Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Elizabeth on November 17, 2014, 04:33:51 PM
-
The SSPV are the prime support for claims against the CMRI. They also claim the laypeople of CMRI are not Catholic.
-
They use the name of one Schuckardt because they can't find any legitimate reason, since CMRI only teaches the One True Faith, everything in the deposit of Faith, and their Bishop relies on Encyclicals and writings of True past popes to instruct anyone who has ears to hear, not opinions.
They can't find anything, and hate the fact that their Bishop will not compromise, will not please man just for the sake of financial support from those who are not willing to walk the walk and talk the talk.
Their main support is a the name of Shuckardt.
-
The SSPV are the prime support for claims against the CMRI. They also claim the laypeople of CMRI are not Catholic.
When I said "prime support" I am referring to the reason for why one would say the association of Schuckardt has made them schismatic.
Read Mario Derksen's Open Letter for free online and it will explain much better than I could.
-
edit
-
They use the name of one Schuckardt because they can't find any legitimate reason, since CMRI only teaches the One True Faith, everything in the deposit of Faith, and their Bishop relies on Encyclicals and writings of True past popes to instruct anyone who has ears to hear, not opinions.
They can't find anything, and hate the fact that their Bishop will not compromise, will not please man just for the sake of financial support from those who are not willing to walk the walk and talk the talk.
Their main support is a the name of Shuckardt.
I do not think I even mentioned the name Schuckardt when explaining the reasons of why the CMRI is schismatic. The main reason why CMRI is schismatic is because it refuses submission and juridical union to the Roman Pontiff.
Canon 751 says: "Schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."
Bishops in schism, heresy, or apostasy such as Bs. Piravunas cannot pass on Apostolic Succession, (one of the marks of the True Church); although it is possible for some of them to pass on valid orders.
The CMRI cleric has no ordinary jurisdiction because: "This power of jurisdiction flows to the bishops only through the Successor of Saint Peter." Epikeia is not an act of jurisdiction, and epikeia cannot be used to obtain jurisdiction. "Even if valid orders exist, where jurisdiction is lacking there is no real Apostolic Succession."
-
The CMRI cleric has no ordinary jurisdiction because: "This power of jurisdiction flows to the bishops only through the Successor of Saint Peter." Epikeia is not an act of jurisdiction, and epikeia cannot be used to obtain jurisdiction. "Even if valid orders exist, where jurisdiction is lacking there is no real Apostolic Succession."
If that's the case what are you doing giving allegiance to Francis? Since when does a Freemason, Modernist flow through the Successor of St. Peter? Please explain, I want to learn.
-
Catholic means universal, therefore in this Crisis of the (universal) Church, a valid clergy has jurisdiction everywhere, despite not being granted regular faculties by a (heretical / apostate) Bishop. The same goes for a traditional valid Bishop. He has jurisdiction everywhere despite not being granted faculties by (heretic / apostate) Francis. As long as a clergy is validly ordained and he's in the true Catholic Faith, then his apostolate is in effect anywhere, and at any time, during this Crisis.
-
Romans 11:16
"For if the firstfruit be holy, so is the lump also: and if the root be holy, so are the branches."
Francis Schuckardt bio:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Schuckardt
2 Peter 2:1
"But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction."
"Whoever is separated from this Catholic Church --- however much he believes that he is living praiseworthily --- will not have life, but the anger of God rests upon him. The reason is this offense alone: that he is sundered from the unity of Christ."
St. Augustine
"So that you may understand that the Church has received the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, hear what the Lord says ... to all His Apostles: "Receive ye the Holy Ghost," and then immediately following: "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained" (John 20:22-23). These words relate to the keys, of which it had been said: "Whatsoever you shall loose on earth, it shall be loosed in Heaven" (Matthew 16: 19) ...And outside the Church, nothing is loosed ... The charity of the Church which is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost forgives the sins of those who are partakers of it. Of those who are not partakers, it retains. The grace which comes through the faith of Jesus Christ belongs only to those to whom the faith belongs. He who does not believe remains unhealed."
St. Augustine [/b]
-
They use the name of one Schuckardt because they can't find any legitimate reason, since CMRI only teaches the One True Faith, everything in the deposit of Faith, and their Bishop relies on Encyclicals and writings of True past popes to instruct anyone who has ears to hear, not opinions.
They can't find anything, and hate the fact that their Bishop will not compromise, will not please man just for the sake of financial support from those who are not willing to walk the walk and talk the talk.
Their main support is a the name of Shuckardt.
I do not think I even mentioned the name Schuckardt when explaining the reasons of why the CMRI is schismatic. The main reason why CMRI is schismatic is because it refuses submission and juridical union to the Roman Pontiff.
Canon 751 says: "Schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."
Bishops in schism, heresy, or apostasy such as Bs. Piravunas cannot pass on Apostolic Succession, (one of the marks of the True Church); although it is possible for some of them to pass on valid orders.
The CMRI cleric has no ordinary jurisdiction because: "This power of jurisdiction flows to the bishops only through the Successor of Saint Peter." Epikeia is not an act of jurisdiction, and epikeia cannot be used to obtain jurisdiction. "Even if valid orders exist, where jurisdiction is lacking there is no real Apostolic Succession."
The OP specifically says what this thread is NOT about. Did you read it? You just responded here precisely on the point that is NOT what this thread is about - their sedevacantism. You really need to read what you are replying to.
In the case of CMRI these two cannot be separated given that CMRI is schismatic precisely on account of sedevacantism or withdrawal from the Roman Pontiff, which is a real threath to the eclessiastical unity of the Church. The question was about the reason of CMRI schism, and the answer is sedevacantism.
-
As if the Novus Ordo Church under "Pope" Francis is a bastion of unity.
:roll-laugh1:
-
When I said "prime support" I am referring to the reason for why one would say the association of Schuckardt has made them schismatic.
What do you mean by "association"?
-
The OP should have outlined all reasons for schism, including sedevacantism, and after listing them all he should have then stated this the wanted us to ignore sedevacantism.
I think one of the other reasons for schism is refusing communion with fellow Catholics. To my knowledge, CMRI does not do that.
If refusing submission to the Holy Father is one of the reasons (it is) then both sides have to be reviewed in light of the facts of the time period we are suffering through. For the sake of this discussion, everyone should refrain from the sedevacantism subset of schism.
Does CMRI possess valid orders? Has the novus ordo ever rendered a judgement or even opinion on that? Until we are know otherwise, the answer is yes.
So if there are only three components of schism, and we put aside the refusal to submit to the holy Father, then we can't conclude that the CMRI is schismatic.
-
The OP should have outlined all reasons for schism, including sedevacantism, and after listing them all he should have then stated this the wanted us to ignore sedevacantism.
I think one of the other reasons for schism is refusing communion with fellow Catholics. To my knowledge, CMRI does not do that.
If refusing submission to the Holy Father is one of the reasons (it is) then both sides have to be reviewed in light of the facts of the time period we are suffering through. For the sake of this discussion, everyone should refrain from the sedevacantism subset of schism.
Does CMRI possess valid orders? Has the novus ordo ever rendered a judgement or even opinion on that? Until we are know otherwise, the answer is yes.
So if there are only three components of schism, and we put aside the refusal to submit to the holy Father, then we can't conclude that the CMRI is schismatic.
Having valid Holy Orders does not mean they are not is schism.
-
:read-paper: Have you read Mario's paper, Nado? It lays aside the SV Theory of I recall. He even has a summary for quick study.
-
Unless the Church has declared them schismatic, you can still receive their sacraments.
Addressing the question "Whether it is permissible to receive communion from heretical, excommunicate, [schismatic,] or sinful priests, and to hear mass said by them? (http://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/TP/TP082.html#TPQ82A9THEP1)," St. Thomas writes:
Consequently, until the Church's sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their mass.
[Et ideo, usque ad sententiam Ecclesiae, licet ab eis communionem accipere et eorum Missam audire.]
-
When I said "prime support" I am referring to the reason for why one would say the association of Schuckardt has made them schismatic.
What do you mean by "association"?
Well?
-
The OP should have outlined all reasons for schism, including sedevacantism, and after listing them all he should have then stated this the wanted us to ignore sedevacantism.
I think one of the other reasons for schism is refusing communion with fellow Catholics. To my knowledge, CMRI does not do that.
If refusing submission to the Holy Father is one of the reasons (it is) then both sides have to be reviewed in light of the facts of the time period we are suffering through. For the sake of this discussion, everyone should refrain from the sedevacantism subset of schism.
Does CMRI possess valid orders? Has the novus ordo ever rendered a judgement or even opinion on that? Until we are know otherwise, the answer is yes.
So if there are only three components of schism, and we put aside the refusal to submit to the holy Father, then we can't conclude that the CMRI is schismatic.
Even if a bishop did receive valid orders (materially), he does not receive them formally, formal succession requires communion with the Pope, and it is the Pope that confers them either explicitly or implicitly. The schismatic Eastern Orthodox have valid orders, for example. True Apostolic Succession must be both material and formal.
“Apostolicity of mission means that the Church is one moral body, possessing the mission entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Apostles, and transmitted through them and their lawful successors in an unbroken chain to the present representatives of Christ upon earth. This authoritative transmission of power in the Church constitutes Apostolic succession. This Apostolic succession must be both material and formal; the material consisting in the actual succession in the Church, through a series of persons from the Apostolic age to the present; the formal adding the element of authority in the transmission of power. It consists in the legitimate transmission of the ministerial power conferred by Christ upon His Apostles. No one can give a power which he does not possess. Apostolic succession as an uninterrupted substitution of persons in the place of the Apostles, insists upon the necessity of jurisdiction or authoritative transmission, thus excluding the hypothesis that a new mission could ever be originated by anyone in the place of the mission bestowed by Christ and transmitted in the manner described.”
Besides the schism and heresy of sedevacantism, CMRI is not Apostolic, for jurisdiction is essential to the Apostolicity of mission. Sedes need to educate themselves in the need for jurisdiction described in the 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia on Apostolicity.
-
Charges of schism (apart from those who refer to all sedevacantism as schismatic) stem from the early association with one "Bishop" Daniel Q. Brown, from whom Shuckhardt originally received "Holy Orders". But Brown reportedly made a formal abjuration before ordaining / consecrating Shuckhardt. SSPV still pushes that angle.
-
There are also some allegations that Shuckardt thought of himself as a Pope (Hadrian or something like that).
-
The SSPV may make such a claim, but this thread is for someone HERE who holds they are schismatic to make that claim, give the reason, and discuss it.
You did not specify this in your OP.
-
I can make an argument.
CMRI strongly advocates the notion that there can be salvation outside the Church. Yet all the alleged error in Vatican II derives logically from the same position on EENS that the CMRI hold. Consequently, they have no doctrinal justification for refusing to be subject to the Vatican II hierarchy. Consequently, the CMRI are schismatic.
-
Charges of schism (apart from those who refer to all sedevacantism as schismatic) stem from the early association with one "Bishop" Daniel Q. Brown, from whom Shuckhardt originally received "Holy Orders". But Brown reportedly made a formal abjuration before ordaining / consecrating Shuckhardt. SSPV still pushes that angle.
Which bishop heard his abjuration?
-
When I said "prime support" I am referring to the reason for why one would say the association of Schuckardt has made them schismatic.
What do you mean by "association"?
Well?
That is an ordinary English word. Look it up.
In another thread you made claims they were schismatic. Present your claim and reason, if you still have it.
I have already done that - you explain what the association was.
You seem to think he was some obscure member, as if by his lowly position within the sect that he's someone CMRI has no reason to be connected too.
So please humor us and explain what this association consisted of.
-
I can make an argument.
CMRI strongly advocates the notion that there can be salvation outside the Church. Yet all the alleged error in Vatican II derives logically from the same position on EENS that the CMRI hold. Consequently, they have no doctrinal justification for refusing to be subject to the Vatican II hierarchy. Consequently, the CMRI are schismatic.
As always the Church INCLUDING CMRI, teaches NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, and also as always, the Church teaches that no one, not even Ladislaus or Stubborn or Cantarella can judge who exactly is outside the Church, because God give His graces to whomever He desires and whenever He desires. This is what I was taught way before Vatican II.
This grace is rare and not the norm, but it can happen because the Church says so.
Vatican II however is schismatic because the moment the
ConciLIAR "popes" have contradicted God they became a new religion. Example: I am the Lord Thy God and THOU SHALT NOT have strange gods before me. The Bible states to leave the Harlot, (interfaith).
-
Catholic means universal, therefore in this Crisis of the (universal) Church, a valid clergy has jurisdiction everywhere, despite not being granted regular faculties by a (heretical / apostate) Bishop. The same goes for a traditional valid Bishop. He has jurisdiction everywhere despite not being granted faculties by (heretic / apostate) Francis. As long as a clergy is validly ordained and he's in the true Catholic Faith, then his apostolate is in effect anywhere, and at any time, during this Crisis.
Where did you get this from?
Please provide a Magisterial source (preferably from before 1962 so the sedevacacantists can be an ease too) to prove this claim.
-
I can make an argument.
CMRI strongly advocates the notion that there can be salvation outside the Church. Yet all the alleged error in Vatican II derives logically from the same position on EENS that the CMRI hold. Consequently, they have no doctrinal justification for refusing to be subject to the Vatican II hierarchy. Consequently, the CMRI are schismatic.
As always the Church INCLUDING CMRI, teaches NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, and also as always, the Church teaches that no one, not even Ladislaus or Stubborn or Cantarella can judge who exactly is outside the Church, because God give His graces to whomever He desires and whenever He desires. This is what I was taught way before Vatican II.
If this one weren't so sad, it would be funny.
You, of all people, say that no one knows who is outside the Church and that this is what you were taught before Vatican II.
Did you have some special revelations that only sedevacantists receive since you are always saying that the conciliar popes are outside the Church.
-
When I said "prime support" I am referring to the reason for why one would say the association of Schuckardt has made them schismatic.
What do you mean by "association"?
Well?
That is an ordinary English word. Look it up.
In another thread you made claims they were schismatic. Present your claim and reason, if you still have it.
I have already done that - you explain what the association was.
You seem to think he was some obscure member, as if by his lowly position within the sect that he's someone CMRI has no reason to be connected too.
So please humor us and explain what this association consisted of.
Sorry, if you had done it, I didn't read it, because you did it apparently in another thread where it was off-topic. When something is off-topic, I skip by it. I simply noticed that you called them schismatic repeatedly, and that is why this thread was started. State your claim and the reason for it. You were pretty bold to obscure the other thread, now you are hemming and hawing to come out with it.
Sorry but the burden is on you to prove they are not schismatic.
Based on their history, best of luck to you.
-
I can make an argument.
CMRI strongly advocates the notion that there can be salvation outside the Church. Yet all the alleged error in Vatican II derives logically from the same position on EENS that the CMRI hold. Consequently, they have no doctrinal justification for refusing to be subject to the Vatican II hierarchy. Consequently, the CMRI are schismatic.
As always the Church INCLUDING CMRI, teaches NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, and also as always, the Church teaches that no one, not even Ladislaus or Stubborn or Cantarella can judge who exactly is outside the Church, because God give His graces to whomever He desires and whenever He desires. This is what I was taught way before Vatican II.
If this one weren't so sad, it would be funny.
You, of all people, say that no one knows who is outside the Church and that this is what you were taught before Vatican II.
Did you have some special revelations that only sedevacantists receive since you are always saying that the conciliar popes are outside the Church.
Don't turn the thread into a Feeneyite discussion!
Myrna, don't answer. Start another thread if you must.
I posted a fact, not anything debatable since she has touted the fact many times here on CI.
You keep side tracking with your "feeneyites" remarks but that does not change the fact as I stated it above.
Try hard as you possibly can to stay on track from now on.
And please try like crazy to avoid starting a plethora of new threads - LoT has given us a break with that as of late - try not to pickup where he left off.
-
If I don't know what the reason you have is, then logically I cannot possibly attempt it. You have not given the reason, so the burden of proof is on your first for claiming it in the first place.
The reason you do not know is because you do not know what schism even is.
Study what schism is and how it happens - then try to prove CMRI is not in schism. As I said, good luck.
-
If I don't know what the reason you have is, then logically I cannot possibly attempt it. You have not given the reason, so the burden of proof is on your first for claiming it in the first place.
A claim without the accompanying reasoning means the claimant has the burden of proof for the claim. It is incomplete otherwise.
You need a reason because you do not know how schism happens or what it even is.
I suggest that you study up on the subject, then post when you have a better idea about what it is and how it happens.
If you do that, you will see for yourself that the question should not be: "Is the CMRI schismatic?", rather, the question you should be asking is: "Why is the CMRI *not* schismatic?"
So you see, the question you ask demonstrates you have no idea what schism even is or how it happens. Best for you to study the subject matter before you post further lest you sway others who are as misguided as you are into error.
-
This isn't about "Feeneyism" per se. In order for the CMRI to be able to justify refusal of submission to the Vatican II papal claimants, they would have to have a doctrinal basis to do so. Otherwise, it would be schism. Give their stance on EENS, they don't have a doctrinal basis for the separation.
-
If I don't know what the reason you have is, then logically I cannot possibly attempt it. You have not given the reason, so the burden of proof is on your first for claiming it in the first place.
A claim without the accompanying reasoning means the claimant has the burden of proof for the claim. It is incomplete otherwise.
You need a reason because you do not know how schism happens or what it even is.
I suggest that you study up on the subject, then post when you have a better idea about what it is and how it happens.
If you do that, you will see for yourself that the question should not be: "Is the CMRI schismatic?", rather, the question you should be asking is: "Why is the CMRI *not* schismatic?"
So you see, the question you ask demonstrates you have no idea what schism even is or how it happens. Best for you to study the subject matter before you post further lest you sway others who are as misguided as you are into error.
I seriously think you have something that is handicapping you ability to reason. You seem to confuse simple logical before & after. And you even suggest that someone can prove a negative, which is another logical fallacy. These are fundamentals of reasoning.
I have never shown that I misunderstand schism, because I have not yet spoken on the subject. If you have a problem with logic, your soul needs to stay off these forums.
Anyone who first makes a claim needs to prove the claim, and has the burden. That's the way the courts work, too. That is basic logic, and if you cannot see that, then you need help.
Because you need a reason to find out if the CMRI is schismatic or not, that demonstrates that you do not even know the first thing about what schism is or how it happens.
Since you demonstrate you know nothing about it, you can't debate it, all you can do is what you've been doing - talking in circles, which I have no desire to do.
-
If I don't know what the reason you have is, then logically I cannot possibly attempt it. You have not given the reason, so the burden of proof is on your first for claiming it in the first place.
A claim without the accompanying reasoning means the claimant has the burden of proof for the claim. It is incomplete otherwise.
You need a reason because you do not know how schism happens or what it even is.
I suggest that you study up on the subject, then post when you have a better idea about what it is and how it happens.
If you do that, you will see for yourself that the question should not be: "Is the CMRI schismatic?", rather, the question you should be asking is: "Why is the CMRI *not* schismatic?"
So you see, the question you ask demonstrates you have no idea what schism even is or how it happens. Best for you to study the subject matter before you post further lest you sway others who are as misguided as you are into error.
I seriously think you have something that is handicapping you ability to reason. You seem to confuse simple logical before & after. And you even suggest that someone can prove a negative, which is another logical fallacy. These are fundamentals of reasoning.
I have never shown that I misunderstand schism, because I have not yet spoken on the subject. If you have a problem with logic, your soul needs to stay off these forums.
Anyone who first makes a claim needs to prove the claim, and has the burden. That's the way the courts work, too. That is basic logic, and if you cannot see that, then you need help.
Because you need a reason to find out if the CMRI is schismatic or not, that demonstrates that you do not even know the first thing about what schism is or how it happens.
Since you demonstrate you know nothing about it, you can't debate it, all you can do is what you've been doing - talking in circles, which I have no desire to do.
Speak for yourself. You are the one talking in circles. It is insane. You made the claim first in the other thread. You need to back up any criminal accusation you make against another Catholic. St. Thomas said if you falsely do so, you deserve the punishment as if you were guilty of that crime.
If you think that's the case, then please go through and post the claim you say that I made.
Every thing I posted came from either the CMRI website itself or from some other reliable source which all lead to the same conclusion.
For whatever reason, you do not accept the conclusion - since you resist actually learning about what schism is and how it happens, why not start there - why don't you start by replying the reason that you refuse to accept that conclusion?
-
You said they were schismatic. You need to prove that if you make the claim. Simple as that.
Conclusion are based on premises. This thread here is asking for what premises you have for your conclusion.
If you cannot give your premises here, then you failed to prove your conclusion, and this thread is finished.
Your conclusions are based on premises, but the actual conclusion as to the status of the CMRI is indisputable because it is derived from actual, historical, recorded fact right on the CMRI website as I've already repeatedly quoted in the other thread.
Since you obviously cannot accept that, then ask the CMRI to revise their website so as to satisfy the conclusion you will be happy with.
-
You said they were schismatic. You need to prove that if you make the claim. Simple as that.
Conclusion are based on premises. This thread here is asking for what premises you have for your conclusion.
If you cannot give your premises here, then you failed to prove your conclusion, and this thread is finished.
Your conclusions are based on premises, but the actual conclusion as to the status of the CMRI is indisputable because it is derived from actual, historical, recorded fact right on the CMRI website as I've already repeatedly quoted in the other thread.
Since you obviously cannot accept that, then ask the CMRI to revise their website so as to satisfy the conclusion you will be happy with.
I already said that what you wrote in the other thread was off-topic, so I never read anything you said other than to notice your charge and that it had something to do with Schuckardt.
This thread makes it on-topic, and I am asking you to present it here where it is truly on-topic and not cluttered among other arguments.
You are spilling a lot of ink, so to speak, to avoid simply summarizing here, and if you just DO IT, you will save a lot of your energy by just doing it. I believe your delaying tactic is just evasiveness, because you are not confident your premises will stand the test. However, seeing how wrong you are in so many things, I am confident that you are wrong on this and willing to get right into it without evasion. You have no problem repeating yourself over and over on so many things, so it is obvious that your are dodging this one by pretending you don't want to repeat yourself.
I already stated that there is no need to go around in circles with you - if you learn what schism is and how it happens, you would not have even started this thread.
So as long as you admit to not reading what I wrote, no time like the present to go back and read it, then apply it to this thread and see if you can understand any of it - - -when you discover that you just don't get it, do as I suggested and learn what schism is and how it happens, then come back and let us know what you found out.
That way, you will be basing your conclusion as to what I actually said on fact, not on some false premise as you've been doing.
-
Good, now you've opened up some time to study up on what schism is and how it happens.
-
Good, now you've opened up some time to study up on what schism is and how it happens.
I already know, and that is why I am baffled at your accusation.
You would not be baffled if you understood what schism is and how it happens.
-
You would not be baffled if you understood what schism is and how it happens.
By this statement you are presuming your are already correct. Once you make your thoughts known to us that you think it did occur, I will show you that you are mistaken. But hide if you will. Again, being "stubborn" is condemned in Scripture. It is not a good thing.
I have not presumed anything, I have posted the facts as CMRI itself dictates them on their own website, and posted those facts directly from their website - you think the CMRI doesn't mean what they say, yet you believe them to be honest and that they are not hiding anything - that is your first blunder, but that is the blunder you base your entire opinion on.
You believe their half truths to be the whole truth either because you do not know what schism is and how it happens, or, like Mryna, you don't want to know the whole truth and want others to accept half truths just as you accept them - for the sake of fellowship I guess.
Either way, if nothing else, they actually do come out and tell you right on their website enough information to throw up the red flag, to raise suspicion, to cast serious doubt and give reason to run from, not to them - *if* you know what schism is and how it happens, and if you care enough about it to actually look into it rather than simply blow it off while convincing yourself that they don't actually mean what they say.
-
You would not be baffled if you understood what schism is and how it happens.
By this statement you are presuming your are already correct. Once you make your thoughts known to us that you think it did occur, I will show you that you are mistaken. But hide if you will. Again, being "stubborn" is condemned in Scripture. It is not a good thing.
