentlessly badgering Stubborn and calling him a liar. Don't you understand that most who practice as traditionalists have bucked the system and put themselves in something of a position of outcast with society? Why would one do that and not go to the camp that he honestly believed was correct. Stubborn may be in error--I don't know and your random appearance here and your posts aren't likely to convince me. But I am very certain that he is not knowingly lying. I think you know better and are being uncharitable and violating the 8th Commandment by accusing him of such and are being an asshole in the process. Not quite as concerned about how you treat prots, by I think you were assholish in that thread too.
The fact that he believes his lies are true is utterly irrelevant and you are completely wrong, one's beliefs can CERTAINLY make you a liar.
Are you going to excuse all non-Catholics now then, since they certainly believe their beliefs and convictions are correct and true?
If he isn't knowingly telling untruths, then he is not a liar--wrong--but not a liar.
As to non-Catholics, I wouldn't say they're all liars. But they are heretics as they aren't practicing to the best of their ability and understanding, but have rather rejected Catholicism. I have little patience for heretics and do not excuse them.
I, too, happen to be a fan of Fr. Wathen. Comparing him to the Dimonds is utterly ridiculous.
I did not compare him to the Dimonds.
Where did i do that?
HERE:
Better to learn the Catholic faith without the influence of the Dimond fools Fr. Wathen then it is to waste your time with things you continually demonstrate that you know absolutely nothing about.
If I were to guess a thing or two about you, I would guess that you're either a home-aloner or attend with the only (or perhaps 1 of 3) valid priest remaining in the world.
Where i am there are zero traditional Priests, not one.
So, you guessed wrong.
So what priests are alive who you would be comfortable attending Mass with? SSPX, SSPV, CMRI--who out there are the valid traditional priests?
I believe the sede position is more than likely correct. But I don't believe one has to accept the sede position to get to Heaven. Do you think they do have to accept the sede position to get to Heaven? Do you think I'm going to hell because of my position that others don't have to accept the sede position? Because I'm not 100% certain that the sede position is correct?
"More than likely"? It is a certainty.
Sounds a lot like dogmatic sedevacantism to me. Also, seems like you're of a mind to badger those who aren't sedevacantists.
-
I actually agree with part of Pope Francis's statement. The Pope never said that Atheists can go to heaven. He said the God's mercy has no limits and is available to all, including Atheists. I believe that statement to be true. An Atheist would suffer more in heaven than in hell, because of their hate for the Lord. God is actually showing mercy to Atheists by sending them to limbo or hell.
-
As is typical of dogmatic sedevacantism, you imagine the Church teaches something it does not, you imagine "contradict" means something it does not mean. You blind your own self because I have shown you over and over - and again above - that the Church, through cuм ex teaches we are permitted to resist him. What YOU will never be able to do is show a Church teaching permitting you to do anything else above #s 1, 2 and 3 above and you will certainly never be able to find any magisterial teaching permitting you to declare that there is no pope while the entire world sees that there is one sitting in the Chair. Again, that is not within your rights no matter how hard you pound your fist or stomp your feet while demanding it is within your rights.
To be fair Stubborn, you have interpreted "contradict" to mean "resist" in the manner that you resist. Who is to say that "contradict" can not also mean not recognizing the Pope as the pope? What "contradict" means is not as clearly spelled out as you would like to believe (at least as far as I can see). I do think interpretation is up for discussion and just as no SV can tell you to interpret it his way you can not turn around and tell a SV that he must interpret it your way.
-
Relentlessly badgering Stubborn and calling him a liar. Don't you understand that most who practice as traditionalists have bucked the system and put themselves in something of a position of outcast with society? Why would one do that and not go to the camp that he honestly believed was correct. Stubborn may be in error--I don't know and your random appearance here and your posts aren't likely to convince me. But I am very certain that he is not knowingly lying. I think you know better and are being uncharitable and violating the 8th Commandment by accusing him of such and are being an asshole in the process. Not quite as concerned about how you treat prots, by I think you were assholish in that thread too.
Thanks for the vote of confidence OHCA er, I think lol
Good post and well said. What you said pretty much applies across the board IMO, whether you think someone is right or not.