I have not presumed anything, I have posted the facts as CMRI itself dictates them on their own website, and posted those facts directly from their website - you think the CMRI doesn't mean what they say, yet you believe them to be honest and that they are not hiding anything - that is your first blunder, but that is the blunder you base your entire opinion on.
You believe their half truths to be the whole truth either because you do not know what schism is and how it happens, or, like Mryna, you don't want to know the whole truth and want others to accept half truths just as you accept them - for the sake of fellowship I guess.
Either way, if nothing else, they actually do come out and tell you right on their website enough information to throw up the red flag, to raise suspicion, to cast serious doubt and give reason to run from, not to them - *if* you know what schism is and how it happens, and if you care enough about it to actually look into it rather than simply blow it off while convincing yourself that they don't actually mean what they say.
It raises a red flag for the ignorant and biased.
Yes, you call those seeking the truth ignorant and biased. But that does not change the fact that they have enough information right on their website which proves you either do not know what schism is or don't care - which is it?
-
It raises a red flag for the ignorant and biased.
Yes, you call those seeking the truth ignorant and biased. But that does not change the fact that they have enough information right on their website which proves you either do not know what schism is or don't care - which is it?
I know what schism is. It has been defined many times on this forum. I also care, otherwise I wouldn't have spent my time asking you to do your duty and support you accusation. You are shirking you duty. It's not a Catholic response to tell someone go hunt for an answer somewhere else when you can provide it off the top of your head. That shows you don't care.
You do not know what schism is - based on your replies, that much is obvious.
Better still, Stubborn, give me a link to your posting that contains the reason why you say the CMRI is schismatic.
Since I wrote it for your benefit to begin with and you chose to not even read it, I won't waste my time posting it again so you can ignore it again.
It is you who started this thread because of something I allegedly posted - yet you said you never read my posts - so here you go, around in circles again. If you wish to pursue it, then you go look for it because I have no idea which post that you didn't even read that you are talking about.
-
You are the one making the accusation, you pick the post that you disagree with. I'm not going to try and guess which post you have a problem with.
-
I think you do have a mental problem. You accused me you nitwit. You want me to post a link to a post I made saying why CMRI was schismatic that you never read.
Go back and read the one you're talking about and let me know which one it is so I can post a link to it lol :facepalm:
-
I think you do have a mental problem. You accused me you nitwit. You want me to post a link to a post I made saying why CMRI was schismatic that you never read.
Go back and read the one you're talking about and let me know which one it is so I can post a link to it lol :facepalm:
Thread finished.
The next time you make the same charge that the CMRI is schismatic, I will be sure to PM whoever is involved and ask them to ask you to give your reasoning.
Truth isn't a game, but you are playing with it like it is.
You've got 14 pages of circular posting and although you may think that I can read your mind, I really can't so it looks like there is no end to going round and round - at least not until you come right out and post the alleged post from the other thread that you claim you have problems with - even though you supposedly never read it.
-
Well, you'll still need to be the one to go find the post you have issues with - I have no issues with my own posts in that thread.
-
CMRI is pure cane Catholic. Period. End of debate. I'm not CMRI, but if there was a chapel close to where I live, then I'd most certainly assist at their Mass.
-
CMRI is pure cane Catholic. Period. End of debate. I'm not CMRI, but if there was a chapel close to where I live, then I'd most certainly assist at their Mass.
Forgetting the entire history of CMRI, we'll just take your word for this.
-
Well, you'll still need to be the one to go find the post you have issues with - I have no issues with my own posts in that thread.
Do you now deny your having claimed the CMRI are schismatic?
Toward the beginning of that thread, I posted quotes from someone who called himself a CMRI bishop. I asked if anyone knew him. I asked if anyone could dispute him or prove him unreliable in any way - all I got was lambasted for even bringing up the man. After getting nothing but opinions and ad hominems, I later discovered proof on my own that the man was not all that I thought he claimed to be.
I admitted and apologized for my mistake - but if I had not found proof on my own that I was mistaken, I had zero hope of any CMRI supporter to correct my error with anything other than their own personal and biased opinions.
So for me to admit I am wrong means very little to me, I actually hope to admit I am wrong and will admit I am wrong when it is proven that I am wrong because it is the truth that matters, only the truth, but I will not admit anything of the sort when factual proofs are repudiated with nothing but ad hominems and biased opinions.
The most recent example of simply ignoring all evidence to the contrary is ascent's personal opinion reply a few posts before this one.
Anyway, you should have actually read what I wrote. I gave factual evidence, some directly from their own website which points to them being is schism - all the while I was hoping for someone to prove with facts (not opinion) that the conclusion derived from historical facts to be bogus - but what I got instead was ad hominems and personal opinions which ignored the facts - one person even admitted the facts did not matter.
I posted facts, which by all accounts lead to the conclusion that they are in schism - everyone of the CMRIers recognized those facts as leading to pretty much the same conclusion because I never said the CMRI was in schism. I let the facts speak for themselves, the inescapable conclusion was recognized by the CMRIers and the debate went on for +370 posts, mostly aiming at me for having the gall to bring up those facts.
So if you know what schism even is and if you really, honestly care, it is up to you to prove they are not is schism, in so doing be prepared to accept that you may well end up proving that they are in schism.
-
It is quite obvious that you do not know what schism even is and that you are not any more interested in finding out what it is anymore than you are interested in truth.
Do yourself a favor and study up on what schism is and how it happens before you clog up the forum with more of your jaynek style circular semantics.
-
CMRI is pure cane Catholic. Period. End of debate. I'm not CMRI, but if there was a chapel close to where I live, then I'd most certainly assist at their Mass.
Look, buddy, the bottom line is this: if a Catholic has a CMRI chapel within an hour's commute - or the other option is to stay home like a dogmatic cultist schizoid, or go to a novus queerdo chapel - then his soul will be in far better shape through the graces bestowed upon him by assisting a true Catholic Mass and receiving the Sacraments. Otherwise, he would be committing mortal sin by staying home when he could be at a Catholic Mass, or committing sin attending a sacrilegious, calvinist, masonic service known as the "mass of Paul VI". CMRI are valid and Catholic. There is no evidence in their history to the contrary. That is the work of jewry and their General - Satan - who work to divide real Catholics an attack the true Faith.
-
CMRI is pure cane Catholic. Period. End of debate. I'm not CMRI, but if there was a chapel close to where I live, then I'd most certainly assist at their Mass.
Look, buddy, the bottom line is this: if a Catholic has a CMRI chapel within an hour's commute - or the other option is to stay home like a dogmatic cultist schizoid, or go to a novus queerdo chapel - then his soul will be in far better shape through the graces bestowed upon him by assisting a true Catholic Mass and receiving the Sacraments. Otherwise, he would be committing mortal sin by staying home when he could be at a Catholic Mass, or committing sin attending a sacrilegious, calvinist, masonic service known as the "mass of Paul VI". CMRI are valid and Catholic. There is no evidence in their history to the contrary. That is the work of jewry and their General - Satan - who work to divide real Catholics an attack the true Faith.
I obviously clicked on the wrong comment "quote" button. This above comment ^ was meant for Stubborn who said,
Forgetting the entire history of CMRI, we'll just take your word for this.
-
The down-thumbs suggest I've upset a few limp-wristed, home alone schizoids (who still have access to a real Catholic Mass but refuse it) who judge real Catholics as "not Catholic", while their own souls are actually in a perilous state. These home aloners and the novus queerdo are actually a false dichotomy, for both deny real Catholic Masses and Sacraments, and try to sow division and confusion in the true Faith.
-
It is quite obvious that you do not know what schism even is and that you are not any more interested in finding out what it is anymore than you are interested in truth.
Do yourself a favor and study up on what schism is and how it happens before you clog up the forum with more of your jaynek style circular semantics.
What charity! Connecting someone with a totally unrelated scandal and dropping the name of the person involved who is unconnected to Nado.
That is really low. I hope you get to confession this week.
It just goes to show that you will resort to any tactic to worm your way out of an honest discussion. I might even be inclined to agree with you on many things, but it is nearly impossible to communicate with you because your reading comprehension is comparable to your level of good-will.
Nado, sorry for derailing, back to your thread where you never get an answer.
-
CMRI are valid and Catholic. There is no evidence in their history to the contrary. That is the work of jewry and their General - Satan - who work to divide real Catholics an attack the true Faith.
I do not believe you and I will not accept your opinion.
While there may be doubts about their validity of Orders, that is not what this subject is about.
-
It is quite obvious that you do not know what schism even is and that you are not any more interested in finding out what it is anymore than you are interested in truth.
Do yourself a favor and study up on what schism is and how it happens before you clog up the forum with more of your jaynek style circular semantics.
What charity! Connecting someone with a totally unrelated scandal and dropping the name of the person involved who is unconnected to Nado.
That is really low. I hope you get to confession this week.
It just goes to show that you will resort to any tactic to worm your way out of an honest discussion. I might even be inclined to agree with you on many things, but it is nearly impossible to communicate with you because your reading comprehension is comparable to your level of good-will.
Nado, sorry for derailing, back to your thread where you never get an answer.
I worm my way out by asking for proof against facts, I ask for proof to support opinions contrary to the facts that I've posted, that is what you call worming my way out.
FYI - my good will or lack of it in your opinion, has nothing to do with why CMRIers - you included, ignore the facts in favor of your own opinions.
Having gone head to head with jayne many times, I can tell you, nada's style of debate is close to jane's style. That is my opinion which is at odds with your opinion about her style of debate. Glad we agree on our differences - and I remember that to you, among other things, I am the "unjust man" as you put it in your CMRI wonderful Christian charity.
Why not be constructive and add something of substance to this thread that actually pertains to the subject of this thread, something which will prove that my facts are wrong.
I can see this thread is going the same route as the last one and will end up a long thread of ad hominems and little else.
If any CMRIer out there actually chooses to offer some type of legitimate proof to support their opinion that the CMRI is not schismatic, I will participate in that debate here.
-
What charity! Connecting someone with a totally unrelated scandal and dropping the name of the person involved who is unconnected to Nado.
That is really low. I hope you get to confession this week.
It just goes to show that you will resort to any tactic to worm your way out of an honest discussion. I might even be inclined to agree with you on many things, but it is nearly impossible to communicate with you because your reading comprehension is comparable to your level of good-will.
Nado, sorry for derailing, back to your thread where you never get an answer.
Just as a matter of fair is fair, why do you not chastise nado for something nado repeats with every post nado makes:
"Know also this, that, in the last days, shall come dangerous times. Men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, haughty, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, wicked, Without affection, without peace, slanderers, incontinent, unmerciful, without kindness, Traitors, stubborn, puffed up, and lovers of pleasures more than of God: Having an appearance indeed of godliness, but denying the power thereof. Now these avoid." (2 Tim 3:1-5)
Do you think I find it rewarding to be "Connected" to one of the traitors, blasphemers, wicked, etc. 200 times so far? Nado posted that same scripture in a post when nado was only freshly registered here in retaliation to one of my posts. It has been nado's sig ever since. Why no chastisement of nado?
Because of your hatred toward me, you may find nado's sig to reek of charity and agree with it, but all I see is another act of hatred from one who proves they are dishonest because the only thing that matters is that they be right - any opposition that they cannot overcome with truth will reap the most slanderous attack they can safely muster. That's what I see.
I don't expect any reply to my question, I just wanted to point out, using you as an example, how selectively blind one can be when they choose to be - and how when one has an opinion that is biased, the lack of fairness, truth and charity is what takes over for the sake of being right at all costs.
-
I cannot speak for other posters here, but I personally have no grudge against the CMRI. I know the SSPX does not regard laity who attend CMRI chapels as non-Catholic or refused them Holy Communion when they ask. I do not doubt many Catholics, trying to make sense of these difficult times, may find in the CMRI a place of refuge from modern errors and liturgical heteropraxis. Also, in fairness, I have heard CMRI priests show very great zeal and devotion in caring for their faithful, so it is unsurprising that CMRI attendees here are likewise supportive of their priests from a charge they believe false. What is the measure of any traditional group at the end of the day? It comes down to how that group helps Catholic families to live a Catholic life in the modern world.
Personally, I would not attend a CMRI chapel, or encourage anyone to attend, for I don't agree with the position they officially endorse, which is 56+year sedevacantism. I also don't agree that the Church can be reduced to a state where pastors with the power of the keys, (which is given by Christ to Peter, that is the Pope, and from Peter comes to the Apostles, that is the bishops who receive a mission from him) cannot be found anymore, for the promise of Christ precludes that. If they agree with that, my advice to the CMRI would be to go to one such pastor, and receive their share in the power of the keys from him. The Pope receives from Christ the fullness of the power of the keys, which includes the power to give others a share in this power. A mere bishop, who only has a share in this power, does not have the power to transmit the keys to another, unless the Pope has delegated to him that power in the form of a Papal mandate. That is why the continuation of the Church depends on the Pope, and the Papacy is the foundation of the Roman Catholic Church. So, I would ask, how can it be that no one can be found in the Church today who can be relied upon to exercise this power, for the benefit of the CMRI priests? That brings us back to the impossibility of what 56+ year sedevacantism says has happened to the Catholic Church, in particular the ecclesia docens.
But, I would be wary in trying to judge anything more than that. I would say they do not have a right to claim ordinary jurisdiction, until they receive it from the Pope, or someone to whom the Pope has delegated it, and if they accept that, then I think going so far as to say the CMRI and those who attend are schismatic or non-Catholic is a judgment we should refrain from making.
-
Personally, I would not attend a CMRI chapel, or encourage anyone to attend, for I don't agree with the position they officially endorse, which is 56+year sedevacantism. I also don't agree that the Church can be reduced to a state where pastors with the power of the keys, (which is given by Christ to Peter, that is the Pope, and from Peter comes to the Apostles, that is the bishops who receive a mission from him) cannot be found anymore, for the promise of Christ precludes that. If they agree with that, my advice to the CMRI would be to go to one such pastor, and receive their share in the power of the keys from him. The Pope receives from Christ the fullness of the power of the keys, which includes the power to give others a share in this power. A mere bishop, who only has a share in this power, does not have the power to transmit the keys to another, unless the Pope has delegated to him that power in the form of a Papal mandate. That is why the continuation of the Church depends on the Pope, and the Papacy is the foundation of the Roman Catholic Church. So, I would ask, how can it be that no one can be found in the Church today who can be relied upon to exercise this power, for the benefit of the CMRI priests? That brings us back to the impossibility of what 56+ year sedevacantism says has happened to the Catholic Church, in particular the ecclesia docens.
But, I would be wary in trying to judge anything more than that. I would say they do not have a right to claim ordinary jurisdiction, until they receive it from the Pope, or someone to whom the Pope has delegated it, and if they accept that, then I think going so far as to say the CMRI and those who attend are schismatic or non-Catholic is a judgment we should refrain from making.
Firstly I thank you for your kind words about CMRI, however I urge you to read this link of which I am posting a small portion.
http://www.christorchaos.com/FatherStepanichontheThucLineConsecrations.htm
Father Stepanich, who, much unlike the lay "experts," has an earned doctorate in Sacred Theology
But the anti-Thucs made a big mistake, in regard to the supposed unlawfulness of the Thuc consecrations, in failing to stress the fact that Archbishop Thuc did not do his consecrations before the Vatican II disaster, when things were still in proper order at the Vatican and the Church in general. He, on the contrary, did the consecrations without a papal mandate after the Vatican II apostasy from the traditional Catholic faith and practice had set in and after disorder and confusion prevailed everywhere, having had its beginning at the very top of the Church hierarchy.
What the anti-Thuc need to realize is that when a human law, or decree, like the papal mandate for the consecration of Bishops, can no longer be enforced and the one who would normally issue the papal mandate has himself deserted the True Faith, the Divine Law nevertheless still remains in force and always will remain in force.
The Divine Law about which we are speaking is the law that demands that the work of saving souls must by all means continue, despite the Vatican II apostasy. For that, Bishops and Priests are needed to make available the means of grace for the faithful. That is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments, which are the principal means of grace, must be made available to the faithful, while at the same time the True Catholic Faith must by all means be taught whole and entire, and kept alive among the faithful.
As the anti-Thucs can plainly see, it was because of the Vatican II apostasy from the True Catholic Faith that Archbishop Thuc saw that he could not go by the human law demanding a papal mandate for consecrating Bishops. But he could, and he did, obey the Divine Law demanding the continued work of saving souls. He was fully justified before God in obeying His Law, and he had he necessary jurisdiction to do so by virtue of Divine Law.
Traditional Bishops and Priests who have proceeded from Archbishop Thuc are likewise fully justified before God in preserving the True Faith among traditional Catholics, and providing for them the necessary means of grace. The traditional “emergency jurisdiction” long granted by the Church in cases of urgent need is based upon the Divine Law that demands that the necessary care of souls continue.
A much-needed article, dealing with the issue of traditional priests conferring the Sacraments legitimately in these confused times, has recently been issued by Father Anthony Cekada ( The Validity of the Thuc Consecrations). In the article, Father Cekada puts forth his main theme in these words: “Divine Law obliges rather than forbids us to confer Sacraments.” Traditional Catholics would do well to obtain a copy of the article from father Cekada, and then read it carefully and accept Father’s unquestionable conclusions.
For all anti-Thuc agitators who have kept stirring up the storm of controversy over the Thuc consecrations, and against the Thuc Bishops and Priests, the message has long been loud and clear: “Peace! Be still!”
Pax et Bonum!
Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D.
-
No matter what mask of Tradition, CMRI profess, it is nothing but "Protestantism" in disguise, they do not operate under the Catholic Church Divine and Ecclesiastical Laws, nor they respect or know the Catholic dogmas of salvation rooted in EENS. Traditional in name only, they share the same liberal fundamental Cushing error than the conciliar Pope they reject. Not only do they adhere to this error in the salvation doctrine, but also to the absurdity of a sede vacante for more than half a century which would mean that the Church has ceased to be Apostolic and Roman.
The Schuckardt / Mt. St. Michael’s group is a clear example of how schism operated. As was stated above this group was quite spiritual when it was started. Then in October 1971, Brother Francis Schuckardt was ordained a priest by an Old Catholic bishop, Bishop Brown. Old Catholics had been declared schismatic in the late 1800s and this led Schuckardt down the path to schism and possibly worse as the Old Catholics were heretics because they wouldn’t accept the dogma that the pope can be infallible. In November of the same year (1971) the now Father Schuckardt was consecrated a bishop by Bishop Brown. Note: Possibly the sacraments given were valid but very illicit or illegal which made them an extreme sacrilege. Also the group took a sedevacantist position which rejects the Pope. From this point forward one can mark the deterioration of Schuckardt and his organization spiritually. True, the organization grew to great proportions. What it built was at the cost of the Church, not just in a financial sense but in the souls who went to Schuckardt for Catholic instruction and sacraments, neither of which they received. The sacraments received were without grace and the instruction was of a church built by man; a church that failed to teach a fear of schism and a love of the true Church. Of course one would not expect a schismatic to teach a fear of schism.
Those who hear the voice of the Shepherd would know not to heed the voice of heresy.
Our Lord declares, “The sheep follow him [the true shepherd], for they know his voice. A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers” (Jn 10:4f).
-
Cantarella, so what is your point about Schuckardt, he didn't ordain nor consecrate any of the CMRI priests or the Bishop who serve the order. He was an instrument in the purchase of the property however, of which we are all very grateful for.
Someday you will regret what you post!
-
What charity! Connecting someone with a totally unrelated scandal and dropping the name of the person involved who is unconnected to Nado.
That is really low. I hope you get to confession this week.
It just goes to show that you will resort to any tactic to worm your way out of an honest discussion. I might even be inclined to agree with you on many things, but it is nearly impossible to communicate with you because your reading comprehension is comparable to your level of good-will.
Nado, sorry for derailing, back to your thread where you never get an answer.
Just as a matter of fair is fair, why do you not chastise nado for something nado repeats with every post nado makes:
"Know also this, that, in the last days, shall come dangerous times. Men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, haughty, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, wicked, Without affection, without peace, slanderers, incontinent, unmerciful, without kindness, Traitors, stubborn, puffed up, and lovers of pleasures more than of God: Having an appearance indeed of godliness, but denying the power thereof. Now these avoid." (2 Tim 3:1-5)
Do you think I find it rewarding to be "Connected" to one of the traitors, blasphemers, wicked, etc. 200 times so far? Nado posted that same scripture in a post when nado was only freshly registered here in retaliation to one of my posts. It has been nado's sig ever since. Why no chastisement of nado?
Because of your hatred toward me, you may find nado's sig to reek of charity and agree with it, but all I see is another act of hatred from one who proves they are dishonest because the only thing that matters is that they be right - any opposition that they cannot overcome with truth will reap the most slanderous attack they can safely muster. That's what I see.
I don't expect any reply to my question, I just wanted to point out, using you as an example, how selectively blind one can be when they choose to be - and how when one has an opinion that is biased, the lack of fairness, truth and charity is what takes over for the sake of being right at all costs.
For your benefit, the message you are supposed to get is --> change your username. Choosing "stubborn" is like using any of the other negative terms St. Paul uses in that quote. There is nothing good in calling yourself stubborn. That is not a virtue. And, perhaps once you get the message, you will be more open to reason.
I already told you the thought behind my name but that does not suit a compromiser such as yourself - why should it?
You just keep demonstrating your wonderful CMRI Christian charity.
-
Cantarella, so what is your point about Schuckardt, he didn't ordain nor consecrate any of the CMRI priests or the Bishop who serve the order. He was an instrument in the purchase of the property however, of which we are all very grateful for.
Someday you will regret what you post!
Oh so now he was only an instrument in the purchase of the property? Do you honestly think your nuns would say you are being entirely honest?
Schuckardt the schismatic ordained as priest Chicoine, who after kicking Schuckardt out with the help of Pivarunas, was elected the second superior of CMRI.
I cannot see where there can be any question that Schuckardt was a schismatic and that he alone reigned as the Superior General of CMRI for it's first 18 years.
-
Oh so now he was only an instrument in the purchase of the property? Do you honestly think your nuns would say you are being entirely honest?
Schuckardt the schismatic ordained as priest Chicoine, who after kicking Schuckardt out with the help of Pivarunas, was elected the second superior of CMRI.
I cannot see where there can be any question that Schuckardt was a schismatic and that he alone reigned as the Superior General of CMRI for it's first 18 years.
God who is All Knowing and in the hopes of satisfying people like yourself arranged in 1985,for Father Chicoine, to be conditionally ordained as priests by the Traditionalist Catholic Bishop George Musey.
As said prior Bishop Musey's episcopal lineage descended from Archbishop Thuc which we have already proven to be of God.
So again, your point please!
-
You just keep demonstrating your wonderful CMRI Christian charity.
You are accusing people of some sort of fake charity, I get that. But look at yourself, in the same breath you are attaching the name of your enemy to that accusation, making their very name seem like an insult. You are using the name of people that you don't even know and with whom you have never spoken in a manner that defames their character.
So, tell us all, how many people on here do you know and have verified, in person that go to CMRI? How many CMRI priests and religious have you interviewed? The truth is that you don't even know the first thing about the people you are accusing.
Stubbornness is not a virtue, it isn't the name of a virtue, but if you look in spiritual writings that speak of deadly sins, such as Pride, you will find that stubbornness is synonymous with such vices. You should have picked a different screen name, though I do appreciate the warning.
Maybe your fellow board members would be willing to suggest a new name for you? FormerlyStubborn has a nice ring
:popcorn:
-
Oh so now he was only an instrument in the purchase of the property? Do you honestly think your nuns would say you are being entirely honest?
Schuckardt the schismatic ordained as priest Chicoine, who after kicking Schuckardt out with the help of Pivarunas, was elected the second superior of CMRI.
I cannot see where there can be any question that Schuckardt was a schismatic and that he alone reigned as the Superior General of CMRI for it's first 18 years.
God who is All Knowing and in the hopes of satisfying people like yourself arranged in 1985,for Father Chicoine, to be conditionally ordained as priests by the Traditionalist Catholic Bishop George Musey.
As said prior Bishop Musey's episcopal lineage descended from Archbishop Thuc which we have already proven to be of God.
So again, your point please!
The point of my last post was to correct you. Do you remember saying that Schuckardt did not ordain any of the CMRI priests or the Bishop who serve the order? Well, you must have forgot that Schuckardt ordained the next Superior of the CMRI, Chicoine, didn't he?
Being conditionally ordained by Musey only makes Chicoine a schismatic who was conditionally ordained.
On 23 April 1985 before Bp. Musey, the remaining three priests formally and publicly took the Abjuration of Error and Profession of Faith ad cautelam-- in case through their previous actions they had incurred any ecclesiastical censures. Bp. Musey then re-ordained them conditionally.
Assuming that two of the "three remaining priests" are Chicoine and Pivarunas,
aside from making a joke of the whole thing, what's the point of them making an abjuration "ad cautelam"?
I've never heard of any abjuration or profession of faith made ad cautelam. Absolution ad cautelam or conditionally administering of sacraments ad cautelam yes, certainly that makes sense, but making an abjuration / profession of faith ad cautelam does not make even a shred of sense to me - someone will need to explain that one.
-
You just keep demonstrating your wonderful CMRI Christian charity.
You are accusing people of some sort of fake charity, I get that. But look at yourself, in the same breath you are attaching the name of your enemy to that accusation, making their very name seem like an insult. You are using the name of people that you don't even know and with whom you have never spoken in a manner that defames their character.
So, tell us all, how many people on here do you know and have verified, in person that go to CMRI? How many CMRI priests and religious have you interviewed? The truth is that you don't even know the first thing about the people you are accusing.
Stubbornness is not a virtue, it isn't the name of a virtue, but if you look in spiritual writings that speak of deadly sins, such as Pride, you will find that stubbornness is synonymous with such vices. You should have picked a different screen name, though I do appreciate the warning.
Maybe your fellow board members would be willing to suggest a new name for you? FormerlyStubborn has a nice ring
:popcorn:
You just ignored the whole point of the post and the whole point of this thread to point out more of my shortfalls - thanks for more of the good lod CMRI wonderful Christian charity.
Why not start a thread about me and my stupidity and get it off your chest already rather than clog up this thread like you did the other one?
-
Assuming that two of the "three remaining priests" are Chicoine and Pivarunas,
aside from making a joke of the whole thing, what's the point of them making an abjuration "ad cautelam"?
I've never heard of any abjuration or profession of faith made ad cautelam. Absolution ad cautelam or conditionally administering of sacraments ad cautelam yes, certainly that makes sense, but making an abjuration / profession of faith ad cautelam does not make even a shred of sense to me - someone will need to explain that one.
Bishop Pivarunas was never ordained by Schuckardt, he already told on the Youtube from the last thread I posted, shows what you want to remember and what you don't want to know.
I already told you why they were conditionally ordained with caution, what is wrong with that? God knowing there would be doubters like you, now you will have to answer to Him for your stubbornness of which you so desire.
Look at how many priest your Bishop Fellay has conditionally re-ordained ad cautelam, with caution. Your problem is you can't find a loop hole in your stubbornness to justify your stubborn attitude when it comes to CMRI.
Why do you think anyone was ever re-ordained?
That is also the reason people take an abjuration of faith, I took it when I left the Novus Ordo. I wanted to take it, not that it was forced on me. I wanted to make sure I understood the evil that I was led into. Not to say every lay person must take the abjuration of faith coming out of the novus ordo, but I wanted to as my promise that I would never, ever set foot within the devils "church" again. Unlike you who think nothing is really wrong there. You who points the finger at an ORDER KNOWN AS CMRI, who has taken precautionary measures to make sure everything is in order, in the eyes of God. CMRI does not compromise unlike some SSPX these days.
Your seem to deny the FACT that we are living in the Great Apostasy, and certain measures had to be taken to assure the Faith prevails. It is always better to err on the side of CAUTION. Meaning << to be especially careful rather than taking a risk or making a mistake>>
I can't even imagine God's disappointment about being cautious, during these times of confusion of those who saw the Great Apostasy in the very early days of the this crisis.
Beware these Modernist traits of your pope are starting to show its ugly face on your face. Not calling you a Modernist yet, but you are starting to sound like one.
-
Assuming that two of the "three remaining priests" are Chicoine and Pivarunas,
aside from making a joke of the whole thing, what's the point of them making an abjuration "ad cautelam"?
I've never heard of any abjuration or profession of faith made ad cautelam. Absolution ad cautelam or conditionally administering of sacraments ad cautelam yes, certainly that makes sense, but making an abjuration / profession of faith ad cautelam does not make even a shred of sense to me - someone will need to explain that one.
Bishop Pivarunas was never ordained by Schuckardt, he already told on the Youtube from the last thread I posted, shows what you want to remember and what you don't want to know.
Did I say Pivarunas was ordained by Schuckardt? - No, I did not. Shows you need new glasses - I just got some a month or two back and they make a difference - you should get yourself some so you can see what is written.
I already told you why they were conditionally ordained with caution, what is wrong with that? God knowing there would be doubters like you, now you will have to answer to Him for your stubbornness of which you so desire.
Look at how many priest your Bishop Fellay has conditionally re-ordained ad cautelam, with caution. Your problem is you can't find a loop hole in your stubbornness to justify your stubborn attitude when it comes to CMRI.
Why do you think anyone was ever re-ordained?
Again, you need glasses I never said anything at all against conditional ordinations ad cautelam - re-read and try to make a reply addressing something I actually said.
That is also the reason people take an abjuration of faith, I took it when I left the Novus Ordo. I wanted to take it, not that it was forced on me. I wanted to make sure I understood the evil that I was led into. Not to say every lay person must take the abjuration of faith coming out of the novus ordo, but I wanted to as my promise that I would never, ever set foot within the devils "church" again. Unlike you who think nothing is really wrong there. You who points the finger at an ORDER KNOWN AS CMRI, who has taken precautionary measures to make sure everything is in order, in the eyes of God. CMRI does not compromise unlike some SSPX these days.
Re-read this:
Have you ever heard of anyone making an abjuration or profession of faith ad cautelam? Absolution ad cautelam or conditionally administering of sacraments ad cautelam yes, certainly that makes sense, but making an abjuration / profession of faith ad cautelam does not make even a shred of sense to me - someone will need to explain that one.
I understand "ad cautelam" to basically mean "just in case" - if I am wrong, then I look for someone to correct me on that - as it is, how can someone make an abjuration of error - but they make it just in case they were in error. By that reasoning, for all they know, the error they thought they were in was not error at all, but the new faith they claim to profess actually is error.
How can someone make a profession of faith - but make it just in case the faith they held previously was in error? Are they sure about it this time?
I wouldn't be surprised if it did, but does that actually makes sense to you CMRIers?
-
How can someone make a profession of faith - but make it just in case the faith they held previously was in error? Are they sure about it this time?
I wouldn't be surprised if it did, but does that actually makes sense to you CMRIers?
In my way of thinking, I would surmise, that perhaps, the person felt at the time they were doing what was necessary, but now that the circuмstances changed they want to make sure they were not mistaken EVER. It took humility to do what they did, something you might want to imitate by admitting, maybe you are wrong with your conclusion about CMRI.
Is that a sin, there actions at the time, if not why the fuss. If yes, explain!
While your at it, answer Nado's last note too, or did you not see it, can't find your new glasses perhaps. :detective:
-
Okay, so you say Schuckardt was schismatic because of his ordination/consecration, and that it extended to Fr. Chicoine for attempting to be ordained by the same man.
Do you extend being schismatic to the others who approved and participated? Why, or why not?
Schuckardt was certainly in schism because first, he left the Church - second, after he left the Church, he then started his own "Religious Community" as the CMRI website describes it.
Schuckardt, who already started his Religious Community, started to grow his Religious Community after he was ordained and consecrated by a schismatic bishop (Daniel Brown) whose episcopal lineage is traced back to a bishop that was excommunicated by Pope Pius X himself. Correct me if I'm wrong but that being the case, everyone that is ordained/consecrated from that entire lineage is also excommunicated, therefore in schism.
There is a lot more to it, but no sense in proceeding any further until the above is understood.
-
How can someone make a profession of faith - but make it just in case the faith they held previously was in error? Are they sure about it this time?
I wouldn't be surprised if it did, but does that actually makes sense to you CMRIers?
In my way of thinking, I would surmise, that perhaps, the person felt at the time they were doing what was necessary, but now that the circuмstances changed they want to make sure they were not mistaken EVER. It took humility to do what they did, something you might want to imitate by admitting, maybe you are wrong with your conclusion about CMRI.
Is that a sin, there actions at the time, if not why the fuss. If yes, explain!
While your at it, answer Nado's last note too, or did you not see it, can't find your new glasses perhaps. :detective:
That makes no sense at all.
When a person abjures their errors and makes a profession of faith, they do it fully cognizant that in so doing, they are vowing to renounce the errors they held previously, not that they are abjuring just in case they actually were in error - that is absurd.
Perhaps the CMRI promote the abjuration of error "just in case", if they do, it could only be because they do not know what truth and error even is - that is what you are saying.
Does the below abjuration / profession sound like there is room for any doubt? If you think there is, then please point out where in the abjuration / profession of faith room is allowed for error?
"I,________________ having before me the holy
Gospels, which I touch with my hand, and knowing
that no one can be saved without that faith
which the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman
Church holds, believes, and teaches, against which
I grieve that I have greatly erred, inasmuch as I
have held and believed doctrines opposed to her
teaching.
"I now with sorrow and contrition for my past
errors, profess that I believe the Holy, Catholic,
Apostolic Roman Church to be the only and true
Church established on earth by Jesus Christ, to
which I submit myself with my whole soul. I believe
all the articles of Faith that she proposes to my
belief, and I reject and condemn all that she rejects
and condemns, and I am ready to observe all that
she commands me. And I make the following profession
of Faith:
(There follows the profession.)
'And, I believe in everything else that has been
defined and declared by the sacred Canons and by
the General Councils, and particularly by the holy
Council of Trent, and delivered, defined, and declared
by the General Council of the Vatican, especially
concerning the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff, and
his infallible teaching authority.
"With a sincere heart, therefore, and with unfeigned
faith, I detest and abjure every error, heresy,
and sect opposed to the said Holy, Catholic, and
Apostolic Roman Church. So help me God, and
these His holy Gospels, which I touch with my
hand."
-
Okay, so you say Schuckardt was schismatic because of his ordination/consecration, and that it extended to Fr. Chicoine for attempting to be ordained by the same man.
Do you extend being schismatic to the others who approved and participated? Why, or why not?
Schuckardt was certainly in schism because first, he left the Church - second, after he left the Church, he then started his own "Religious Community" as the CMRI website describes it.
Schuckardt, who already started his Religious Community, started to grow his Religious Community after he was ordained and consecrated by a schismatic bishop (Daniel Brown) whose episcopal lineage is traced back to a bishop that was excommunicated by Pope Pius X himself. Correct me if I'm wrong but that being the case, everyone that is ordained/consecrated from that entire lineage is also excommunicated, therefore in schism.
There is a lot more to it, but no sense in proceeding any further until the above is understood.
Not only the CMRI cult was founded by a "charismatic" and scandalous Schuckard but at current time, the reason why CMRI is schismatic is because of withdrawal from the Roman Pontiff. They have decided on their own that there is no Pope, which "certainty" can only be based upon private judgment as the Church has not declared sede vacante. They operate just as another puritanical Protestant sect that respond to no Catholic ecclesiastical authority but an alone illicit bishop somewhere, if that. They have made a personal opinion a dogma of the Faith and fall under the second category of schism: refusal to submit to the visible reigning Pope, the Bishop of Rome.
They justify themselves saying that Rome is the one that is in schism as all schismatics do since time immemorial. The Eastern Orthodox to this day claim that it is Rome and not themselves who are in schism from the True Church since 1054.
-
Okay, so you say Schuckardt was schismatic because of his ordination/consecration, and that it extended to Fr. Chicoine for attempting to be ordained by the same man.
Do you extend being schismatic to the others who approved and participated? Why, or why not?
Schuckardt was certainly in schism because first, he left the Church - second, after he left the Church, he then started his own "Religious Community" as the CMRI website describes it.
Schuckardt, who already started his Religious Community, started to grow his Religious Community after he was ordained and consecrated by a schismatic bishop (Daniel Brown) whose episcopal lineage is traced back to a bishop that was excommunicated by Pope Pius X himself. Correct me if I'm wrong but that being the case, everyone that is ordained/consecrated from that entire lineage is also excommunicated, therefore in schism.
There is a lot more to it, but no sense in proceeding any further until the above is understood.
Receiving a valid sacrament from a non-Catholic is normally sinful by ecclesiastical law, unless there is a proportionately good reason in an extraordinary circuмstance, then it becomes necessary and good. It is by the virtue of epikeia that the letter of law can be broken to maintain the essential spirit of the law. The most prominent example is baptism, and the next most common is confession (in danger of death).
In an extreme situation where the validity of the priesthood is stake, and thus a threat of extinction of the Sacraments, the priesthood can likewise be conferred by a non-Catholic. This is what the CMRI did with Brown. It was merely for the Sacraments and had nothing to do with approval of the Old Catholics and their tenets. Mistaken or not, the attempt had the color of legitimacy in this unprecedented, virtually unforeseen crisis. A mistake in such an extraordinary circuмstance doesn't equal schism.
An analogous situation is this: the moral theologians teach that incest is a mortal sin. Yet they teach that in a circuмstance where the human race is facing extinction, it would be good and lawful for brother and sister to get married and have children. Now, it is certainly difficult in such a case to truly know whether the human race, world-wide, is truly facing extinction, and if a mistake is made, the Church is as merciful as Our Lord is. Jansenists and Pharisee-types would have no mercy and condemn the mistake with the most rigorous charge possible by quoting books about the horror and grievousness of incest.
I don't know where to even start with this. This is tragically sad.
Have you ever heard the old saying: Two wrongs don't make a right?
Once again, I offer historical facts, you offer your opinion, which is so perverted I find myself in awe. What you base your opinion on God only knows, whatever you base your opinion on is certainly not Catholic.
FYI, since the time that Our Lord instituted of the Sacrament of Matrimony, and even before that in the Old Testament, the sin of incest will never be good and lawful - never. Here, (http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=3&ch=18&l=6#x) start at verse 6.
Whatever im"moral theologians" you follow, run, don't walk away from them.
-
An analogous situation is this: the moral theologians teach that incest is a mortal sin. Yet they teach that in a circuмstance where the human race is facing extinction, it would be good and lawful for brother and sister to get married and have children. Now, it is certainly difficult in such a case to truly know whether the human race, world-wide, is truly facing extinction, and if a mistake is made, the Church is as merciful as Our Lord is. Jansenists and Pharisee-types would have no mercy and condemn the mistake with the most rigorous charge possible by quoting books about the horror and grievousness of incest.
This is what happens when yet another barely literate sedevacantist has an internet connection.
So enlighten us Nado, who exactly are the Catholic moral theologians that justify incest?
Must say, though that Nado has become a very entertaining poster. Have to give her that!. Her utter ignorance combined with an innate inability to stop sprouting imprudent non sense are very comical. She just does not know when to stop! It surely keeps the threads alive.
-
Must say, though that Nado has become a very entertaining poster. Have to give her that!. Her utter ignorance combined with an innate inability to stop sprouting imprudent non sense are very comical. She just does not know when to stop! It surely keeps the threads alive.
Yes, now that Ambrose and LoT have stopped "contributing" to BoD threads, and Myrna / Emerentiana were in over their heads to begin with, they had to dispatch another CMRI-bot to continue trolling against the EENS dogma, to "take over driving" as Emerentiana put it.
-
An analogous situation is this: the moral theologians teach that incest is a mortal sin. Yet they teach that in a circuмstance where the human race is facing extinction, it would be good and lawful for brother and sister to get married and have children. Now, it is certainly difficult in such a case to truly know whether the human race, world-wide, is truly facing extinction, and if a mistake is made, the Church is as merciful as Our Lord is. Jansenists and Pharisee-types would have no mercy and condemn the mistake with the most rigorous charge possible by quoting books about the horror and grievousness of incest.
This is what happens when yet another barely literate sedevacantist has an internet connection.
So enlighten us Nado, who exactly are the Catholic moral theologians that justify incest?
Must say, though that Nado has become a very entertaining poster. Have to give her that!. Her utter ignorance combined with an innate inability to stop sprouting imprudent non sense are very comical. She just does not know when to stop! It surely keeps the threads alive.
Do you believe in Adam and Eve? If so, how do you think the world was populated?
Also, why do think that Nado is female?
-
An analogous situation is this: the moral theologians teach that incest is a mortal sin. Yet they teach that in a circuмstance where the human race is facing extinction, it would be good and lawful for brother and sister to get married and have children. Now, it is certainly difficult in such a case to truly know whether the human race, world-wide, is truly facing extinction, and if a mistake is made, the Church is as merciful as Our Lord is. Jansenists and Pharisee-types would have no mercy and condemn the mistake with the most rigorous charge possible by quoting books about the horror and grievousness of incest.
This is what happens when yet another barely literate sedevacantist has an internet connection.
So enlighten us Nado, who exactly are the Catholic moral theologians that justify incest?
Must say, though that Nado has become a very entertaining poster. Have to give her that!. Her utter ignorance combined with an innate inability to stop sprouting imprudent non sense are very comical. She just does not know when to stop! It surely keeps the threads alive.
Do you believe in Adam and Eve? If so, how do you think the world was populated?
Also, why do think that Nado is female?
Is that you, Vermont?
:read-paper:
-
An analogous situation is this: the moral theologians teach that incest is a mortal sin. Yet they teach that in a circuмstance where the human race is facing extinction, it would be good and lawful for brother and sister to get married and have children. Now, it is certainly difficult in such a case to truly know whether the human race, world-wide, is truly facing extinction, and if a mistake is made, the Church is as merciful as Our Lord is. Jansenists and Pharisee-types would have no mercy and condemn the mistake with the most rigorous charge possible by quoting books about the horror and grievousness of incest.
This is what happens when yet another barely literate sedevacantist has an internet connection.
So enlighten us Nado, who exactly are the Catholic moral theologians that justify incest?
Must say, though that Nado has become a very entertaining poster. Have to give her that!. Her utter ignorance combined with an innate inability to stop sprouting imprudent non sense are very comical. She just does not know when to stop! It surely keeps the threads alive.
Do you believe in Adam and Eve? If so, how do you think the world was populated?
Also, why do think that Nado is female?
Is that you, Vermont?
:read-paper:
Uh, yeah. Answers to my questions Cantarella?
-
Okay, so you say Schuckardt was schismatic because of his ordination/consecration, and that it extended to Fr. Chicoine for attempting to be ordained by the same man.
Do you extend being schismatic to the others who approved and participated? Why, or why not?
Schuckardt was certainly in schism because first, he left the Church - second, after he left the Church, he then started his own "Religious Community" as the CMRI website describes it.
Schuckardt, who already started his Religious Community, started to grow his Religious Community after he was ordained and consecrated by a schismatic bishop (Daniel Brown) whose episcopal lineage is traced back to a bishop that was excommunicated by Pope Pius X himself. Correct me if I'm wrong but that being the case, everyone that is ordained/consecrated from that entire lineage is also excommunicated, therefore in schism.
There is a lot more to it, but no sense in proceeding any further until the above is understood.
Receiving a valid sacrament from a non-Catholic is normally sinful by ecclesiastical law, unless there is a proportionately good reason in an extraordinary circuмstance, then it becomes necessary and good. It is by the virtue of epikeia that the letter of law can be broken to maintain the essential spirit of the law. The most prominent example is baptism, and the next most common is confession (in danger of death).
In an extreme situation where the validity of the priesthood is stake, and thus a threat of extinction of the Sacraments, the priesthood can likewise be conferred by a non-Catholic. This is what the CMRI did with Brown. It was merely for the Sacraments and had nothing to do with approval of the Old Catholics and their tenets. Mistaken or not, the attempt had the color of legitimacy in this unprecedented, virtually unforeseen crisis. A mistake in such an extraordinary circuмstance doesn't equal schism.
An analogous situation is this: the moral theologians teach that incest is a mortal sin. Yet they teach that in a circuмstance where the human race is facing extinction, it would be good and lawful for brother and sister to get married and have children. Now, it is certainly difficult in such a case to truly know whether the human race, world-wide, is truly facing extinction, and if a mistake is made, the Church is as merciful as Our Lord is. Jansenists and Pharisee-types would have no mercy and condemn the mistake with the most rigorous charge possible by quoting books about the horror and grievousness of incest.
I don't know where to even start with this. This is tragically sad.
Have you ever heard the old saying: Two wrongs don't make a right?
Once again, I offer historical facts, you offer your opinion, which is so perverted I find myself in awe. What you base your opinion on God only knows, whatever you base your opinion on is certainly not Catholic.
FYI, since the time that Our Lord instituted of the Sacrament of Matrimony, and even before that in the Old Testament, the sin of incest will never be good and lawful - never. Here, (http:///x/d?b=drb&bk=3&ch=18&l=6#x) start at verse 6.
Whatever im"moral theologians" you follow, run, don't walk away from them.
Your ignorance is what is sad, and it is thwarting your advancement. You don't know where to start because of the depth of your ignorance.
The whole human race was founded on siblings marrying each other. That is how Adam and Eve became grandparents.
Oops, sorry nado. You already pointed out Adam and Eve.
-
Must say, though that Nado has become a very entertaining poster. Have to give her that!. Her utter ignorance combined with an innate inability to stop sprouting imprudent non sense are very comical. She just does not know when to stop! It surely keeps the threads alive.
Yes, now that Ambrose and LoT have stopped "contributing" to BoD threads, and Myrna / Emerentiana were in over their heads to begin with, they had to dispatch another CMRI-bot to continue trolling against the EENS dogma, to "take over driving" as Emerentiana put it.
Yes, quite phenomenal what we are witnessing here.
-
Do you believe in Adam and Eve? If so, how do you think the world was populated?
Also, why do think that Nado is female?
Unreal.
God permitted it in order to populate the world from one man and one woman.
After God decided there was no longer any need for that, he put an end to it and declared incest a grievous sin.
Now you would would be so bold as to have God accept a terrible sin for the sake of repopulating the earth? Well, I suppose that when it comes right down to it, that makes just as much sense as making an abjuration just in case you really ever were in error , then deciding on your own that your sin of schism is forgiven, then call yourself Catholic, start a community and seminary, ordain priests and bishops, and have them call themselves Catholic - and see how many other fools you can get to not only go along with you, but also to defend and do your recruiting for you.
:facepalm: <---- should be 10x bigger
-
Receiving a valid sacrament from a non-Catholic is normally sinful by ecclesiastical law, unless there is a proportionately good reason in an extraordinary circuмstance, then it becomes necessary and good. It is by the virtue of epikeia that the letter of law can be broken to maintain the essential spirit of the law. The most prominent example is baptism, and the next most common is confession (in danger of death).
In an extreme situation where the validity of the priesthood is stake, and thus a threat of extinction of the Sacraments, the priesthood can likewise be conferred by a non-Catholic. This is what the CMRI did with Brown. It was merely for the Sacraments and had nothing to do with approval of the Old Catholics and their tenets. Mistaken or not, the attempt had the color of legitimacy in this unprecedented, virtually unforeseen crisis. A mistake in such an extraordinary circuмstance doesn't equal schism.
An analogous situation is this: the moral theologians teach that incest is a mortal sin. Yet they teach that in a circuмstance where the human race is facing extinction, it would be good and lawful for brother and sister to get married and have children. Now, it is certainly difficult in such a case to truly know whether the human race, world-wide, is truly facing extinction, and if a mistake is made, the Church is as merciful as Our Lord is. Jansenists and Pharisee-types would have no mercy and condemn the mistake with the most rigorous charge possible by quoting books about the horror and grievousness of incest.
The sad part is that this debauched post is what is offered as a type of authentic reasoning, representative of what was used to justify why it can be OK to break from the Church start your own. Sadder yet, nada presumably doesn't even realize that it's above formula attempts to justify precisely that.
-
Do you believe in Adam and Eve? If so, how do you think the world was populated?
Also, why do think that Nado is female?
Unreal.
God permitted it in order to populate the world from one man and one woman.
After God decided there was no longer any need for that, he put an end to it and declared incest a grievous sin.