-
To be fair Stubborn, you have interpreted "contradict" to mean "resist" in the manner that you resist. Who is to say that "contradict" can not also mean not recognizing the Pope as the pope? What "contradict" means is not as clearly spelled out as you would like to believe (at least as far as I can see). I do think interpretation is up for discussion and just as no SV can tell you to interpret it his way you can not turn around and tell a SV that he must interpret it your way.
Based on the rest of the Bull, it's obvious that the pope said exactly, and explicitly repeated what he meant to say. He minced no words anywhere else in the Bull so why not read it as it is written?
Additionally, if he meant to teach that *we were permitted to proclaim* that the Pope is not the pope, a) that is exactly what he would have said and b) he would never had said that we were permitted to "Withdraw our obedience *with impunity* and Avoid" the excommunicated popes.
Again, among the reasons we will never find any papal teaching that allows or permits us to dethrone the pope is because:
a) if such a thing were permitted, there would be nothing at all to stop us from dethroning a good pope and
b) that teaching would reduce the supreme authority of the pope to no authority at all.
Make sense?
-
To be fair Stubborn, you have interpreted "contradict" to mean "resist" in the manner that you resist. Who is to say that "contradict" can not also mean not recognizing the Pope as the pope? What "contradict" means is not as clearly spelled out as you would like to believe (at least as far as I can see). I do think interpretation is up for discussion and just as no SV can tell you to interpret it his way you can not turn around and tell a SV that he must interpret it your way.
Based on the rest of the Bull, it's obvious that the pope said exactly, and explicitly repeated what he meant to say. He minced no words anywhere else in the Bull so why not read it as it is written?
Additionally, if he meant to teach that *we were permitted to proclaim* that the Pope is not the pope, a) that is exactly what he would have said and b) he would never had said that we were permitted to "Withdraw our obedience *with impunity* and Avoid" the excommunicated popes.
Again, among the reasons we will never find any papal teaching that allows or permits us to dethrone the pope is because:
a) if such a thing were permitted, there would be nothing at all to stop us from dethroning a good pope and
b) that teaching would reduce the supreme authority of the pope to no authority at all.
Make sense?
And yet he never explicitly states that you can not do so. I think taking this on its own is much like taking one Bible verse on its own. One must look to all that the Church has said on this topic. When one does, it is understandable why a SV can come to the conclusion he has come to.
I'm still thinking that you are coming off as saying your way is the only way.
I also can understand why some think that R&R is really just dethroning a pope without stating it.
-
And yet he never explicitly states that you can not do so. I think taking this on its own is much like taking one Bible verse on its own. One must look to all that the Church has said on this topic. When one does, it is understandable why a SV can come to the conclusion he has come to.
I'm still thinking that you are coming off as saying your way is the only way.
I also can understand why some think that R&R is really just dethroning a pope without stating it.
I am saying what the Bull clearly states. My way or not, the Bull says what the Bull says much as I wish it said it was our duty to proclaim there is no pope - but it doesn't and, I think the reasons for this are as I already stated in my previous post.
The way that Bull is worded, and I am sure many SVs will be the first to say - the Bull is infallible, as such, we cannot make exceptions to what it says or we change it's meaning, which is how heresies are started - which is why we must read it as it is written.
-
And yet he never explicitly states that you can not do so. I think taking this on its own is much like taking one Bible verse on its own. One must look to all that the Church has said on this topic. When one does, it is understandable why a SV can come to the conclusion he has come to.
I'm still thinking that you are coming off as saying your way is the only way.
I also can understand why some think that R&R is really just dethroning a pope without stating it.
I am saying what the Bull clearly states. My way or not, the Bull says what the Bull says much as I wish it said it was our duty to proclaim there is no pope - but it doesn't and, I think the reasons for this are as I already stated in my previous post.
The way that Bull is worded, and I am sure many SVs will be the first to say - the Bull is infallible, as such, we cannot make exceptions to what it says or we change it's meaning, which is how heresies are started - which is why we must read it as it is written.
And again, you are only taking one docuмent to support your view.
Protestants take one bible verse to support their views and we know that that isn't good enough.
We also have Church teaching telling us that heretics lose their title ipso facto/automatically. Are we all supposed to ignore that teaching?
Clearly you and I are going to have to agree to disagree. I really think this is all semantics anyway. If someone resists a pope and chooses not to obey him, then he is basically saying he isn't the pope.