Now you would would be so bold as to have God accept a terrible sin for the sake of repopulating the earth? Well, I suppose that when it comes right down to it, that makes just as much sense as making an abjuration just in case you really ever were in error , then deciding on your own that your sin of schism is forgiven, then call yourself Catholic, start a community and seminary, ordain priests and bishops, and have them call themselves Catholic - and see how many other fools you can get to not only go along with you, but also to defend and do your recruiting for you.
:facepalm: <---- should be 10x bigger
Actually, if the world came down to one man and one woman again, who are you to decide that God would not find the need again?
-
Do you believe in Adam and Eve? If so, how do you think the world was populated?
Also, why do think that Nado is female?
Unreal.
God permitted it in order to populate the world from one man and one woman.
After God decided there was no longer any need for that, he put an end to it and declared incest a grievous sin.
Now you would would be so bold as to have God accept a terrible sin for the sake of repopulating the earth? Well, I suppose that when it comes right down to it, that makes just as much sense as making an abjuration just in case you really ever were in error , then deciding on your own that your sin of schism is forgiven, then call yourself Catholic, start a community and seminary, ordain priests and bishops, and have them call themselves Catholic - and see how many other fools you can get to not only go along with you, but also to defend and do your recruiting for you.
:facepalm: <---- should be 10x bigger
Actually, if the world came down to one man and one woman again, who are you to decide that God would not find the need again?
Actually, I am nobody to decide and haven't and wouldn't, but it (he/she?) already has since it (he/she) can conjure up theologians to support it's (his/her) cause that would go to the length of making the sin of incest not only not a sin, but virtuous, i.e "good and lawful".
Tell us what becomes of all those souls in hell who've perhaps been there for thousands of years who died guilty of that sin?
The same perverse theology(?) used as justification for populating the world, is used to make schism "good and lawful". That is what that whole post was all about. That is all that whole post - and all +100 related posts nada made is all about.
To make the statement noda made is not something a Catholic would ever even make because it is offensive to the Catholic mind.
What it does is offer yet another glimpse into what goes on in the mind of a schismatic, how they pervert and twist whatever needs twisting, even to the point of explicitly preaching that sin is not sin in order for schism to not be schism, to not be sinful, for schism to be right, good and lawful.
That's what her postings are about.
-
Haydock commentary; Gen 4:17 His wife. She was a daughter of Adam, and Cain's own sister; God dispensing with such marriages in the beginning of the world, as mankind could not otherwise be propagated.
Then in Leviticus chapter 18, God put an end to that dispensation when he made the new laws which He gave to Moses, so from that time on, God said of incest: Every soul that shall commit any of these abominations, shall perish from the midst of his people.
From that moment till the end of the world, incest will never be anything but an abomination. Your post is referencing abomination as justification for schism. What's worse is someone actually upthumbed it.
-
2Vermont should tell you guy's all about Lot and his daughters for the real low down.
-
Okay, so you say Schuckardt was schismatic because of his ordination/consecration, and that it extended to Fr. Chicoine for attempting to be ordained by the same man.
Do you extend being schismatic to the others who approved and participated? Why, or why not?
Schuckardt was certainly in schism because first, he left the Church - second, after he left the Church, he then started his own "Religious Community" as the CMRI website describes it.
Schuckardt, who already started his Religious Community, started to grow his Religious Community after he was ordained and consecrated by a schismatic bishop (Daniel Brown) whose episcopal lineage is traced back to a bishop that was excommunicated by Pope Pius X himself. Correct me if I'm wrong but that being the case, everyone that is ordained/consecrated from that entire lineage is also excommunicated, therefore in schism.
There is a lot more to it, but no sense in proceeding any further until the above is understood.
What follow-up role did Archbishop Thuc play?
-
Haydock commentary; Gen 4:17 His wife. She was a daughter of Adam, and Cain's own sister; God dispensing with such marriages in the beginning of the world, as mankind could not otherwise be propagated.
Then in Leviticus chapter 18, God put an end to that dispensation when he made the new laws which He gave to Moses, so from that time on, God said of incest: Every soul that shall commit any of these abominations, shall perish from the midst of his people.
From that moment till the end of the world, incest will never be anything but an abomination. Your post is referencing abomination as justification for schism. What's worse is someone actually upthumbed it.
Stubborn, I notice this about you, just my observation throughout the years here of reading you. Not sure I can make this clear, but you never seem to get the point that another is trying to make, in this case an example.
You jump all over Nado just because you find the example sinful, which it is, and the point was to bring shock and awe, not approve of incest. Now you go on this ramp about the very fact that you do not approve of incest, and just because it was mentioned it must be a sign of schismatic behavior. You do this all the time, resulting in telling others what they believe and what they don't believe, as if you are God's assistant.
-
The best way to describe the whole Thuc debacle is to say that at best, it was a mess. Personally, IMO, the ordinations/consecrations were valid, but that whole situation and any cleric connected to the "Thuc Line" warrants in-depth investigation, which again IMO, chances are that you'd find that there are a lot of schismatic clerics running around out there.
Here (http://www.tboyle.net/Catholicism/Thuc_Consecrations.html) is a link to the "Thuc Line" - no way to know how complete it is but there is a little bit about him first.
-
Haydock commentary; Gen 4:17 His wife. She was a daughter of Adam, and Cain's own sister; God dispensing with such marriages in the beginning of the world, as mankind could not otherwise be propagated.
Then in Leviticus chapter 18, God put an end to that dispensation when he made the new laws which He gave to Moses, so from that time on, God said of incest: Every soul that shall commit any of these abominations, shall perish from the midst of his people.
From that moment till the end of the world, incest will never be anything but an abomination. Your post is referencing abomination as justification for schism. What's worse is someone actually upthumbed it.
Stubborn, I notice this about you, just my observation throughout the years here of reading you. Not sure I can make this clear, but you never seem to get the point that another is trying to make, in this case an example.
You jump all over Nado just because you find the example sinful, which it is, and the point was to bring shock and awe, not approve of incest. Now you go on this ramp about the very fact that you do not approve of incest, and just because it was mentioned it must be a sign of schismatic behavior. You do this all the time, resulting in telling others what they believe and what they don't believe, as if you are God's assistant.
Did you get those glasses yet?
I posted: Your post is referencing abomination as justification for schism." not because I am telling it(him/her) what it(he/she) believes, I said that because, when read as it is written, that is exactly what it(he/she) is saying.
-
Must say, though that Nado has become a very entertaining poster. Have to give her that!. Her utter ignorance combined with an innate inability to stop sprouting imprudent non sense are very comical. She just does not know when to stop! It surely keeps the threads alive.
Yes, now that Ambrose and LoT have stopped "contributing" to BoD threads, and Myrna / Emerentiana were in over their heads to begin with, they had to dispatch another CMRI-bot to continue trolling against the EENS dogma, to "take over driving" as Emerentiana put it.
Yes, quite phenomenal what we are witnessing here.
Ladisllaus, If I was moderator here, I would have banned amy discussion of your heresies a long time ago.
LOT and Ambrose have stated the Church's teaching on BOB and BOD many many times. The only opinion you Feenyites have is that which comes from Feeney and the Diamonds. As Nado said, you repeat the same things over and over again. You are Diamond "bots" You have Diamond quotes on hand an post them over and over. As Nado said, "its embarrassing"
I am a simple lay woman. I don't pretend to be a theologian. My concern is that you will infect a new unsuspecting Catholic who comes to this forum with your poison.
A long time ago on this forum, you Feenyites stated that Catechumens went to hell if they did not have water baptism. Now I see that you have changed your stance, making an exception in your ideas to spare this class of souls from your damnation judgements. Your making progress!
Many on here have labored to point out your errors. As I said, most of us are sick and tired of your heretical posts and are done with the subject. Myrna and I have never "dispatched" anyone to keep this discussion going. Your cabal on here does that very well. You keep introducing new posts on the same tired subject. Nado took the ball this time. The rest of us are fed up with your tirades and insults.
The Diamonds are known to be very uncharitable. you learn from them.
I will pray for all of you!
-
I will pray for all of you!
I think Catholics praying for their fellow Catholics is a good thing and we should all do more of it!
The bouncing around of the word "schismatic" is going to cause that word to lose all sting and even all meaning. What does it mean today to be opposed to a Pope who says there is no Catholic God and does what the novus ordo popes do?
-
Nado said:
ignorance of the true Church is merely a prerequisite for non-Catholics to obtain the baptism of desire.
Cantrella said:
This is a mistake. If hypothetical Baptism of Desire could ever apply (although is never visible to us) would be for catechumens ONLY who already have the Catholic Faith and die before receiving the water Baptism. Not any non-Catholic. This is because the Catholic Faith is the foundation of all justification.
Here is your quote Cantrella!
-
Nado said:
ignorance of the true Church is merely a prerequisite for non-Catholics to obtain the baptism of desire.
Cantrella said:
This is a mistake. If hypothetical Baptism of Desire could ever apply (although is never visible to us) would be for catechumens ONLY who already have the Catholic Faith and die before receiving the water Baptism. Not any non-Catholic. This is because the Catholic Faith is the foundation of all justification.
Here is your quote Cantrella!
:confused1:
Off topic!
-
Haydock commentary; Gen 4:17 His wife. She was a daughter of Adam, and Cain's own sister; God dispensing with such marriages in the beginning of the world, as mankind could not otherwise be propagated.
Then in Leviticus chapter 18, God put an end to that dispensation when he made the new laws which He gave to Moses, so from that time on, God said of incest: Every soul that shall commit any of these abominations, shall perish from the midst of his people.
From that moment till the end of the world, incest will never be anything but an abomination. Your post is referencing abomination as justification for schism. What's worse is someone actually upthumbed it.
Looks like you might be a fan of Andy Sloan!
I just gave you two quotes from approved Catholics authors before Vatican II, and you counter those with a quote from the Old Testament, with your own interpretation!
Okay, let's take note of the New Testament as the word of God also. Do you see the New Testament approves of slavery? Does that mean slavery is okay forever after that?
Sorry to disappoint you by using the Haydock commentary, which is Catholic teaching, unlike your private re-interpretation from "approved authors" you use so you could release souls from hell to make that which is certainly wrong, good and lawful.
Either way, why don't you try hard as you can to actually answer the original post from what, 6 or 7 pages ago with some type of facts, rather than cobbling together abomination references to support your opinions that schism can be good and lawful?
-
Stubborn Feeneyite, as usual. The Haydock commentary you gave doesn't exclude dispensation for a changing circuмstance. As well as you violating approved Catholics works. Notice that you cannot even answer about slavery, which proves my point.
The incest mention was an analogy, it wasn't a premise. That can disappear and my argument about epikeia still stands, which you clearly won't touch with a ten foot pole.
Ignorant Cushingite suffering from the syndrome of sedevacantism.
How many years did you spend in the NO? My guess is you spent your whole life minus about the last few months in there.
You have not offered a single solitary bit of proof to defend whatever it is that you are supporting - do you even know what it is that you are supporting or what it is that you are defending?
The only thing you've demonstrated to this point is that you are of the opinion that schism can be good and lawful under certain circuмstances - which is not something Catholics believe, but it certainly agrees with what schismatics believe.
-
Stubborn Feeneyite, as usual. The Haydock commentary you gave doesn't exclude dispensation for a changing circuмstance. As well as you violating approved Catholics works. Notice that you cannot even answer about slavery, which proves my point.
The incest mention was an analogy, it wasn't a premise. That can disappear and my argument about epikeia still stands, which you clearly won't touch with a ten foot pole.
Ignorant Cushingite suffering from the syndrome of sedevacantism.
How many years did you spend in the NO? My guess is you spent your whole life minus about the last few months in there.
You have not offered a single solitary bit of proof to defend whatever it is that you are supporting - do you even know what it is that you are supporting or what it is that you are defending?
The only thing you've demonstrated to this point is that you are of the opinion that schism can be good and lawful under certain circuмstances - which is not something Catholics believe, but it certainly agrees with what schismatics believe.
No answer on slavery and the New Testament?
No answer on epikeia?
I thought as much.
No reply to the original post with something of substance?
Not surprising.
How many years did you spend in the NO? My guess is you spent your whole life minus about the last few months in there.
You have not offered a single solitary bit of proof to defend whatever it is that you are supporting - do you even know what it is that you are supporting or what it is that you are defending?
-
I'm done going around in circles with you. When you want to dispute the evidence with something other than your opinion which only attempts to justify schism, I'll reply.
-
Word
-
CMRI is pure cane Catholic. Period. End of debate. I'm not CMRI, but if there was a chapel close to where I live, then I'd most certainly assist at their Mass.
Look, buddy, the bottom line is this: if a Catholic has a CMRI chapel within an hour's commute - or the other option is to stay home like a dogmatic cultist schizoid, or go to a novus queerdo chapel - then his soul will be in far better shape through the graces bestowed upon him by assisting a true Catholic Mass and receiving the Sacraments. Otherwise, he would be committing mortal sin by staying home when he could be at a Catholic Mass, or committing sin attending a sacrilegious, calvinist, masonic service known as the "mass of Paul VI". CMRI are valid and Catholic. There is no evidence in their history to the contrary. That is the work of jewry and their General - Satan - who work to divide real Catholics an attack the true Faith.
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=34803&min=77&num=1)
You seriously misunderstand or, perhaps, avoid the point I'm making. The point is the religious communities from SSPX, et al, are organic, hence their founder(s) has an actual lineage to a member of the Church who was consecrated in the Holy Orders. This makes these religious communities far more real than the Dimond brothers' monastery, which is not organic and is 100% lay founded, hence lacking any authenticity. Their monastery is no different than some bozo waking up tomorrow morning and allotting his barn and land for a few lay people to start their "monastery" while they call themselves "monks" and "brothers". Moreover, your argument about jurisdiction, which is beside the point, has little merit because Catholic means "universal", therefore in this Crisis of the (universal) Church, a valid clergy has jurisdiction everywhere, and at any time, to minister to the flock, despite not being granted regular faculties, nor jurisdiction, by heretical / apostate Rome.
Ascent states the issue about as well as it can be stated.
In his post against the Dimond fools, ascent describes some of the facts of the CMRI, namely;
*1) they are not organic, they cannot trace their lineage back to a member of the Church who was consecrated in the Holy Orders,
*2) the CMRI is not organic because it is 100% lay founded, hence lacking any authenticity and
*3) their monastery is no different than some bozo waking up tomorrow morning and allotting his barn and land for a few lay people to start their "monastery" while they call themselves "monks" and "brothers" and "priests".
1) They trace their lineage back to Bishop Francis Schuckardt who was ordained and consecrated in 1971 by Old Catholic Bishop Daniel Q. Brown, who traces his lineage back to Old Catholic Bishop, Arnold hαɾɾιs Mathew whom Pope Pius X himself excommunicated.
2) CMRI was founded in 1967 by lay man Francis Schuckardt. The CMRI officially trace their lineage back to this lay man.
3) The difference here is that "some bozo" woke up one morning and ended up buying authentic Catholic buildings with all the authentic statues and furnishings and started a community - but he took it a few steps further by hooking up with and getting ordained and consecrated by a schismatic bishop, then called that community "Catholic".
The above are historical facts which are indisputable.
-
You have been presented with the principle of epikeia in Catholicism, where in an emergency one can receive a necessary Sacrament from a non-Catholic within being accused of being non-Catholic. You avoided that from the start, because it gives the lie to what you are writing here.
You are wrong here again Nado. The concept of "Epikeia" which is found in canon 209 provides jurisdiction in cases of common error or doubt for the benefit of the faithful, in cases where it is missing. There are certain explicit requirements though. What is important to remember here is that it can ONLY apply to Human Law, never Divine Law. Epikeia is not applicable to those laws whose universal observance is demanded. So no, it does not give you a "convenient excuse" to receive the Sacraments from schismatics or abuse it to supersede laws or grant power of jurisdiction to those who have none or open new sects such as CMRI like Protestants do. This is not a free pass to do whatever you want with the Law or how the Catholic Church is instituted and cannot be a justification for schismatics.
First of all, Epikeia "does not render an incompetent agent habitually competent". Thus for example, an invalidly elected bishop will never be the true bishop unless and until he is elected in the proper manner or has the matter sanated by the Holy See.
Secondly, the Church supplies only those things which are pertinent to the state and conditions of persons. It is actually used in extremely rare cases.
-
Excerpt from stubborn:
Just as a matter of fair is fair, why do you not chastise nado for something nado repeats with every post nado makes:
"Know also this, that, in the last days, shall come dangerous times. Men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, haughty, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, wicked, Without affection, without peace, slanderers, incontinent, unmerciful, without kindness, Traitors, stubborn, puffed up, and lovers of pleasures more than of God: Having an appearance indeed of godliness, but denying the power thereof. Now these avoid." (2 Tim 3:1-5)
Do you think I find it rewarding to be "Connected" to one of the traitors, blasphemers, wicked, etc. 200 times so far? Nado posted that same scripture in a post when nado was only freshly registered here in retaliation to one of my posts. It has been nado's sig ever since.
Wait... what?!
I wondered why this particular word was bolded in the auto signature, and presumed it had a personal spiritual meaning. I didn't attribute it to the member who I now know is targeted for shame and embarrassment by this action. Sure, things get contentious here, but I would never have thought another member unnecessarily cruel.
Really, nado, you should correct that. You are using Holy Scripture to hurt another, as he expresses in text I bolded in red.
-
You have been presented with the principle of epikeia in Catholicism, where in an emergency one can receive a necessary Sacrament from a non-Catholic within being accused of being non-Catholic. You avoided that from the start, because it gives the lie to what you are writing here.
You are wrong here again Nado. The concept of "Epikeia" which is found in canon 209 provides jurisdiction in cases of common error or doubt for the benefit of the faithful, in cases where it is missing. There are certain explicit requirements though. What is important to remember here is that it can ONLY apply to Human Law, never Divine Law. Epikeia is not applicable to those laws whose universal observance is demanded. So no, it does not give you a "convenient excuse" to receive the Sacraments from schismatics or abuse it to supersede laws or grant power of jurisdiction to those who have none or open new sects such as CMRI like Protestants do.
First of all, Epikeia "does not render an incompetent agent habitually competent". Thus for example, an invalidly elected bishop will never be the true bishop unless and until he is elected in the proper manner or has the matter sanated by the Holy See.
Secondly, the Church supplies only those things which are pertinent to the state and conditions of persons. It is actually used in extremely rare cases.
Epikeia is a virtue. It existed on Pentecost day when there was no canon law. It merely means that whatever human law is enacted, the lawmaker cannot foresee every circuмstance that it might not apply in, and that there will be circuмstances that extraordinarily arise that the law would not have been expected to apply by that lawmaker. Epikeia is the virtue that discerns that.
The canon you mention makes mention of unusual, but common enough, circuмstances where, if the law didn't apply, epikeia most certainly would, but the law explicates about it to make it easier, because it is common enough to legislate about.
Epikeia is a virtue, and as all virtues, it is not something we can expect every person to make no mistakes with. The Saints say that we must resign ourselves to making mistakes in practice of virtue, and that we should have mercy on those who make the mistakes.
Baptism & Confession are two "Sacraments of the dead" that can be received from the hands of non-Catholics, in danger of death, and when it is the last resort. Receiving them does not imply one agrees with their errors, or their sect. No sect has Sacraments of their own. If they are valid, they are Sacraments that they stole from the Catholic Church. Receiving them in unforeseen and extreme circuмstances is a Catholic right.
Look up "argumentum a fortiori". You will see that if this is the truth with baptism & confession, it must also be for the priesthood IF the priesthood is becoming extinct, because the priesthood is the ordinary source of those very Sacraments of the dead.
It is not divine law that forbids Catholics from receiving those Sacraments even from a non-Catholic in dire need, therefore epikeia applies.
The CMRI thought the priesthood was becoming extinct, and acted rightly. It is fair enough to have criticism for their decision, but it is not fair to state they are schismatic. They could have been imprudent, but they didn't have the slightest intention of believing or working with Old Catholics. They ousted Schuckardt....which is a good sign because cult followers don't oust cult leaders. Those who insist on making innuendos about schism are only showing they are ignorant of Catholic principle, violating what the Saints say about having mercy when others fail in practicing virtue, and perhaps even have a touch of jansenistic rigorism driving them.
Nado, you obviously do not understand what you are reading, not even from the sede sites. I guess you have read somewhere about Father Riley. Let his words explain why the concept of Epikeia does not apply here.
“In short, it may be concluded that in regard to matters which touch the essence of the Sacraments, the use of epikeia is always excluded.”
and
“In regard to the essence of these Sacraments, what has been explained above of all the Sacraments is applicable to them – viz., that epikeia is never licit.”
and
“At most, epikeia can excuse the individual from the precept, but it can never confer the capacity to act. Epikeia cannot bestow upon him the power which he does not now possess, nor can epikeia restore the power which the law has withdrawn. For such bestowal or restoration of power a positive act is required.”
and
“Intimately connected with this problem is the question of whether or not epikeia has any standing in the external forum. It would appear to be the rather general consensus of authorities today that it has not. Writing in Apollinaris, D’ Angelo points out that St. Thomas considers epikeia to be a merely moral element, and that modern writers believe it to have reference only to moral, and not to juridic matters…Van Hove contends that, since epikeia is not an act of jurisdiction, it has value only in the internal forum. …Hilling seems almost unwilling to give any standing to epikeia at all. Believing that it practically amounts to self-dispensation, which is in contradiction to law as a binding norm, he concludes at the most that it may be recognized in the internal forum.” .
Virtually all canonists of reputation warn of the great caution that must be used in applying Epikeia, and the many dangers of abuse in attempting this application which the sedevacantists evidently promote as a "free pass" to make their own laws and justify their schism and lack of jurisdiction. This is a clear example of how Heretics and Modernists twist a concept to make it sound and be whatever they want.
-
If someone chooses the name "Unmerciful", there is nothing cruel in using Scripture to tell everyone that such a name is not a good thing to be named after, and should not be chosen. Stubborn even tried to defend his name by saying the Saints were stubborn!
I understand what you are trying to say, and we could debate a bit that 'stubborn' is a polysemous word (vs. unmerciful). Also, the quality of 'stubborn' could just as easily be applied to most on Cathinfo. You are as unwavering as he in these debates, for example.
With respect, I don't think it's proper to target a member for shame in this way. Expressing your opinion about his name is your prerogative, but the auto signature tactic is abusive of Scripture, and took me by surprise. Whether you two like each other or not, there are lines we just shouldn't cross.
'nuff said on my part about it. I apologize for the derailment. On with the CMRI debate!
-
1) They trace their lineage back to Bishop Francis Schuckardt who was ordained and consecrated in 1971 by Old Catholic Bishop Daniel Q. Brown, who traces his lineage back to Old Catholic Bishop, Arnold hαɾɾιs Mathew whom Pope Pius X himself excommunicated.
2) CMRI was founded in 1967 by lay man Francis Schuckardt. The CMRI officially trace their lineage back to this lay man.
3) The difference here is that "some bozo" woke up one morning and ended up buying authentic Catholic buildings with all the authentic statues and furnishings and started a community - but he took it a few steps further by hooking up with and getting ordained and consecrated by a schismatic bishop, then called that community "Catholic".
The above are historical facts which are indisputable.
You have been presented with the principle of epikeia in Catholicism, where in an emergency one can receive a necessary Sacrament from a non-Catholic within being accused of being non-Catholic. You avoided that from the start, because it gives the lie to what you are writing here.
Sorry nada but you're crazier than a loon if you think epikeia can be invoked to in any way justify Schuckardt. If it could possibly be used for justification of Schuckardt, then you have to admit that "pope Michael" is the pope.
-
That's not a rebuttal. That is a little-boy denial. It means nothing intellectually.
Pope Michael wasn't elected by Roman clergy, so he is not pope.
So what? Schuckardt was not ordained and consecrated by the Roman clergy either and the CMRI officially trumpet that they trace their lineage back to him.
You foolishly claim epikeia is justification for schism as if that's a universally accepted fact or something.
Again, all you continue to offer is that schism is a permissible option under certain circuмstances - and it seems you understand that only schismatics think that way - Question: you do understand that only schismatics think that way, don't you? - yes or no?
-
If someone chooses the name "Unmerciful", there is nothing cruel in using Scripture to tell everyone that such a name is not a good thing to be named after, and should not be chosen. Stubborn even tried to defend his name by saying the Saints were stubborn!
I understand what you are trying to say, and we could debate a bit that 'stubborn' is a polysemous word (vs. unmerciful). Also, the quality of 'stubborn' could just as easily be applied to most on Cathinfo. You are as unwavering as he in these debates, for example.
With respect, I don't think it's proper to target a member for shame in this way. Expressing your opinion about his name is your prerogative, but the auto signature tactic is abusive of Scripture, and took me by surprise. Whether you two like each other or not, there are lines we just shouldn't cross.
'nuff said on my part about it. I apologize for the derailment. On with the CMRI debate!
"gαy" is a polysemous word, too. Perhaps you would like to change your name to that because you like its "light-hearted" denotation?
Why the semantics?
You know why you chose that Scripture and it was strictly you attempting to insult me. Thankfully in your stupidity it served a good purpose when I used it to point out to Mabel her hypocrisy.
Just more of that good old CMRI wonderful Christian charity on display.
-
"gαy" is a polysemous word, too. Perhaps you would like to change your name to that because you like its "light-hearted" denotation?
I'm not sure why you felt the need to use such an example and suggest I would use the evil nickname of one of the 4 sins that cries to Heaven for vengeance.
-
That's not a rebuttal. That is a little-boy denial. It means nothing intellectually.
Pope Michael wasn't elected by Roman clergy, so he is not pope.
So what? Schuckardt was not ordained and consecrated by the Roman clergy either and the CMRI officially trumpet that they trace their lineage back to him.
You foolishly claim epikeia is justification for schism as if that's a universally accepted fact or something.
Again, all you continue to offer is that schism is a permissible option under certain circuмstances - and it seems you understand that only schismatics think that way - Question: you do understand that only schismatics think that way, don't you? - yes or no?
Bump!
-
Nobody should be touting being "stubborn" as if it were a virtue, because it is not. Nothing insulting about helping you, and others, realize that.
Ok, mission accomplished. It is brought to our attention.
The word 'stubborn' has degrees of connotation and we don't know his intent for using it. Nevertheless, using Holy Scripture as a tool to humiliate him with every comment you make is wrong. Your intent is clear, and it's not to help him or others.
I am still hopeful you will do the right thing.
-
Nobody should be touting being "stubborn" as if it were a virtue, because it is not. Nothing insulting about helping you, and others, realize that.
Ok, mission accomplished. It is brought to our attention.
The word 'stubborn' has degrees of connotation and we don't know his intent for using it. Nevertheless, using Holy Scripture as a tool to humiliate him with every comment you make is wrong. Your intent is clear, and it's not to help him or others.
I am still hopeful you will do the right thing.
Thanks PerEvangelicaDicta and you're correct that's what it is about - but no worries, I take no offense at it.
It thinks saints make it to heaven by not being stubborn and that we can keep the faith by not stubbornly persevering in it till our end. I fail to understand that but that's just me.
No, I changed my forum nickname to Stubborn some 15 years ago for a number of reasons, not the least of which was being told how stubborn I was because I would not bend to accept the compromises that so many others have.
In order to keep the faith and be an active member of the Church Militant, we all need to be stubborn or we will end up compromising - just like all those compromisers did who lost the true faith to embrace the new faith some 50 years ago did - I saw it happen and IMO, had they all been stubborn for the faith, I don't see how there would be a crisis at all, but they weren't and 50 years later - look what happens when you are not stubborn, when you compromise.
Something else to note is if it weren't for those stubborn Catholics who refused to compromise, there would be no traditional Mass for today's compromisers to mock, no True Faith for the compromisers to continually dilute and degrade and no True Mass at all for the compromisers to claim is only a superior version of the new "mass".
No, I plan to keep my name because regardless of it's social overtones, it's what I am and what I hope to die - stubborn enough to, with the grace of God, keep the faith unto the end.
-
That's not a rebuttal. That is a little-boy denial. It means nothing intellectually.
Pope Michael wasn't elected by Roman clergy, so he is not pope.
So what? Schuckardt was not ordained and consecrated by the Roman clergy either and the CMRI officially trumpet that they trace their lineage back to him.
You foolishly claim epikeia is justification for schism as if that's a universally accepted fact or something.
Again, all you continue to offer is that schism is a permissible option under certain circuмstances - and it seems you understand that only schismatics think that way - Question: you do understand that only schismatics think that way, don't you? - yes or no?
Bump!
Schism is never permissible, that is what the Church thinks. And the Church thinks also that receiving certain Sacraments stolen by a non-Catholic, in an emergency, is a good thing, and is therefore not schism. I will tell you what the Church thinks; you can tell me what schismatics think.
Then try replying to my re-post below without justifying the schism below.
In his post against the Dimond fools, ascent describes some of the facts of the CMRI, namely;
*1) they are not organic, they cannot trace their lineage back to a member of the Church who was consecrated in the Holy Orders,
*2) the CMRI is not organic because it is 100% lay founded, hence lacking any authenticity and
*3) their monastery is no different than some bozo waking up tomorrow morning and allotting his barn and land for a few lay people to start their "monastery" while they call themselves "monks" and "brothers" and "priests".
1) They trace their lineage back to Bishop Francis Schuckardt who was ordained and consecrated in 1971 by Old Catholic Bishop Daniel Q. Brown, who traces his lineage back to Old Catholic Bishop, Arnold hαɾɾιs Mathew whom Pope Pius X himself excommunicated.
2) CMRI was founded in 1967 by lay man Francis Schuckardt. The CMRI officially trace their lineage back to this lay man.
3) The difference here is that "some bozo" woke up one morning and ended up buying authentic Catholic buildings with all the authentic statues and furnishings and started a community - but he took it a few steps further by hooking up with and getting ordained and consecrated by a schismatic bishop, then called that community "Catholic".
The above are historical facts which are indisputable.
-
Stubborn, thank you for taking the time to explain the reason for your username. I must have missed it in other posts. It is sound reasoning and I guessed as much.
Interestingly, Nado, you are as staunch in defending your position as Stubborn. As I said previously, his username can easily apply to you also. To most of us! One thing we all have in common, we love the Faith. We defend our position vigorously, many times going overboard and venturing into uncharitable action, projecting "enemy" on the one we are debating. I did the same with a member here, and publicly and privately apologized. I'm still ashamed that I fell into that temptation during our back and forth commentary. Humble pie is sometimes hard to swallow. :ready-to-eat:
-
There is nothing reasonable about being stubborn. It is intrinsically unreasonable. Staunch defense is not being stubborn as long as a person thinks he is truly conforming with truth and reason. Whether I am ever stubborn or not has nothing to do with the fact that you don't promote being stubbornness as being something good.
intrinsically unreasonable - no, not a bit in this context. Did you read his reasoning? He has an admirably holy intent, one that we all on this forum follow. You included.
You are a tough cookie. I see it is very difficult for you to admit you are wrong. Let's leave it at that and pray for each other.
-
This username has context because it is his name on Cathinfo, a Catholic forum, where members love and practice the Faith. Most members know why he chose the name. For those of us who don't, we have merely to ask him. But to attribute evil intent for his use, and to keep wielding that sword even after he provided his reasoning, which actually indicates a holy intent, is wrong.
This isn't just any old internet forum where a username might be misunderstood. We are Catholic and should always presume the best about each other and give the benefit of the doubt. In this case, the benefit of the doubt was warranted.
-
Then try replying to my re-post below without justifying the schism below.
In his post against the Dimond fools, ascent describes some of the facts of the CMRI, namely;
*1) they are not organic, they cannot trace their lineage back to a member of the Church who was consecrated in the Holy Orders,
*2) the CMRI is not organic because it is 100% lay founded, hence lacking any authenticity and
*3) their monastery is no different than some bozo waking up tomorrow morning and allotting his barn and land for a few lay people to start their "monastery" while they call themselves "monks" and "brothers" and "priests".
1) They trace their lineage back to Bishop Francis Schuckardt who was ordained and consecrated in 1971 by Old Catholic Bishop Daniel Q. Brown, who traces his lineage back to Old Catholic Bishop, Arnold hαɾɾιs Mathew whom Pope Pius X himself excommunicated.
2) CMRI was founded in 1967 by lay man Francis Schuckardt. The CMRI officially trace their lineage back to this lay man.
3) The difference here is that "some bozo" woke up one morning and ended up buying authentic Catholic buildings with all the authentic statues and furnishings and started a community - but he took it a few steps further by hooking up with and getting ordained and consecrated by a schismatic bishop, then called that community "Catholic".
The above are historical facts which are indisputable.
I have already fully replied on what epikeia is, and that obtaining Catholic sacraments from a non-Catholic in an emergency is warranted by the Catholic Church. Nothing else to say.
And I already refuted that reply because aside from it being crazy, all you replied with was the same attempt to reason that there can be justification for schism. Even Schuckardt would disagree since he allegedly got the schismatic bishop abjure his errors and make a profession of faith in his attempt to avoid your epikeia.
Like to try again?
-
"I never attributed an evil intent."
? Then who typed all those comments?
"Objectively, the name advertizes a thing that shouldn't be advertized, and despite intention for the choice, has a bad effect."
This is dysfunctional obsession that has nothing to do with objectivity. Even when provided reason, you remain determined to persecute in vengeance. That's not coming from a heavenly source.
"Now, show me some popular traditional Catholic publication where "stubborn" is used frequently to signify some type of good character trait. When you find it, start another thread and I will be there."
He gave you examples of how and why he uses it, with holy intent. Put simply, he is stubborn for the Faith. I am stubborn for the Faith also. So are you.
You can respond if you choose, but I'm getting off here.
-
And I already refuted that reply because aside from it being crazy, all you replied with was the same attempt to reason that there can be justification for schism. Even Schuckardt would disagree since he allegedly got the schismatic bishop abjure his errors and make a profession of faith in his attempt to avoid your epikeia.
Like to try again?
That's actually better news I didn't even know about. He had his priorities straight then. He attempted conversion first, and then took a Catholic Sacrament that didn't even belong to that sect.
"all you replied with was the same attempt to reason that there can be justification for schism"
This statement of yours is what is called the logical fallacy of begging the question. Go read about it, because it is invalid reasoning.
Like to try again or not?
-
"I never attributed an evil intent."
? Then who typed all those comments?
"Objectively, the name advertizes a thing that shouldn't be advertized, and despite intention for the choice, has a bad effect."
This is dysfunctional obsession that has nothing to do with objectivity. Even when provided reason, you remain determined to persecute in vengeance. That's not coming from a heavenly source.
"Now, show me some popular traditional Catholic publication where "stubborn" is used frequently to signify some type of good character trait. When you find it, start another thread and I will be there."
He gave you examples of how and why he uses it, with holy intent. Put simply, he is stubborn for the Faith. I am stubborn for the Faith also. So are you.
You can respond if you choose, but I'm getting off here.
Here is what "Stubborn" posted on fisheaters over 4 years ago:
"As for me, I was raised by stubborn parents who persevered in the faith throughout the revolution. I learned if one was not stubborn for the faith, then one has no chance to persevere to the end - so, I'm trying to be what my folks taught me to be, so I'm Stubborn - for the faith. :) "
He learned wrongly. Even Protestants can have a good intention of following what their parents wrongly taught them.
The Catholic books teach no such thing.
Using your CMRI wonderful Christian charity, why don't you start a new thread about it if it obsesses you so much?
-
Must be the same books that teach you schism is good and lawful.
-
Must be the same books that teach you schism is good and lawful.
No thanks for that falsehood, but if you can show where your parents learned what they supposedly learned, I will look at it.
If you had an ounce of faith, you'd have the understanding of what it means, but you don't so you won't.
Just keep doing what you're doing, justify schism however you like - certainly sincere people of good will can use your posts to know what not to do.
-
That the CMRI is schismatic has been proven, your head is too busy spinning every post around to have noticed.
-
I have another angle to view this as this thread seems to be stuck in name calling. Bp. Duarte Costa of Brazil was excommunicated by name in 1946 (Vitandus). He claims that he was railroaded, but decided to make up his own Brazilian National Church. His initial bishop whom he consecrated was reconciled with John XXIII, given a Titular See and even participated in Vatican II, despite having a wife and kids. My question to you is if Salomão Barbosa Ferraz was able to help create a schismatic Church, teach heresy, break the ancient laws of celibacy and become legitimate in the eyes of the Post-Conciliar Church. Isn't it fair to say that the CMRI could wait for a Pope and be reconciled and be just a non-schimatic as Bp Ferraz?
-
That the CMRI is schismatic has been proven, your head is too busy spinning every post around to have noticed.
You live in a fantasy world of stubbornness. I was talking about proving that your use of the word "stubborn" is traditional.
As for schism, I asked you straight out some time ago whether you accused them of being in schism, and you squirmed all over to say you never made the accusation. Now suddenly you say it was proven? You are a mess.
As I said, you can't keep on topic for two posts, but regardless, it has been proven.
-
I have another angle to view this as this thread seems to be stuck in name calling. Bp. Duarte Costa of Brazil was excommunicated by name in 1946 (Vitandus). He claims that he was railroaded, but decided to make up his own Brazilian National Church. His initial bishop whom he consecrated was reconciled with John XXIII, given a Titular See and even participated in Vatican II, despite having a wife and kids. My question to you is if Salomão Barbosa Ferraz was able to help create a schismatic Church, teach heresy, break the ancient laws of celibacy and become legitimate in the eyes of the Post-Conciliar Church. Isn't it fair to say that the CMRI could wait for a Pope and be reconciled and be just a non-schimatic as Bp Ferraz?
To Schuckardt, the gates of hell had prevailed and the Church was about to fall at any moment - but thankfully, an Old Catholic schismatic managed to out survive the Church to ordain and consecrate him. The CMRI officially trace their lineage back to this man.
-
I have another angle to view this as this thread seems to be stuck in name calling. Bp. Duarte Costa of Brazil was excommunicated by name in 1946 (Vitandus). He claims that he was railroaded, but decided to make up his own Brazilian National Church. His initial bishop whom he consecrated was reconciled with John XXIII, given a Titular See and even participated in Vatican II, despite having a wife and kids. My question to you is if Salomão Barbosa Ferraz was able to help create a schismatic Church, teach heresy, break the ancient laws of celibacy and become legitimate in the eyes of the Post-Conciliar Church. Isn't it fair to say that the CMRI could wait for a Pope and be reconciled and be just a non-schimatic as Bp Ferraz?
To Schuckardt, the gates of hell had prevailed and the Church was about to fall at any moment - but thankfully, an Old Catholic schismatic managed to out survive the Church to ordain and consecrate him. The CMRI officially trace their lineage back to this man.
To be fair all the priest of the CMRI have been conditionally ordained by Bp Musey (correct me if I am wrong). To my knowledge Schukardt had nothing to do with the CMRI for a quarter of century. If I did not know any better I would believe that you have an ax to grind with them. But you quoted my post wouldn't it be more appropriate to see if CMRI under circuмstance could be non-schismatic. I think there are alot of parallels from Church history to say that CMRI are not schismatic.
-
To be fair all the priest of the CMRI have been conditionally ordained by Bp Musey (correct me if I am wrong). To my knowledge Schukardt had nothing to do with the CMRI for a quarter of century. If I did not know any better I would believe that you have an ax to grind with them. But you quoted my post wouldn't it be more appropriate to see if CMRI under circuмstance could be non-schismatic. I think there are alot of parallels from Church history to say that CMRI are not schismatic.
Schuckardt was the founder and he was the only magisterium for 18 years, from 1967 to 1985 till he got the boot, he was +Pivarunas' seminary instructor, and btw, +Pivarunas was one of the one of the boots used on Schuckardt, plus the CMRI officially state right on their website they trace their origins back to 1967 - if they have nothing to do with him, then why do they officially trace their origin back to him? The SSPX have nothing to do with +ABL, yet they trace their origin and their lineage back to him. The CMRI is no different in that regard.
As for the Thuc line ordinations, I personally do not question their validity since schism is not an obstacle to validity of Orders.
"Valid orders" is all the CMRIers seem to focus on while completely ignoring the fact that valid Orders it is not the issue - schism is the issue.
-
To be fair all the priest of the CMRI have been conditionally ordained by Bp Musey (correct me if I am wrong). To my knowledge Schukardt had nothing to do with the CMRI for a quarter of century. If I did not know any better I would believe that you have an ax to grind with them. But you quoted my post wouldn't it be more appropriate to see if CMRI under circuмstance could be non-schismatic. I think there are alot of parallels from Church history to say that CMRI are not schismatic.
Schuckardt was the founder and he was the only magisterium for 18 years, from 1967 to 1985 till he got the boot, he was +Pivarunas' seminary instructor, and btw, +Pivarunas was one of the one of the boots used on Schuckardt, plus the CMRI officially state right on their website they trace their origins back to 1967 - if they have nothing to do with him, then why do they officially trace their origin back to him? The SSPX have nothing to do with +ABL, yet they trace their origin and their lineage back to him. The CMRI is no different in that regard.
As for the Thuc line ordinations, I personally do not question their validity since schism is not an obstacle to validity of Orders.
"Valid orders" is all the CMRIers seem to focus on while completely ignoring the fact that valid Orders it is not the issue - schism is the issue.
Thuc Lineage Flow Chart.
What disorder! Compare to SSPX
-
To be fair all the priest of the CMRI have been conditionally ordained by Bp Musey (correct me if I am wrong). To my knowledge Schukardt had nothing to do with the CMRI for a quarter of century. If I did not know any better I would believe that you have an ax to grind with them. But you quoted my post wouldn't it be more appropriate to see if CMRI under circuмstance could be non-schismatic. I think there are alot of parallels from Church history to say that CMRI are not schismatic.
Schuckardt was the founder and he was the only magisterium for 18 years, from 1967 to 1985 till he got the boot, he was +Pivarunas' seminary instructor, and btw, +Pivarunas was one of the one of the boots used on Schuckardt, plus the CMRI officially state right on their website they trace their origins back to 1967 - if they have nothing to do with him, then why do they officially trace their origin back to him? The SSPX have nothing to do with +ABL, yet they trace their origin and their lineage back to him. The CMRI is no different in that regard.
As for the Thuc line ordinations, I personally do not question their validity since schism is not an obstacle to validity of Orders.
"Valid orders" is all the CMRIers seem to focus on while completely ignoring the fact that valid Orders it is not the issue - schism is the issue.
Thuc Lineage Flow Chart.
What disorder! Compare to SSPX
Yes, it is an obvious mess - and saying it is a mess is merely the way it is and has nothing to do with what anyone feels and thinks of CMRI.
The facts remain even if no one wants to acknowledge them - and because of that whole mess and because of the schism of their founder, anyone already a part of or contemplating becoming a part of them needs to acknowledge the fact that the probability of CMRI being is schism is quite high.
Then, if one actually takes the time to delve even deeper and do some actual investigation, they will find the deeper they dig, the more the facts keep pointing to an even higher probability that CMRI are a schismatic sect, albeit with valid clergy.
Thus far, after all 500 or whatever posts in two or three different threads on the subject, not one person has offered even a shred of hard evidence to the contrary - which is another important point which needs to be acknowledged.
-
To be fair all the priest of the CMRI have been conditionally ordained by Bp Musey (correct me if I am wrong). To my knowledge Schukardt had nothing to do with the CMRI for a quarter of century. If I did not know any better I would believe that you have an ax to grind with them. But you quoted my post wouldn't it be more appropriate to see if CMRI under circuмstance could be non-schismatic. I think there are alot of parallels from Church history to say that CMRI are not schismatic.
Schuckardt was the founder and he was the only magisterium for 18 years, from 1967 to 1985 till he got the boot, he was +Pivarunas' seminary instructor, and btw, +Pivarunas was one of the one of the boots used on Schuckardt, plus the CMRI officially state right on their website they trace their origins back to 1967 - if they have nothing to do with him, then why do they officially trace their origin back to him? The SSPX have nothing to do with +ABL, yet they trace their origin and their lineage back to him. The CMRI is no different in that regard.
As for the Thuc line ordinations, I personally do not question their validity since schism is not an obstacle to validity of Orders.
"Valid orders" is all the CMRIers seem to focus on while completely ignoring the fact that valid Orders it is not the issue - schism is the issue.
Can you show me your source stating that Stukardt was the magisterium of the CMRI, as I understand he was the founder of the Order. I do think the SSPX have something to do the Archbishop Lefbevre. If the CMRI is schismatic only for the issue of refusal of submission to the Holy See, is there any canonical excuse for them since they have not been condemned in any forum that I know of?
-
A big part of the issue is one of private interpretation of Catholicism. There is no doubt that this is true with many and particularly with CMRI. They did in fact reject Bishop Musey as well as many other Thuc line Bishops and clergy who had a proper Catholic formation and foundation. They may have managed to have one of their own consecrated, but it does not make them Catholic. It does not make them proponents of truth. How can a group who would not submit to proper Catholic training be properly formed? It is picture book spirituality and counterfeit at best. They are self formed and taught from the time they expelled their founder until the present time. They propagate their own views as if it is true Catholicism? It is really sad and is
predicated on opinion.
-
A big part of the issue is one of private interpretation of Catholicism. There is no doubt that this is true with many and particularly with CMRI. They did in fact reject Bishop Musey as well as many other Thuc line Bishops and clergy who had a proper Catholic formation and foundation. They may have managed to have one of their own consecrated, but it does not make them Catholic. It does not make them proponents of truth. How can a group who would not submit to proper Catholic training be properly formed? It is picture book spirituality and counterfeit at best. They are self formed and taught from the time they expelled their founder until the present time. They propagate their own views as if it is true Catholicism? It is really sad and is
predicated on opinion.
Welcome to CathInfo, En medio stat virtus!
:smile:
-
"Prelates" What prelates? The Bishops at that time all had problems with them and told an old Bishop Carmona not to perform any consecration. I guess you are making claims due to your personal conversations with all of these Bishops. I know you have not because I did and know what happened. They have none who worked with that did not denounce them and that is the truth. Including the one and only Priest who stayed with them for a while. These are really just your opinions. And how did you come to those opinions? They did not, in fact submit to any lawful authority. Simply studying theology is not a formation especially as it relates to preconceived notions of faith and morals. Or are you an expert on proper formation and theology as well?
-
My friend, I fully realize by your comments that you unfortunately do not know the truth of what really occurred. I further realize that you never knew Bishop Musey nor what actually occurred then. Sad reality. It is not in the choosing of a spiritual director or an intellectual exercise that makes one truly Catholic.
-
My friend, I fully realize by your comments that you unfortunately do not know the truth of what really occurred. I further realize that you never knew Bishop Musey nor what actually occurred then. Sad reality. It is not in the choosing of a spiritual director or an intellectual exercise that makes one truly Catholic.
If you are baptized and you profess the Catholic Faith, you are Catholic (a member of the Catholic Church). Do you have any specific evidence of Bishop Pivarunas denying a doctrine of the Church?
-
To be fair all the priest of the CMRI have been conditionally ordained by Bp Musey (correct me if I am wrong). To my knowledge Schukardt had nothing to do with the CMRI for a quarter of century. If I did not know any better I would believe that you have an ax to grind with them. But you quoted my post wouldn't it be more appropriate to see if CMRI under circuмstance could be non-schismatic. I think there are alot of parallels from Church history to say that CMRI are not schismatic.
Schuckardt was the founder and he was the only magisterium for 18 years, from 1967 to 1985 till he got the boot, he was +Pivarunas' seminary instructor, and btw, +Pivarunas was one of the one of the boots used on Schuckardt, plus the CMRI officially state right on their website they trace their origins back to 1967 - if they have nothing to do with him, then why do they officially trace their origin back to him? The SSPX have nothing to do with +ABL, yet they trace their origin and their lineage back to him. The CMRI is no different in that regard.
As for the Thuc line ordinations, I personally do not question their validity since schism is not an obstacle to validity of Orders.
"Valid orders" is all the CMRIers seem to focus on while completely ignoring the fact that valid Orders it is not the issue - schism is the issue.
Can you show me your source stating that Stukardt was the magisterium of the CMRI, as I understand he was the founder of the Order. I do think the SSPX have something to do the Archbishop Lefbevre. If the CMRI is schismatic only for the issue of refusal of submission to the Holy See, is there any canonical excuse for them since they have not been condemned in any forum that I know of?
Schuckardt was the one who founded CMRI in 1967 and was superior till he got kicked out in 1984. Then in 1985, Father Dennis Chicoine became the new superior.
All this is common knowledge and can be easily found with google.
Here (http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=26&catname=14) is one link that gives a brief history showing the above facts to be true.
We know that Schuckardt had true priests available for the Mass and the sacraments up until 1971 when he was ordained and consecrated, what ever became of them is not recorded, at least not on the web that I could find.
Whether they left or were told to leave we cannot say for sure, yet the fact remains that he had true priests available for the Mass and the sacraments, but chose to be ordained and consecrated clandestinely by a schismatic bishop instead.
Right there at that point in time (if not sooner) is when I personally believe that the Church would certainly have declared that he severed himself from the Church.
And yes, certainly the SSPX have something to do with +ABL, it's founder.
The same is true of CMRI and it's founder as their website states they trace their origin back to 1967 more than once.
The reason given that the clandestine abjurations, confessions and professions of faith which were made by those CMRI clergy prior to being conditionally ordained by +Musey, is because there was doubt of the validity of the Schuckardt ordinations. Keep that fact in mind.
Nowhere can we find that the abjurations were made in order to renounce their schism and rejoin the Church.
-
I thought we all agreed that your ignorant argument was meant to be ignored since all your main argument does is attempt to justify schism. Didn't we agree on that already?
Honestly, you really are a piece of work. Why don't you create a thread, call it "Bewildered and proud" and use that whenever you feel the need to post. It certainly would help to keep the other threads from being clogged up with your heretical opinions.
-
NO, no. Remember it was proven that the excuse of epikeia was a farce. You even agreed - go back and re-read your own head spinning, thread clogging post.
-
NO, no. Remember it was proven that the excuse of epikeia was a farce. You even agreed - go back and re-read your own head spinning, thread clogging post.
I think you have a mental problem. Is you memory that bad?
No, my analogy about incest is what I agreed didn't have to be part of the argument. The epikeia argument is solid, and you skirted it from the start and still run from it.
You must have missed the whole thing again, well, the only thing you can do now is to go back and try to find it so you will stop claiming epikeia justifies schism.
Can we at least agree on that?
-
NO, no. Remember it was proven that the excuse of epikeia was a farce. You even agreed - go back and re-read your own head spinning, thread clogging post.
I think you have a mental problem. Is you memory that bad?
No, my analogy about incest is what I agreed didn't have to be part of the argument. The epikeia argument is solid, and you skirted it from the start and still run from it.
You must have missed the whole thing again, well, the only thing you can do now is to go back and try to find it so you will stop claiming epikeia justifies schism.
Can we at least agree on that?
Bump!
-
NO, no. Remember it was proven that the excuse of epikeia was a farce. You even agreed - go back and re-read your own head spinning, thread clogging post.
I think you have a mental problem. Is you memory that bad?
No, my analogy about incest is what I agreed didn't have to be part of the argument. The epikeia argument is solid, and you skirted it from the start and still run from it.
You must have missed the whole thing again, well, the only thing you can do now is to go back and try to find it so you will stop claiming epikeia justifies schism.
Can we at least agree on that?
Bump!
No.
I do not agree with you that I ever claimed epikeia justifies schism.
Yes, I proved to you that the epikeia excuse you were using was a complete farce since even Schuckardt did not use such a farce. Then you came back with some bewildered argument which made no sense but seemed to imply that you agreed.
Remember now?
-
NO, no. Remember it was proven that the excuse of epikeia was a farce. You even agreed - go back and re-read your own head spinning, thread clogging post.
I think you have a mental problem. Is you memory that bad?
No, my analogy about incest is what I agreed didn't have to be part of the argument. The epikeia argument is solid, and you skirted it from the start and still run from it.
You must have missed the whole thing again, well, the only thing you can do now is to go back and try to find it so you will stop claiming epikeia justifies schism.
Can we at least agree on that?
Bump!
No.
I do not agree with you that I ever claimed epikeia justifies schism.
Yes, I proved to you that the epikeia excuse you were using was a complete farce since even Schuckardt did not use such a farce. Then you came back with some bewildered argument which made no sense but seemed to imply that you agreed.
Remember now?
Your memory has failed you.
Ah, you are right, I am wrong.
I thought you agreed with indisputable proof - what was I thinking?
-
I can make an argument.
CMRI strongly advocates the notion that there can be salvation outside the Church. Yet all the alleged error in Vatican II derives logically from the same position on EENS that the CMRI hold. Consequently, they have no doctrinal justification for refusing to be subject to the Vatican II hierarchy. Consequently, the CMRI are schismatic.
This is such a ridiculous oversimplification! CMRI disagrees on Ecuмenism. The CMRI does not agree on the issue of cuмmunicatio in Sacris which has always been taught by the Church. It definitely disagrees on the Vatican II teaching that the Catholic Church subsists in the Church of Christ. You should really read their website so you do not make such a foolish error.
Pax Christi
-
To be fair all the priest of the CMRI have been conditionally ordained by Bp Musey (correct me if I am wrong). To my knowledge Schukardt had nothing to do with the CMRI for a quarter of century. If I did not know any better I would believe that you have an ax to grind with them. But you quoted my post wouldn't it be more appropriate to see if CMRI under circuмstance could be non-schismatic. I think there are alot of parallels from Church history to say that CMRI are not schismatic.
Schuckardt was the founder and he was the only magisterium for 18 years, from 1967 to 1985 till he got the boot, he was +Pivarunas' seminary instructor, and btw, +Pivarunas was one of the one of the boots used on Schuckardt, plus the CMRI officially state right on their website they trace their origins back to 1967 - if they have nothing to do with him, then why do they officially trace their origin back to him? The SSPX have nothing to do with +ABL, yet they trace their origin and their lineage back to him. The CMRI is no different in that regard.
As for the Thuc line ordinations, I personally do not question their validity since schism is not an obstacle to validity of Orders.
"Valid orders" is all the CMRIers seem to focus on while completely ignoring the fact that valid Orders it is not the issue - schism is the issue.
Can you show me your source stating that Stukardt was the magisterium of the CMRI, as I understand he was the founder of the Order. I do think the SSPX have something to do the Archbishop Lefbevre. If the CMRI is schismatic only for the issue of refusal of submission to the Holy See, is there any canonical excuse for them since they have not been condemned in any forum that I know of?
Schuckardt was the one who founded CMRI in 1967 and was superior till he got kicked out in 1984. Then in 1985, Father Dennis Chicoine became the new superior.
All this is common knowledge and can be easily found with google.
Here (http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=26&catname=14) is one link that gives a brief history showing the above facts to be true.
We know that Schuckardt had true priests available for the Mass and the sacraments up until 1971 when he was ordained and consecrated, what ever became of them is not recorded, at least not on the web that I could find.
Whether they left or were told to leave we cannot say for sure, yet the fact remains that he had true priests available for the Mass and the sacraments, but chose to be ordained and consecrated clandestinely by a schismatic bishop instead.
Right there at that point in time (if not sooner) is when I personally believe that the Church would certainly have declared that he severed himself from the Church.
And yes, certainly the SSPX have something to do with +ABL, it's founder.
The same is true of CMRI and it's founder as their website states they trace their origin back to 1967 more than once.
The reason given that the clandestine abjurations, confessions and professions of faith which were made by those CMRI clergy prior to being conditionally ordained by +Musey, is because there was doubt of the validity of the Schuckardt ordinations. Keep that fact in mind.
Nowhere can we find that the abjurations were made in order to renounce their schism and rejoin the Church.
Bump
-
To be fair all the priest of the CMRI have been conditionally ordained by Bp Musey (correct me if I am wrong). To my knowledge Schukardt had nothing to do with the CMRI for a quarter of century. If I did not know any better I would believe that you have an ax to grind with them. But you quoted my post wouldn't it be more appropriate to see if CMRI under circuмstance could be non-schismatic. I think there are alot of parallels from Church history to say that CMRI are not schismatic.
Schuckardt was the founder and he was the only magisterium for 18 years, from 1967 to 1985 till he got the boot, he was +Pivarunas' seminary instructor, and btw, +Pivarunas was one of the one of the boots used on Schuckardt, plus the CMRI officially state right on their website they trace their origins back to 1967 - if they have nothing to do with him, then why do they officially trace their origin back to him? The SSPX have nothing to do with +ABL, yet they trace their origin and their lineage back to him. The CMRI is no different in that regard.
As for the Thuc line ordinations, I personally do not question their validity since schism is not an obstacle to validity of Orders.
"Valid orders" is all the CMRIers seem to focus on while completely ignoring the fact that valid Orders it is not the issue - schism is the issue.
Can you show me your source stating that Stukardt was the magisterium of the CMRI, as I understand he was the founder of the Order. I do think the SSPX have something to do the Archbishop Lefbevre. If the CMRI is schismatic only for the issue of refusal of submission to the Holy See, is there any canonical excuse for them since they have not been condemned in any forum that I know of?
Schuckardt was the one who founded CMRI in 1967 and was superior till he got kicked out in 1984. Then in 1985, Father Dennis Chicoine became the new superior.
All this is common knowledge and can be easily found with google.
Here (http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=26&catname=14) is one link that gives a brief history showing the above facts to be true.
We know that Schuckardt had true priests available for the Mass and the sacraments up until 1971 when he was ordained and consecrated, what ever became of them is not recorded, at least not on the web that I could find.
Whether they left or were told to leave we cannot say for sure, yet the fact remains that he had true priests available for the Mass and the sacraments, but chose to be ordained and consecrated clandestinely by a schismatic bishop instead.
Right there at that point in time (if not sooner) is when I personally believe that the Church would certainly have declared that he severed himself from the Church.
And yes, certainly the SSPX have something to do with +ABL, it's founder.
The same is true of CMRI and it's founder as their website states they trace their origin back to 1967 more than once.
The reason given that the clandestine abjurations, confessions and professions of faith which were made by those CMRI clergy prior to being conditionally ordained by +Musey, is because there was doubt of the validity of the Schuckardt ordinations. Keep that fact in mind.
Nowhere can we find that the abjurations were made in order to renounce their schism and rejoin the Church.
Well the CMRI in the sixties were a group as part of the Blue Army teaching devotion s such as the rosary and the apparition at Fatima. They saw the dangers of Vatican II and at the time had an elderly priest exiled but the conciliar church. How would you like them to proceed. They had no access to Arb. Lefbevre. and they had a group of faithful Catholics who had the right to Mass of their baptism. The cannonists teach that it is not schismatic to disobey a Pope if they find something about his election or validity doubtful.
(i) " Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation..." (Wernz-Vidal: Ius Canonicuм, Vol. vii, n. 398)
(ii) " Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state." (Szal, Rev. Ignatius: Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA, 1948, p.2)
(iii) " Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded ['probabiliter'] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refs. to Sanchez and Palao]." (de Lugo: Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp. xxv, sect. iii, nn. 35-8)
Stubborn why is 1971 the year for cutoff for legitimate priests? Where in the US could Catholics attend the Mass of their baptism as they are entitled to under canon law. Name a diocese or religious order where the CMRI faithful could practice their faith whole and entire in 1971? Or lets your parlance, where was their a legitimate non-Chushingite organization attached to visible post-conciliar Church?
-
I can make an argument.
CMRI strongly advocates the notion that there can be salvation outside the Church. Yet all the alleged error in Vatican II derives logically from the same position on EENS that the CMRI hold. Consequently, they have no doctrinal justification for refusing to be subject to the Vatican II hierarchy. Consequently, the CMRI are schismatic.
CMRI disagrees on Ecuмenism. The CMRI does not agree on the issue of cuмmunicatio in Sacris which has always been taught by the Church. It definitely disagrees on the Vatican II teaching that the Catholic Church subsists in the Church of Christ.
CMRI disagrees with Ecuмenism in theory only, but not in practice. This is because there is a great contradiction: CMRI believes that non-Catholics can be in state of sanctifying grace, being temples of the Holy Ghost, and ultimately reach Heaven without converting explicitly to Catholicism and formally entering the Church. That being the case, their followers, who believ in salvific "Invincible Ignorance" cannot really oppose Religious Liberty or Ecuмenism because "the good willed" non Catholic could actually be in state of Justification and is free to express his religious beliefs. After all, he does not HAVE to convert to Catholicism. He can be saved while being in a false religion through the Church. It follows that there may be thousands of "good willed" members of other religions who are also justified and temples of the Holy Ghost, so why not pray with them? Under this reasoning, the Prayer at Assisi would no longer be a blasphemy.
-
Well the CMRI in the sixties were a group as part of the Blue Army teaching devotion s such as the rosary and the apparition at Fatima. They saw the dangers of Vatican II and at the time had an elderly priest exiled but the conciliar church. How would you like them to proceed. They had no access to Arb. Lefbevre. and they had a group of faithful Catholics who had the right to Mass of their baptism. The cannonists teach that it is not schismatic to disobey a Pope if they find something about his election or validity doubtful.
How would I have liked them to proceed? I would have liked for them to do something similar to what we did in those days, search for other priests until one was found, then search some more and keep searching until God provided for you. Not that he had to mind you, he already had priests, which gives him even less reason to break all the rules no matter what, so he could become one.
Heck, we drove 700 miles one way for Mass 5 or 6 times, the first time not knowing for sure if we'd even find the True Mass and sacraments when we got there - better to do that then do what Schuckardt did. At least he had priests, that was more than we had in our neck of the woods.
In order to keep the faith it was and remains essential to disobey the pope, so it is not about disobeying the pope to the point that you do what Schuckardt did. There can be no justification in that, especially when you already had priests who were already taking care of the sheep. How anyone could possibly think his schismatic actions could be justified is beyond me - especially since he already had priests!
Schuckardt and his little group had priests, had the sacraments, had the Mass, he and his little group had what they needed - but no, he willingly threw that all away.
Stubborn why is 1971 the year for cutoff for legitimate priests? Where in the US could Catholics attend the Mass of their baptism as they are entitled to under canon law. Name a diocese or religious order where the CMRI faithful could practice their faith whole and entire in 1971? Or lets your parlance, where was their a legitimate non-Chushingite organization attached to visible post-conciliar Church?
You are on the wrong track. You are not even on the same track as CMRI here.
From my experience, by 1971 there was no place in any diocesan church where you could assist at the True Mass - that is only based on my experience. There was however many hold out priests whom were either kicked out or left the diocesan structure or took early retirement rather than accept the NO. But no matter, the fact remains that because he had priests, he had no reason at all to find a Schismatic bishop to ordain and consecrate him so HE could save the whole Church. And even if he had no priests except for a few times every other month, that's how it goes, it's certainly does not give justification to do what he did.
-
I can make an argument.
CMRI strongly advocates the notion that there can be salvation outside the Church. Yet all the alleged error in Vatican II derives logically from the same position on EENS that the CMRI hold. Consequently, they have no doctrinal justification for refusing to be subject to the Vatican II hierarchy. Consequently, the CMRI are schismatic.
CMRI disagrees on Ecuмenism. The CMRI does not agree on the issue of cuмmunicatio in Sacris which has always been taught by the Church. It definitely disagrees on the Vatican II teaching that the Catholic Church subsists in the Church of Christ.
CMRI disagrees with Ecuмenism in theory only, but not in practice. This is because there is a great contradiction: CMRI believes that non-Catholics can be in state of sanctifying grace, being temples of the Holy Ghost, and ultimately reach Heaven without converting explicitly to Catholicism and formally entering the Church. That being the case, their followers, who believ in salvific "Invincible Ignorance" cannot really oppose Religious Liberty or Ecuмenism because "the good willed" non Catholic could actually be in state of Justification and is free to express his religious beliefs. After all, he does not HAVE to convert to Catholicism. He can be saved while being in a false religion through the Church. It follows that there may be thousands of "good willed" members of other religions who are also justified and temples of the Holy Ghost, so why not pray with them? Under this reasoning, the Prayer at Assisi would no longer be a blasphemy.
In some US courts there is a motion called a demurrer. It is used to show that Complaint from the other side does not state fact sufficent to support the charge. it is sometimes called a so-what motion. Here I have to demurr to you. No one can tell who is invincibly ignorant. There can be no cuмmincatio in sacris like at Assisi. There can be no sharing of the sacraments as the post-conciliar church allows. There can be no Balmaand agreement stopping proselytizing. If they are of good will and still alive they would convert when giving the opportunity. Cantarella you should really understand this issue when speaking of it.
-
I can make an argument.
CMRI strongly advocates the notion that there can be salvation outside the Church. Yet all the alleged error in Vatican II derives logically from the same position on EENS that the CMRI hold. Consequently, they have no doctrinal justification for refusing to be subject to the Vatican II hierarchy. Consequently, the CMRI are schismatic.
CMRI disagrees on Ecuмenism. The CMRI does not agree on the issue of cuмmunicatio in Sacris which has always been taught by the Church. It definitely disagrees on the Vatican II teaching that the Catholic Church subsists in the Church of Christ.
CMRI disagrees with Ecuмenism in theory only, but not in practice. This is because there is a great contradiction: CMRI believes that non-Catholics can be in state of sanctifying grace, being temples of the Holy Ghost, and ultimately reach Heaven without converting explicitly to Catholicism and formally entering the Church. That being the case, their followers, who believ in salvific "Invincible Ignorance" cannot really oppose Religious Liberty or Ecuмenism because "the good willed" non Catholic could actually be in state of Justification and is free to express his religious beliefs. After all, he does not HAVE to convert to Catholicism. He can be saved while being in a false religion through the Church. It follows that there may be thousands of "good willed" members of other religions who are also justified and temples of the Holy Ghost, so why not pray with them? Under this reasoning, the Prayer at Assisi would no longer be a blasphemy.
In some US courts there is a motion called a demurrer. It is used to show that Complaint from the other side does not state fact sufficent to support the charge. it is sometimes called a so-what motion. Here I have to demurr to you. No one can tell who is invincibly ignorant. There can be no cuмmincatio in sacris like at Assisi. There can be no sharing of the sacraments as the post-conciliar church allows. There can be no Balmaand agreement stopping proselytizing. If they are of good will and still alive they
-
I can make an argument.
CMRI strongly advocates the notion that there can be salvation outside the Church. Yet all the alleged error in Vatican II derives logically from the same position on EENS that the CMRI hold. Consequently, they have no doctrinal justification for refusing to be subject to the Vatican II hierarchy. Consequently, the CMRI are schismatic.
CMRI disagrees on Ecuмenism. The CMRI does not agree on the issue of cuмmunicatio in Sacris which has always been taught by the Church. It definitely disagrees on the Vatican II teaching that the Catholic Church subsists in the Church of Christ.
CMRI disagrees with Ecuмenism in theory only, but not in practice. This is because there is a great contradiction: CMRI believes that non-Catholics can be in state of sanctifying grace, being temples of the Holy Ghost, and ultimately reach Heaven without converting explicitly to Catholicism and formally entering the Church. That being the case, their followers, who believ in salvific "Invincible Ignorance" cannot really oppose Religious Liberty or Ecuмenism because "the good willed" non Catholic could actually be in state of Justification and is free to express his religious beliefs. After all, he does not HAVE to convert to Catholicism. He can be saved while being in a false religion through the Church. It follows that there may be thousands of "good willed" members of other religions who are also justified and temples of the Holy Ghost, so why not pray with them? Under this reasoning, the Prayer at Assisi would no longer be a blasphemy.
In some US courts there is a motion called a demurrer. It is used to show that Complaint from the other side does not state fact sufficent to support the charge. it is sometimes called a so-what motion. Here I have to demurr to you. No one can tell who is invincibly ignorant. There can be no cuмmincatio in sacris like at Assisi. There can be no sharing of the sacraments as the post-conciliar church allows. There can be no Balmaand agreement stopping proselytizing. If they are of good will and still alive they would convert when giving the opportunity. Cantarella you should really understand this issue when speaking of it.
Of course, but that was not the intended point. The point was that the CMRI shares the same error in doctrine with the Post Conciliar Church, the liberal Vatican Curia. This is, the heretical denial of the thrice defined dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, because as everyone knows the CMRI promotes the idea of salvation for non-Catholics (not even catechumens) via last minute Baptism of Desire, or its colollaries, Salvation by Implicit Desire , or Salvation by Justification Alone, all these of course novel doctrines. Yes, no one can know for sure who is the invincible ignorant, but God's Providence will ensure that this "invincible ignorant" will be enlighten and brought to the Faith if he truly seeks Him. He will send an angel if necessary. This Invincible Ignorant cannot be in the state of sanctifying grace and will not be saved unless he explicitly converts to Catholicism because it is dogma that nobody can be saved without the Catholic Faith. Yet, CMRI denies this.
-
So says "Special Olympics Cantarella". You have no clue about the subject you are attempting to talk about.
You insult her intelligence by comparing her to mentally challenged people. That's a great way to win an argument. Are you in the third grade?
-
It's only an analogy.
It pertains to the degree of acquired information, not intelligence.
Relax.
I am relaxed. I was just pointing out that you are acting juvenile by flinging obnoxious insults at people you disagree with. Were you moved by grace to insult her? Was that the will of the good God?
-
:tv-disturbed:
-
So says "Special Olympics Cantarella". You have no clue about the subject you are attempting to talk about.
You insult her intelligence by comparing her to mentally challenged people. That's a great way to win an argument. Are you in the third grade?
Agreed.
Nado has made good points but this really doesn't do much for his argument.
Though, generally speaking Cantarella is so nasty and frustrating that she tends to bring out the worst in others. She just needs prayer, I'm hoping she isn't half as bad in real life, maybe she is completely different.
-
.
-
Though, generally speaking Cantarella is so nasty and frustrating that she tends to bring out the worst in others. She just needs prayer, I'm hoping she isn't half as bad in real life, maybe she is completely different.
Because this comment is not so... :rolleyes:. It is the perfect example of sweetness and charity.
No Mabel, you and I (as well as anybody that has been paying close attention) know that what makes me so terribly "bad" to your eyes is that you just can't take what I have to say about the facts concerning sedevacantism in general, and the CMRI sect in particular.
And because it is evident that you don't have any real, objective arguments to debate it, nor any theological knowledge of any kind, then you have taken it quite personally and had to recourse to mediocre attacks against my persona as if you knew me in real life. You have absolutely no right to "publicly correct" me as you have tried to do in the past or even less right to send me, and other people here, confess simply for stating the truth about your cult as if you were our spiritual advisor.
As said before, until you are ready to counter - attack with real arguments and not silly insults, just get over it and ignore me in these threads.
-
No Mabel, you and I (as well as anybody that has been paying close attention) know that what makes me so terribly "bad" to your eyes is that you just can't take what I have to say about the facts concerning sedevacantism in general, and the CMRI sect in particular.
And because it is evident that you don't have any real, objective arguments to debate it, nor any theological knowledge of any kind, then you have taken it quite personally and had to recourse to mediocre attacks against my persona as if you knew me in real life. You have absolutely no right to "publicly correct" me as you have tried to do in the past or even less right to send me, and other people here, confess simply for stating the truth about your cult as if you were our spiritual advisor.
As said before, until you are ready to counter - attack with real arguments and not silly insults, just get over it and ignore me in these threads.
Cantarella, your notes sound very hypocritical because you point your finger at a particular traditional group, just because they do not suit your life style, but at the same time, you turn your head and stick it into the sand so you can't see what your pope is doing. Have you ever really paid attention to the prayer, the Act of Faith! Do you even pray it, not just say it! Clearly it says: Act of Faith
... I believe these and all the truths which the holy Catholic Church teaches, because you have revealed them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.
Amen.
There is nothing you can ever say against CMRI to introduce doubt about the group to anyone who knows CMRI, people leave there only because it is truly Catholic and they are not. They do not compromise! Maybe human mistakes were made, but corrected. A consequence of having no pope.
Are you really here to try and teach or are you like the infiltrator who want to destroy?
-
So says "Special Olympics Cantarella". You have no clue about the subject you are attempting to talk about.
You insult her intelligence by comparing her to mentally challenged people. That's a great way to win an argument. Are you in the third grade?
It probably is not a nice thing to say but Cantarella so misunderstands what she is talking about the CMRIand the post conciliar church believing the samething is so ridiculous it is hard to come up with an adequate response.
It would appear that Cantarella has read so much propaganda that the truth is blurred. To demonstrate this point using their terminology. All the Pelagian manual theologians which taught baptism of desire all agreed that the Catholic church is the hurxh of Christ, that communication in Sacris acatholico was forbidden be divine law. That the mass cannot be changed to suit protestants, that modernism is a heresy, that dogmas can be better defined but not change, etc. Cantarellas beliefs or rather misunderstandings are pretty stupid and deserve rebuke. But we all can make mistakes so I hope that Cantarella can learn more about these issues and not this mistake again. Please note I am rebuking the ideas and not making personal attacks. I am not one of those who believes that banners are mortally sinful.
-
Though, generally speaking Cantarella is so nasty and frustrating that she tends to bring out the worst in others. She just needs prayer, I'm hoping she isn't half as bad in real life, maybe she is completely different.
Because this comment is not so... :rolleyes:. It is the perfect example of sweetness and charity.
No Mabel, you and I (as well as anybody that has been paying close attention) know that what makes me so terribly "bad" to your eyes is that you just can't take what I have to say about the facts concerning sedevacantism in general, and the CMRI sect in particular.
And because it is evident that you don't have any real, objective arguments to debate it, nor any theological knowledge of any kind, then you have taken it quite personally and had to recourse to mediocre attacks against my persona as if you knew me in real life. You have absolutely no right to "publicly correct" me as you have tried to do in the past or even less right to send me, and other people here, confess simply for stating the truth about your cult as if you were our spiritual advisor.
As said before, until you are ready to counter - attack with real arguments and not silly insults, just get over it and ignore me in these threads.
What Mabel is the one without theological expertise. What aboutmy post about Bp. Ferrez and his reconciliation. If this goofball could be reconciled name a legitimate reason to hold back the CMRI?
-
All the Pelagian manual theologians which taught baptism of desire all agreed that the Catholic church is the hurxh of Christ, that communication in Sacris acatholico was forbidden be divine law. That the mass cannot be changed to suit protestants, that modernism is a heresy, that dogmas can be better defined but not change, etc.
What are you talking about, APS? You lost me there.
I do believe that:
The Catholic Church is the Church of Christ
Communication in Sacris was forbidden
Mass cannot be changed to suit Protestants
and most definitely, that Modernism is a heresy and dogmas cannot change.
Care to elaborate? I really think you are a little confused about my beliefs which you are harshly judging as "stupid and deserving of rebuke". Well, it is a little difficult to rebuke something if you have no clue what you are rebuking to begin with.
-
I can make an argument.
CMRI strongly advocates the notion that there can be salvation outside the Church. Yet all the alleged error in Vatican II derives logically from the same position on EENS that the CMRI hold. Consequently, they have no doctrinal justification for refusing to be subject to the Vatican II hierarchy. Consequently, the CMRI are schismatic.
CMRI disagrees on Ecuмenism. The CMRI does not agree on the issue of cuмmunicatio in Sacris which has always been taught by the Church. It definitely disagrees on the Vatican II teaching that the Catholic Church subsists in the Church of Christ.
CMRI disagrees with Ecuмenism in theory only, but not in practice. This is because there is a great contradiction: CMRI believes that non-Catholics can be in state of sanctifying grace, being temples of the Holy Ghost, and ultimately reach Heaven without converting explicitly to Catholicism and formally entering the Church. That being the case, their followers, who believ in salvific "Invincible Ignorance" cannot really oppose Religious Liberty or Ecuмenism because "the good willed" non Catholic could actually be in state of Justification and is free to express his religious beliefs. After all, he does not HAVE to convert to Catholicism. He can be saved while being in a false religion through the Church. It follows that there may be thousands of "good willed" members of other religions who are also justified and temples of the Holy Ghost, so why not pray with them? Under this reasoning, the Prayer at Assisi would no longer be a blasphemy.
In some US courts there is a motion called a demurrer. It is used to show that Complaint from the other side does not state fact sufficent to support the charge. it is sometimes called a so-what motion. Here I have to demurr to you. No one can tell who is invincibly ignorant. There can be no cuмmincatio in sacris like at Assisi. There can be no sharing of the sacraments as the post-conciliar church allows. There can be no Balmaand agreement stopping proselytizing. If they are of good will and still alive they would convert when giving the opportunity. Cantarella you should really understand this issue when speaking of it.
Of course, but that was not the intended point. The point was that the CMRI shares the same error in doctrine with the Post Conciliar Church, the liberal Vatican Curia. This is, the heretical denial of the thrice defined dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, because as everyone knows the CMRI promotes the idea of salvation for non-Catholics (not even catechumens) via last minute Baptism of Desire, or its colollaries, Salvation by Implicit Desire , or Salvation by Justification Alone, all these of course novel doctrines. Yes, no one can know for sure who is the invincible ignorant, but God's Providence will ensure that this "invincible ignorant" will be enlighten and brought to the Faith if he truly seeks Him. He will send an angel if necessary. This Invincible Ignorant cannot be in the state of sanctifying grace and will not be saved unless he explicitly converts to Catholicism because it is dogma that nobody can be saved without the Catholic Faith. Yet, CMRI denies this.
The fact that the CMRI rejects Feeneyism gives me great confidence that they are a solid group of faithful Catholics.
-
All the Pelagian manual theologians which taught baptism of desire all agreed that the Catholic church is the hurxh of Christ, that communication in Sacris acatholico was forbidden be divine law. That the mass cannot be changed to suit protestants, that modernism is a heresy, that dogmas can be better defined but not change, etc.
What are you talking about, APS? You lost me there.
I do believe that:
The Catholic Church is the Church of Christ
Communication in Sacris was forbidden
Mass cannot be changed to suit Protestants
and most definitely, that Modernism is a heresy and dogmas cannot change.
Care to elaborate? I really think you are a little confused about my beliefs which you are harshly judging as "stupid and deserving of rebuke". Well, it is a little difficult to rebuke something if you have no clue what you are rebuking to begin with.
Cantarella both you and Laudislaus stated clearly that the CMRI is schismatic because they have the same beliefs as the post conciliar church because the " pelagian heresy" of invincible ignorance is the same beliefs proponed in Vatican ii. I am not saying you believe in ecuмenism or changing of the mass. I am disputing your claim that believing in what Pope Pius IX taught invincible ignorance is the same or even the root of the errors of Vatican ii. I can prov this because of all the "Pelagian" manual theologians teach that both Pius IX taught invincible ignorance and condemn the Vatican ii novelties of ecuмenism, subsistence of non catholics in the church, new mass etc.
Your ckain fail because you are arguing from ignorance
-
I can make an argument.
CMRI strongly advocates the notion that there can be salvation outside the Church. Yet all the alleged error in Vatican II derives logically from the same position on EENS that the CMRI hold. Consequently, they have no doctrinal justification for refusing to be subject to the Vatican II hierarchy. Consequently, the CMRI are schismatic.
CMRI disagrees on Ecuмenism. The CMRI does not agree on the issue of cuмmunicatio in Sacris which has always been taught by the Church. It definitely disagrees on the Vatican II teaching that the Catholic Church subsists in the Church of Christ.
CMRI disagrees with Ecuмenism in theory only, but not in practice. This is because there is a great contradiction: CMRI believes that non-Catholics can be in state of sanctifying grace, being temples of the Holy Ghost, and ultimately reach Heaven without converting explicitly to Catholicism and formally entering the Church. That being the case, their followers, who believ in salvific "Invincible Ignorance" cannot really oppose Religious Liberty or Ecuмenism because "the good willed" non Catholic could actually be in state of Justification and is free to express his religious beliefs. After all, he does not HAVE to convert to Catholicism. He can be saved while being in a false religion through the Church. It follows that there may be thousands of "good willed" members of other religions who are also justified and temples of the Holy Ghost, so why not pray with them? Under this reasoning, the Prayer at Assisi would no longer be a blasphemy.
In some US courts there is a motion called a demurrer. It is used to show that Complaint from the other side does not state fact sufficent to support the charge. it is sometimes called a so-what motion. Here I have to demurr to you. No one can tell who is invincibly ignorant. There can be no cuмmincatio in sacris like at Assisi. There can be no sharing of the sacraments as the post-conciliar church allows. There can be no Balmaand agreement stopping proselytizing. If they are of good will and still alive they would convert when giving the opportunity. Cantarella you should really understand this issue when speaking of it.
Of course, but that was not the intended point. The point was that the CMRI shares the same error in doctrine with the Post Conciliar Church, the liberal Vatican Curia. This is, the heretical denial of the thrice defined dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, because as everyone knows the CMRI promotes the idea of salvation for non-Catholics (not even catechumens) via last minute Baptism of Desire, or its colollaries, Salvation by Implicit Desire , or Salvation by Justification Alone, all these of course novel doctrines. Yes, no one can know for sure who is the invincible ignorant, but God's Providence will ensure that this "invincible ignorant" will be enlighten and brought to the Faith if he truly seeks Him. He will send an angel if necessary. This Invincible Ignorant cannot be in the state of sanctifying grace and will not be saved unless he explicitly converts to Catholicism because it is dogma that nobody can be saved without the Catholic Faith. Yet, CMRI denies this.
The fact that the CMRI rejects Feeneyism gives me great confidence that they are a solid group of faithful Catholics.
Like the other CMRI supporters, all you offer is your biased opinion, which is contrary to historical fact.
-
All the Pelagian manual theologians which taught baptism of desire all agreed that the Catholic church is the hurxh of Christ, that communication in Sacris acatholico was forbidden be divine law. That the mass cannot be changed to suit protestants, that modernism is a heresy, that dogmas can be better defined but not change, etc.
What are you talking about, APS? You lost me there.
I do believe that:
The Catholic Church is the Church of Christ
Communication in Sacris was forbidden
Mass cannot be changed to suit Protestants
and most definitely, that Modernism is a heresy and dogmas cannot change.
Care to elaborate? I really think you are a little confused about my beliefs which you are harshly judging as "stupid and deserving of rebuke". Well, it is a little difficult to rebuke something if you have no clue what you are rebuking to begin with.
Cantarella both you and Laudislaus stated clearly that the CMRI is schismatic because they have the same beliefs as the post conciliar church because the " pelagian heresy" of invincible ignorance is the same beliefs proponed in Vatican ii. I am not saying you believe in ecuмenism or changing of the mass. I am disputing your claim that believing in what Pope Pius IX taught invincible ignorance is the same or even the root of the errors of Vatican ii. I can prov this because of all the "Pelagian" manual theologians teach that both Pius IX taught invincible ignorance and condemn the Vatican ii novelties of ecuмenism, subsistence of non catholics in the church, new mass etc.
Your ckain fail because you are arguing from ignorance
Never stated that the CMRI is schismatic because of the liberal beliefs on EENS they promote. That would be heresy, not schism. The CMRI is schismatic because of sedevacantism, and the refusal to submit and be in communion with the visible reigning of Pope of Rome (who they consider to be an anti-Pope, following no other authority but themselves and a self - proclaimed "bishop"). This, according to Canon Law, it is the first category for schism.
"Schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."
For further discussion about the implications of Invincible Ignorance and how the error was transferred to Vatican II docuмents, use the appropriate sub forum. It is actually off topic here.
-
Cantarella,
What is the novus ordo stance on EENS?
What is Pope Francis view of EENS?
-
Cantarella,
What is the novus ordo stance on EENS?
What is Pope Francis view of EENS?
In brief, just follow your conscience.
This affirmation [EENS] is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church.
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. - CCC 847
-
Cantarella,
What is the novus ordo stance on EENS?
What is Pope Francis view of EENS?
In brief, just follow your conscience.
This affirmation [EENS] is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church.
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. - CCC 847
CCC 847 seems to be saying that, if moved by grace, and following their conscience, a soul may achieve eternal salvation without any need of the Catholic Church. Did I summarize that correctly?
-
Cantarella,
What is the novus ordo stance on EENS?
What is Pope Francis view of EENS?
In brief, just follow your conscience.
This affirmation [EENS] is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church.
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. - CCC 847
CCC 847 seems to be saying that, if moved by grace, and following their conscience, a soul may achieve eternal salvation without any need of the Catholic Church. Did I summarize that correctly?
I think so, but remember, the dogma affirmation is not aimed at those who are ignorant through no fault of their own.
So what percentage are ignorant through no fault of their own? - maybe less than .0000000000(add a thousand more zero's)00000001%, all the rest don't know because they don't want to know - this is who it is aimed at?
-
Cantarella,
What is the novus ordo stance on EENS?
What is Pope Francis view of EENS?
I am guessing by "Novus Ordo" you mean the general state of the Church after the ʝʊdɛօ- Freemasonic takeover that actually happened before Vatican II Council. Well, it is pretty evident that since Protocol 122/49 (Suprema haec sacra) censuring Fr. Feeney, they operate under the Cushing error. After this Letter, the liberal progressive media took no time in giving the impression to the world that the Catholic Church was no longer exclusive for human salvation. The Jews, the Left, and the Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ were pleased and happy about that! Here is the headline:
VATICAN RULES AGAINST [FR. FEENEY] HUB DISSIDENTS – [Vatican] Holds No Salvation Outside Church Doctrine To Be False
I do not know what Pope Francis beliefs on EENS actually are, given that I do not have access to the Popes' internal forum. To all appearances, he is a Cushinguite as well, at least to pretend to live in harmony with the world: he is not condemning salvific invincible ignorance nor affirming the EENS dogma as was solemnly defined and believed by all during almost 2000 years. This of course, must have political and economic pressures or reasons. (no one wants to offend or hurt Jewry's sensibilities nowadays) No one denies that the Catholic Church is infiltrated. What the JEWS WANT IS A ONE WORLD RELIGION. EENS DOES NOT FIT WITH IT.
-
I do not know what Pope Francis beliefs on EENS actually are, given that I do not have access to the Popes' internal forum. To all appearances, he is a Cushinguite as well, at least to pretend to live in harmony with the world: he is not condemning salvific invincible ignorance nor affirming the EENS dogma as was solemnly defined and believed by all during almost 2000 years. This of course, must have political and economic pressures or reasons. (no one wants to offend or hurt Jewry's sensibilities nowadays) No one denies that the Catholic Church is infiltrated. What the JEWS WANT IS A ONE WORLD RELIGION. EENS DOES NOT FIT WITH IT.
What! You don't know??? Why is it you know the mind of everyone on this forum that does not agree with you. :stare:
-
I do not know what Pope Francis beliefs on EENS actually are, given that I do not have access to the Popes' internal forum. To all appearances, he is a Cushinguite as well, at least to pretend to live in harmony with the world: he is not condemning salvific invincible ignorance nor affirming the EENS dogma as was solemnly defined and believed by all during almost 2000 years. This of course, must have political and economic pressures or reasons. (no one wants to offend or hurt Jewry's sensibilities nowadays) No one denies that the Catholic Church is infiltrated. What the JEWS WANT IS A ONE WORLD RELIGION. EENS DOES NOT FIT WITH IT.
What! You don't know??? Why is it you know the mind of everyone on this forum that does not agree with you. :stare:
Well, I have not had the opportunity to ask Pope Francis if he personally believes that a "good willed" Hindu by being a "good willed" Hindu ignorant of the Catholic Faith could actually be justified, in the state of grace, a member of the Church and a heir to Heaven via last minute "BOD". That is why I said, to all appearances, he is a Cushinguite.
I have asked you though and your response was yes. You believe that a non-Catholic (Hindu, Muslim, Jew) can be saved through the Church while being ignorant of the Catholic Faith. There is no CMRI member who has ever said no to this question on salvific "Invincible Ignorance". However, I have never accused you or any other member here of "formal heresy". This common Modernist error may fit into the "material heresy" category but even so, I have abstained to engage in personal accusations. But as an organization, the CMRI adheres and teaches this heresy of salvific invincible ignorance, salvation by justification alone, and salvation by implicit desire but as said before, this is not the reason why they are schismatic.
You are doing the same thing as Mabel, Myrna. Because it is evident you have no real theological arguments to debate me either, now you have been only focusing on the personal. Please keep it objective.
As a matter of fact, I don't think I will be replying to any more of this personal posts directed to "bad Cantarella". It is a waste of time that does not edify the discussion in any way. Only posts that are actually about the topic and not the individual poster are worthy of reading and responding to.
-
I never once claimed epikeia justifies schism, because I have never once believed that.
I realize this is an exercise in futility, but here goes.
You said:
It is by the virtue of epikeia that the letter of law can be broken to maintain the essential spirit of the law. The most prominent example is baptism, and the next most common is confession (in danger of death).
In your quote above, you are claiming epikeia justifies schism, or that epikeia makes schism not schism - or, most likely, you have no idea what schism even is, or what epikeia even is - either way, epikiea does not apply.
Schuckardt and his little group had priests, had the sacraments, had the Mass, God saw to it that he and his little group had what they needed to persevere in the faith, crisis or no crisis - but no, Schuckardt willingly threw that all away, this is why you cannot claim epikeia.
You can dishonestly claim epikeia, but you cannot honestly claim epikeia justifies his schism when he already had priests and the sacraments yet he willfully rejected them so that he could become a bishop - so that he could form and ordain priests according to what his idea of what the Church is supposed to be - remember, he did all this after separating himself from the Church and through his willful separation from the priests he had feeding him and his little group.
Let me ask you, theologically and morally....
Why doesn't receiving the Sacrament of Baptism from an Old Catholic in an emergency put one in schism?
Why doesn't receiving the Sacrament of Penance from an Old Catholic in an emergency put one in schism?
BUMP.
You are not even asking the correct questions for a proper analogy. Your entire line of thinking is completely adverse to the faith, which in and of itself bespeaks of you having lost the faith, if you ever had it at all.
FYI, if there is an Old Catholic who is able to administer the sacraments in an emergency - THEN YOU DO NOT NEED TO GET ORDAINED SO THAT YOU CAN DO IT YOURSELF. Try to always remember this, it's a good thing to know.
Further more, you do not believe the NO have valid orders yet you trust that the Orders of Old Catholics, who trace their lineage back to a bishop who was personally excommunicated by Pope St. Pius X, are valid?
These are some of the reason why I said that your entire line of thinking is completely adverse to the faith. You keep scrambling to defend error, which only leads you into more error, which leads you further from the truth, which leads you further away from the faith - which will land you in hell if you don't strive with the grace of God to correct yourself - that is how it works.
-
I do not know what Pope Francis beliefs on EENS actually are, given that I do not have access to the Popes' internal forum. To all appearances, he is a Cushinguite as well, at least to pretend to live in harmony with the world: he is not condemning salvific invincible ignorance nor affirming the EENS dogma as was solemnly defined and believed by all during almost 2000 years. This of course, must have political and economic pressures or reasons. (no one wants to offend or hurt Jewry's sensibilities nowadays) No one denies that the Catholic Church is infiltrated. What the JEWS WANT IS A ONE WORLD RELIGION. EENS DOES NOT FIT WITH IT.
What! You don't know??? Why is it you know the mind of everyone on this forum that does not agree with you. :stare:
Well, I have not had the opportunity to ask Pope Francis if he personally believes that a "good willed" Hindu by being a "good willed" Hindu ignorant of the Catholic Faith could actually be justified, in the state of grace, a member of the Church and a heir to Heaven via last minute "BOD". That is why I said, to all appearances, he is a Cushinguite.
I have asked you though and your response was yes. You believe that a non-Catholic (Hindu, Muslim, Jew) can be saved through the Church while being ignorant of the Catholic Faith. There is no CMRI member who has ever said no to this question on salvific "Invincible Ignorance". However, I have never accused you or any other member here of "formal heresy". This common Modernist error may fit into the "material heresy" category but even so, I have abstained to engage in personal accusations. But as an organization, the CMRI adheres and teaches this heresy of salvific invincible ignorance, salvation by justification alone, and salvation by implicit desire but as said before, this is not the reason why they are schismatic.
You are doing the same thing as Mabel, Myrna. Because it is evident you have no real theological arguments to debate me either, now you have been only focusing on the personal. Please keep it objective.
As a matter of fact, I don't think I will be replying to any more of this personal posts directed to "bad Cantarella". It is a waste of time that does not edify the discussion in any way. Only posts that are actually about the topic and not the individual poster are worthy of reading and responding to.
The above bolded is a bold faced lie, I never said, Yes. Find it! You can't!
The rest of your note is nothing but a cop-out!
-
I do not know what Pope Francis beliefs on EENS actually are, given that I do not have access to the Popes' internal forum. To all appearances, he is a Cushinguite as well, at least to pretend to live in harmony with the world: he is not condemning salvific invincible ignorance nor affirming the EENS dogma as was solemnly defined and believed by all during almost 2000 years. This of course, must have political and economic pressures or reasons. (no one wants to offend or hurt Jewry's sensibilities nowadays) No one denies that the Catholic Church is infiltrated. What the JEWS WANT IS A ONE WORLD RELIGION. EENS DOES NOT FIT WITH IT.
What! You don't know??? Why is it you know the mind of everyone on this forum that does not agree with you. :stare:
Well, I have not had the opportunity to ask Pope Francis if he personally believes that a "good willed" Hindu by being a "good willed" Hindu ignorant of the Catholic Faith could actually be justified, in the state of grace, a member of the Church and a heir to Heaven via last minute "BOD". That is why I said, to all appearances, he is a Cushinguite.
I have asked you though and your response was yes. You believe that a non-Catholic (Hindu, Muslim, Jew) can be saved through the Church while being ignorant of the Catholic Faith. There is no CMRI member who has ever said no to this question on salvific "Invincible Ignorance". However, I have never accused you or any other member here of "formal heresy". This common Modernist error may fit into the "material heresy" category but even so, I have abstained to engage in personal accusations. But as an organization, the CMRI adheres and teaches this heresy of salvific invincible ignorance, salvation by justification alone, and salvation by implicit desire but as said before, this is not the reason why they are schismatic.
You are doing the same thing as Mabel, Myrna. Because it is evident you have no real theological arguments to debate me either, now you have been only focusing on the personal. Please keep it objective.
As a matter of fact, I don't think I will be replying to any more of this personal posts directed to "bad Cantarella". It is a waste of time that does not edify the discussion in any way. Only posts that are actually about the topic and not the individual poster are worthy of reading and responding to.
The above bolded is a bold faced lie, I never said, Yes. Find it! You can't!
The rest of your note is nothing but a cop-out!
Well, then respond the question. I'm making it again. Take this opportunity to amend.
Yes or no? Don't be evasive.
-
I do not know what Pope Francis beliefs on EENS actually are, given that I do not have access to the Popes' internal forum. To all appearances, he is a Cushinguite as well, at least to pretend to live in harmony with the world: he is not condemning salvific invincible ignorance nor affirming the EENS dogma as was solemnly defined and believed by all during almost 2000 years. This of course, must have political and economic pressures or reasons. (no one wants to offend or hurt Jewry's sensibilities nowadays) No one denies that the Catholic Church is infiltrated. What the JEWS WANT IS A ONE WORLD RELIGION. EENS DOES NOT FIT WITH IT.
What! You don't know??? Why is it you know the mind of everyone on this forum that does not agree with you. :stare:
Well, I have not had the opportunity to ask Pope Francis if he personally believes that a "good willed" Hindu by being a "good willed" Hindu ignorant of the Catholic Faith could actually be justified, in the state of grace, a member of the Church and a heir to Heaven via last minute "BOD". That is why I said, to all appearances, he is a Cushinguite.
I have asked you though and your response was yes. You believe that a non-Catholic (Hindu, Muslim, Jew) can be saved through the Church while being ignorant of the Catholic Faith. There is no CMRI member who has ever said no to this question on salvific "Invincible Ignorance". However, I have never accused you or any other member here of "formal heresy". This common Modernist error may fit into the "material heresy" category but even so, I have abstained to engage in personal accusations. But as an organization, the CMRI adheres and teaches this heresy of salvific invincible ignorance, salvation by justification alone, and salvation by implicit desire but as said before, this is not the reason why they are schismatic.
You are doing the same thing as Mabel, Myrna. Because it is evident you have no real theological arguments to debate me either, now you have been only focusing on the personal. Please keep it objective.
As a matter of fact, I don't think I will be replying to any more of this personal posts directed to "bad Cantarella". It is a waste of time that does not edify the discussion in any way. Only posts that are actually about the topic and not the individual poster are worthy of reading and responding to.
The above bolded is a bold faced lie, I never said, Yes. Find it! You can't!
The rest of your note is nothing but a cop-out!
Well, then respond the question. I'm making it again. Take this opportunity to amend.
Yes or no? Don't be evasive.
Evasive? It is very easy, if you die in the State of Grace, Sanctifying grace you save your soul. Do you agree or not? Answer the question don't be evasive.
-
I do not know what Pope Francis beliefs on EENS actually are, given that I do not have access to the Popes' internal forum. To all appearances, he is a Cushinguite as well, at least to pretend to live in harmony with the world: he is not condemning salvific invincible ignorance nor affirming the EENS dogma as was solemnly defined and believed by all during almost 2000 years. This of course, must have political and economic pressures or reasons. (no one wants to offend or hurt Jewry's sensibilities nowadays) No one denies that the Catholic Church is infiltrated. What the JEWS WANT IS A ONE WORLD RELIGION. EENS DOES NOT FIT WITH IT.
What! You don't know??? Why is it you know the mind of everyone on this forum that does not agree with you. :stare:
Well, I have not had the opportunity to ask Pope Francis if he personally believes that a "good willed" Hindu by being a "good willed" Hindu ignorant of the Catholic Faith could actually be justified, in the state of grace, a member of the Church and a heir to Heaven via last minute "BOD". That is why I said, to all appearances, he is a Cushinguite.
I have asked you though and your response was yes. You believe that a non-Catholic (Hindu, Muslim, Jew) can be saved through the Church while being ignorant of the Catholic Faith. There is no CMRI member who has ever said no to this question on salvific "Invincible Ignorance". However, I have never accused you or any other member here of "formal heresy". This common Modernist error may fit into the "material heresy" category but even so, I have abstained to engage in personal accusations. But as an organization, the CMRI adheres and teaches this heresy of salvific invincible ignorance, salvation by justification alone, and salvation by implicit desire but as said before, this is not the reason why they are schismatic.
You are doing the same thing as Mabel, Myrna. Because it is evident you have no real theological arguments to debate me either, now you have been only focusing on the personal. Please keep it objective.
As a matter of fact, I don't think I will be replying to any more of this personal posts directed to "bad Cantarella". It is a waste of time that does not edify the discussion in any way. Only posts that are actually about the topic and not the individual poster are worthy of reading and responding to.
Have you had the opportunity to ask Bishop Pivarunas or some other member of the CMRI who can speak in an official capacity for the CMRI if the CMRI believes that a "good willed" Hindu by being a "good willed" Hindu ignorant of the Catholic Faith could actually be justified, in the state of grace, a member of the Church and a heir to Heaven via last minute "BOD"?
If not, then I would say that to be consistent you would have to hold them in the same category as the Conciliar popes. So if you don't hold the Conciliar popes to be heretical and/or schismatic then neither should you hold the CMRI. Correct?
What about Monsignor Fenton, Pope Pius XII, Pope St. Pius X, Pope Pius IX, Pope St. Pius V, St. Alphonsus, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Ambrose? Are they all guilty of at least "material heresy"? Are they schismatic? To be consistent, you are going to have to hold all these people in the same category because they all teach the same thing about BOD. I know if I have to make a decision between all those men and Fr. Feeney, I'm going to choose the side of the saints.
The title of this topic should be changed because this is really not a discussion about the CMRI so much as it is a discussion about whether or not Fr. Feeney's opinion about BOD is the correct opinion. The CMRI, the SSPX, the vast majority of independent traditional priests and bishops all agree with Pope Pius XII on this issue. I think the CMRI is in good company and being condemned by Feeneyites is probably something that they would be pleased with.
-
I do not know what Pope Francis beliefs on EENS actually are, given that I do not have access to the Popes' internal forum. To all appearances, he is a Cushinguite as well, at least to pretend to live in harmony with the world: he is not condemning salvific invincible ignorance nor affirming the EENS dogma as was solemnly defined and believed by all during almost 2000 years. This of course, must have political and economic pressures or reasons. (no one wants to offend or hurt Jewry's sensibilities nowadays) No one denies that the Catholic Church is infiltrated. What the JEWS WANT IS A ONE WORLD RELIGION. EENS DOES NOT FIT WITH IT.
What! You don't know??? Why is it you know the mind of everyone on this forum that does not agree with you. :stare:
Well, I have not had the opportunity to ask Pope Francis if he personally believes that a "good willed" Hindu by being a "good willed" Hindu ignorant of the Catholic Faith could actually be justified, in the state of grace, a member of the Church and a heir to Heaven via last minute "BOD". That is why I said, to all appearances, he is a Cushinguite.
I have asked you though and your response was yes. You believe that a non-Catholic (Hindu, Muslim, Jew) can be saved through the Church while being ignorant of the Catholic Faith. There is no CMRI member who has ever said no to this question on salvific "Invincible Ignorance". However, I have never accused you or any other member here of "formal heresy". This common Modernist error may fit into the "material heresy" category but even so, I have abstained to engage in personal accusations. But as an organization, the CMRI adheres and teaches this heresy of salvific invincible ignorance, salvation by justification alone, and salvation by implicit desire but as said before, this is not the reason why they are schismatic.
You are doing the same thing as Mabel, Myrna. Because it is evident you have no real theological arguments to debate me either, now you have been only focusing on the personal. Please keep it objective.
As a matter of fact, I don't think I will be replying to any more of this personal posts directed to "bad Cantarella". It is a waste of time that does not edify the discussion in any way. Only posts that are actually about the topic and not the individual poster are worthy of reading and responding to.
Have you had the opportunity to ask Bishop Pivarunas or some other member of the CMRI who can speak in an official capacity for the CMRI if the CMRI believes that a "good willed" Hindu by being a "good willed" Hindu ignorant of the Catholic Faith could actually be justified, in the state of grace, a member of the Church and a heir to Heaven via last minute "BOD"?
If not, then I would say that to be consistent you would have to hold them in the same category as the Conciliar popes. So if you don't hold the Conciliar popes to be heretical and/or schismatic then neither should you hold the CMRI. Correct?
What about Monsignor Fenton, Pope Pius XII, Pope St. Pius X, Pope Pius IX, Pope St. Pius V, St. Alphonsus, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Ambrose? Are they all guilty of at least "material heresy"? Are they schismatic? To be consistent, you are going to have to hold all these people in the same category because they all teach the same thing about BOD. I know if I have to make a decision between all those men and Fr. Feeney, I'm going to choose the side of the saints.
The title of this topic should be changed because this is really not a discussion about the CMRI so much as it is a discussion about whether or not Fr. Feeney's opinion about BOD is the correct opinion. The CMRI, the SSPX, the vast majority of independent traditional priests and bishops all agree with Pope Pius XII on this issue. I think the CMRI is in good company and being condemned by Feeneyites is probably something that they would be pleased with.
The CMRI has officially published twice an article on the Salvation of Non Catholics. Perhaps Stubborn can provide the link again. This should be enough proof of where they stand, as an organization. Everyone is aware that they adhere to and teach the heretical Suprema Haec Sacra. There is no question about that.
As for the self proclaimed bishop Piravunas, I don't know what his personal stand on EENS is, therefore I have never said he is a heretic. What I said is that he does not have jurisdiction and therefore cannot claim real Apostolic Sucession which requires communion with the Pope even if his doubious orders turn out to be valid. Therefore the CMRI is not part of the Catholic Church, lacking one of the marks.
However this is not the topic of this thread. For the thousand time, the reason why the CMRI is schismatic is not their liberal interpretation of EENS, but sedevacantism or refusal to be in communion to the Bishop of Rome.
By the way none of those Popes and saints you named believe in the pelagian version of EENS that the CMRI promotes. All of them held that knowledge of the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation.
-
I do not know what Pope Francis beliefs on EENS actually are, given that I do not have access to the Popes' internal forum. To all appearances, he is a Cushinguite as well, at least to pretend to live in harmony with the world: he is not condemning salvific invincible ignorance nor affirming the EENS dogma as was solemnly defined and believed by all during almost 2000 years. This of course, must have political and economic pressures or reasons. (no one wants to offend or hurt Jewry's sensibilities nowadays) No one denies that the Catholic Church is infiltrated. What the JEWS WANT IS A ONE WORLD RELIGION. EENS DOES NOT FIT WITH IT.
What! You don't know??? Why is it you know the mind of everyone on this forum that does not agree with you. :stare:
Well, I have not had the opportunity to ask Pope Francis if he personally believes that a "good willed" Hindu by being a "good willed" Hindu ignorant of the Catholic Faith could actually be justified, in the state of grace, a member of the Church and a heir to Heaven via last minute "BOD". That is why I said, to all appearances, he is a Cushinguite.
I have asked you though and your response was yes. You believe that a non-Catholic (Hindu, Muslim, Jew) can be saved through the Church while being ignorant of the Catholic Faith. There is no CMRI member who has ever said no to this question on salvific "Invincible Ignorance". However, I have never accused you or any other member here of "formal heresy". This common Modernist error may fit into the "material heresy" category but even so, I have abstained to engage in personal accusations. But as an organization, the CMRI adheres and teaches this heresy of salvific invincible ignorance, salvation by justification alone, and salvation by implicit desire but as said before, this is not the reason why they are schismatic.
You are doing the same thing as Mabel, Myrna. Because it is evident you have no real theological arguments to debate me either, now you have been only focusing on the personal. Please keep it objective.
As a matter of fact, I don't think I will be replying to any more of this personal posts directed to "bad Cantarella". It is a waste of time that does not edify the discussion in any way. Only posts that are actually about the topic and not the individual poster are worthy of reading and responding to.
The above bolded is a bold faced lie, I never said, Yes. Find it! You can't!
The rest of your note is nothing but a cop-out!
Well, then respond the question. I'm making it again. Take this opportunity to amend.
Yes or no? Don't be evasive.
Evasive? It is very easy, if you die in the State of Grace, Sanctifying grace you save your soul. Do you agree or not? Answer the question don't be evasive.
So your response is yes as I thought. Because you think that this good willed Hindu can actually achieve a state of grace, Sanctifying grace, while ignorant of the Catholic Faith, and thus be saved.
My response is No. This good willed Hindu cannot be in state of grace, sanctifying grace, while being ignorant of the Catholic Faith (necessary for Justification,) and therefore cannot be saved.
-
So your response is yes as I thought. Because you think that this good willed Hindu can actually achieve a state of grace, Sanctifying grace, while ignorant of the Catholic Faith, and thus be saved.
My response is No. This good willed Hindu cannot be in state of grace, sanctifying grace, while being ignorant of the Catholic Faith (necessary for Justification,) and therefore cannot be saved.
Where did I say it was easy for a Hindu or any person outside the Church to obtain sanctifying grace? I didn't, this is what I mean about you, you claim to be able to look in the heart and mind of anyone who does not agree with your erroneous opinions but you can't even KNOW that your pope denies the very issue that you claim to defend, EENS. How do you spell ... H Y P O C R I T E?
So do you think that God makes different rules for different people?
The Church teaches that if anyone dies in the state of grace, they save their soul.
The Church makes it easy for those who are living their Catholic Faith by the use of the Sacraments to restore us to grace. Harder and almost impossible for those outside the Church, yet ... the Church also teaches us, we can not judge the state of anyone soul. Therefore you don't know who is and who is not in the state of grace, do you?
-
I do not know what Pope Francis beliefs on EENS actually are, given that I do not have access to the Popes' internal forum. To all appearances, he is a Cushinguite as well, at least to pretend to live in harmony with the world: he is not condemning salvific invincible ignorance nor affirming the EENS dogma as was solemnly defined and believed by all during almost 2000 years. This of course, must have political and economic pressures or reasons. (no one wants to offend or hurt Jewry's sensibilities nowadays) No one denies that the Catholic Church is infiltrated. What the JEWS WANT IS A ONE WORLD RELIGION. EENS DOES NOT FIT WITH IT.
What! You don't know??? Why is it you know the mind of everyone on this forum that does not agree with you. :stare:
Well, I have not had the opportunity to ask Pope Francis if he personally believes that a "good willed" Hindu by being a "good willed" Hindu ignorant of the Catholic Faith could actually be justified, in the state of grace, a member of the Church and a heir to Heaven via last minute "BOD". That is why I said, to all appearances, he is a Cushinguite.
I have asked you though and your response was yes. You believe that a non-Catholic (Hindu, Muslim, Jew) can be saved through the Church while being ignorant of the Catholic Faith. There is no CMRI member who has ever said no to this question on salvific "Invincible Ignorance". However, I have never accused you or any other member here of "formal heresy". This common Modernist error may fit into the "material heresy" category but even so, I have abstained to engage in personal accusations. But as an organization, the CMRI adheres and teaches this heresy of salvific invincible ignorance, salvation by justification alone, and salvation by implicit desire but as said before, this is not the reason why they are schismatic.
You are doing the same thing as Mabel, Myrna. Because it is evident you have no real theological arguments to debate me either, now you have been only focusing on the personal. Please keep it objective.
As a matter of fact, I don't think I will be replying to any more of this personal posts directed to "bad Cantarella". It is a waste of time that does not edify the discussion in any way. Only posts that are actually about the topic and not the individual poster are worthy of reading and responding to.
Have you had the opportunity to ask Bishop Pivarunas or some other member of the CMRI who can speak in an official capacity for the CMRI if the CMRI believes that a "good willed" Hindu by being a "good willed" Hindu ignorant of the Catholic Faith could actually be justified, in the state of grace, a member of the Church and a heir to Heaven via last minute "BOD"?
If not, then I would say that to be consistent you would have to hold them in the same category as the Conciliar popes. So if you don't hold the Conciliar popes to be heretical and/or schismatic then neither should you hold the CMRI. Correct?
What about Monsignor Fenton, Pope Pius XII, Pope St. Pius X, Pope Pius IX, Pope St. Pius V, St. Alphonsus, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Ambrose? Are they all guilty of at least "material heresy"? Are they schismatic? To be consistent, you are going to have to hold all these people in the same category because they all teach the same thing about BOD. I know if I have to make a decision between all those men and Fr. Feeney, I'm going to choose the side of the saints.
The title of this topic should be changed because this is really not a discussion about the CMRI so much as it is a discussion about whether or not Fr. Feeney's opinion about BOD is the correct opinion. The CMRI, the SSPX, the vast majority of independent traditional priests and bishops all agree with Pope Pius XII on this issue. I think the CMRI is in good company and being condemned by Feeneyites is probably something that they would be pleased with.
The CMRI has officially published twice an article on the Salvation of Non Catholics. Perhaps Stubborn can provide the link again. This should be enough proof of where they stand, as an organization. Everyone is aware that they adhere to and teach the heretical Suprema Haec Sacra. There is no question about that.
As for the self proclaimed bishop Piravunas, I don't know what his personal stand on EENS is, therefore I have never said he is a heretic. What I said is that he does not have jurisdiction and therefore cannot claim real Apostolic Sucession which requires communion with the Pope even if his doubious orders turn out to be valid. Therefore the CMRI is not part of the Catholic Church, lacking one of the marks.
However this is not the topic of this thread. For the thousand time, the reason why the CMRI is schismatic is not their liberal interpretation of EENS, but sedevacantism or refusal to be in communion to the Bishop of Rome.
By the way none of those Popes and saints you named believe in the pelagian version of EENS that the CMRI promotes. All of them held that knowledge of the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation.
The article mentioned in bold is in the library right here on this forum:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=26486&f=16&min=0&num=5
Why not read it Cantarella, you might learn something TRUE.
-
So your response is yes as I thought. Because you think that this good willed Hindu can actually achieve a state of grace, Sanctifying grace, while ignorant of the Catholic Faith, and thus be saved.
My response is No. This good willed Hindu cannot be in state of grace, sanctifying grace, while being ignorant of the Catholic Faith (necessary for Justification,) and therefore cannot be saved.
Where did I say it was easy for a Hindu or any person outside the Church to obtain sanctifying grace?
Ah ha!. It is not easy, but it IS possible according to Myrna.
However Our Lord said:
"I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
And the Catholic Church declared infallibly:
"There is only one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved." (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215)
"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Pope Boniface VIII, in the bull, Unam Sanctam, 1302)
"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." (Mansi, Concilia, xxxi, 1739; Pope Eugene IV, in the bull, Cantate Domino, 1441).
Heresy is the denial of a single Catholic Dogma. You deny the Extra Ecclesiam nulla Salus dogma by redefining just as the Modernists do the terms "outside" and "Church" to mean whatever you want.
-
Ah ha!. It is not easy, but it IS possible according to Myrna.
However Our Lord said:
"I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
Ah ha! to you! Sounds like you deny or haven't thought it out, that everyone in Sanctifying grace, and I mean everyone has in their soul this said grace because of the merits of Jesus Christ, through the precious BLOOD that God the Father WILLED TO BE APPEASED BY.
<<<And the Catholic Church declared infallibly:>>>> NOT TO JUDGE THE SOUL OF OTHERS
-
Cantarella....In following this discussion , I fail to see the word , "Anti-Pope" used. Is this Person occupying the Chair considered and "Anti pope". If not how do you describe the position he now holds, verses an "Anti-Pope ?
Second Q. You mentioned in few pages Back on this thread that , "I no longer attend the SSPX Chapels", Would you elaborate on where you practice your Religion , and what Church you might attend at this time ..
-
Cantarella....In following this discussion , I fail to see the word , "Anti-Pope" used. Is this Person occupying the Chair considered and "Anti pope". If not how do you describe the position he now holds, verses an "Anti-Pope ?
Second Q. You mentioned in few pages Back on this thread that , "I no longer attend the SSPX Chapels", Would you elaborate on where you practice your Religion , and what Church you might attend at this time ..
1. Pope Francis has not been declared an Anti-Pope by competent authority. I would describe his apparent position as progressive, political correct, "Cushinguite", which most sedevacantists CMRI happen to be as well.
2. Byzantine Eastern Rite
-
Can the Feeneyites site any theology manual or any other Catholic source prior to 1940 which specifically condemns the notion of Baptism of Desire and/or Baptism of Blood? I would think that someone would have complained about Pope Pius IX or Pope St. Pius X teaching heresy. But as far as I know Fr. Feeney was the first dissenter from this teaching in all of the Church's history.
Siting the EENS formula is not going to cut it because no traditional Catholic has ever objected to that. It is only the novel teaching of Fr. Feeney concerning BOD/BOB that Catholics are condemning. You are going to have to find a Catholic source for the specific condemnation of BOD. I think I'm familiar enough with Fr. Feeney to know that this type of source does not exist. If it did exist I'm sure it would have been pushed front and center by the Feeneyites.
-
Can the Feeneyites site any theology manual or any other Catholic source prior to 1940 which specifically condemns the notion of Baptism of Desire and/or Baptism of Blood? I would think that someone would have complained about Pope Pius IX or Pope St. Pius X teaching heresy. But as far as I know Fr. Feeney was the first dissenter from this teaching in all of the Church's history.
Siting the EENS formula is not going to cut it because no traditional Catholic has ever objected to that. It is only the novel teaching of Fr. Feeney concerning BOD/BOB that Catholics are condemning. You are going to have to find a Catholic source for the specific condemnation of BOD. I think I'm familiar enough with Fr. Feeney to know that this type of source does not exist. If it did exist I'm sure it would have been pushed front and center by the Feeneyites.
Authentic Feeneyites do not "condemn" Baptism of Desire of Baptism of Blood as a heresy. You may have a distorted version of Feeneyism, Dimonds,- style. At SBC (founded by Fr. Feeney himself), the belief is that Baptism of Desire is NOT a dogma and mots importantly, that nobody can be saved without the Catholic Faith. BOD historically has been a theological speculation concerning pious catechumens that already held the Catholic Faith but died before the water Sacrament.
Read the Neumann's Catechism, 1884 (written by a Saint, St. John Neumann). Not a mention of Baptism of Desire.
-
Double Post
-
I think I'm familiar enough with Fr. Feeney to know that this type of source does not exist.
If you are still asking this type of questions, then it is because you are not familiar enough with Fr. Feeney.
-
I do not know what Pope Francis beliefs on EENS actually are, given that I do not have access to the Popes' internal forum. To all appearances, he is a Cushinguite as well, at least to pretend to live in harmony with the world: he is not condemning salvific invincible ignorance nor affirming the EENS dogma as was solemnly defined and believed by all during almost 2000 years. This of course, must have political and economic pressures or reasons. (no one wants to offend or hurt Jewry's sensibilities nowadays) No one denies that the Catholic Church is infiltrated. What the JEWS WANT IS A ONE WORLD RELIGION. EENS DOES NOT FIT WITH IT.
What! You don't know??? Why is it you know the mind of everyone on this forum that does not agree with you. :stare:
Well, I have not had the opportunity to ask Pope Francis if he personally believes that a "good willed" Hindu by being a "good willed" Hindu ignorant of the Catholic Faith could actually be justified, in the state of grace, a member of the Church and a heir to Heaven via last minute "BOD". That is why I said, to all appearances, he is a Cushinguite.
I have asked you though and your response was yes. You believe that a non-Catholic (Hindu, Muslim, Jew) can be saved through the Church while being ignorant of the Catholic Faith. There is no CMRI member who has ever said no to this question on salvific "Invincible Ignorance". However, I have never accused you or any other member here of "formal heresy". This common Modernist error may fit into the "material heresy" category but even so, I have abstained to engage in personal accusations. But as an organization, the CMRI adheres and teaches this heresy of salvific invincible ignorance, salvation by justification alone, and salvation by implicit desire but as said before, this is not the reason why they are schismatic.
You are doing the same thing as Mabel, Myrna. Because it is evident you have no real theological arguments to debate me either, now you have been only focusing on the personal. Please keep it objective.
As a matter of fact, I don't think I will be replying to any more of this personal posts directed to "bad Cantarella". It is a waste of time that does not edify the discussion in any way. Only posts that are actually about the topic and not the individual poster are worthy of reading and responding to.
Have you had the opportunity to ask Bishop Pivarunas or some other member of the CMRI who can speak in an official capacity for the CMRI if the CMRI believes that a "good willed" Hindu by being a "good willed" Hindu ignorant of the Catholic Faith could actually be justified, in the state of grace, a member of the Church and a heir to Heaven via last minute "BOD"?
If not, then I would say that to be consistent you would have to hold them in the same category as the Conciliar popes. So if you don't hold the Conciliar popes to be heretical and/or schismatic then neither should you hold the CMRI. Correct?
What about Monsignor Fenton, Pope Pius XII, Pope St. Pius X, Pope Pius IX, Pope St. Pius V, St. Alphonsus, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Ambrose? Are they all guilty of at least "material heresy"? Are they schismatic? To be consistent, you are going to have to hold all these people in the same category because they all teach the same thing about BOD. I know if I have to make a decision between all those men and Fr. Feeney, I'm going to choose the side of the saints.
The title of this topic should be changed because this is really not a discussion about the CMRI so much as it is a discussion about whether or not Fr. Feeney's opinion about BOD is the correct opinion. The CMRI, the SSPX, the vast majority of independent traditional priests and bishops all agree with Pope Pius XII on this issue. I think the CMRI is in good company and being condemned by Feeneyites is probably something that they would be pleased with.
The CMRI has officially published twice an article on the Salvation of Non Catholics. Perhaps Stubborn can provide the link again. This should be enough proof of where they stand, as an organization. Everyone is aware that they adhere to and teach the heretical Suprema Haec Sacra. There is no question about that.
As for the self proclaimed bishop Piravunas, I don't know what his personal stand on EENS is, therefore I have never said he is a heretic. What I said is that he does not have jurisdiction and therefore cannot claim real Apostolic Sucession which requires communion with the Pope even if his doubious orders turn out to be valid. Therefore the CMRI is not part of the Catholic Church, lacking one of the marks.
However this is not the topic of this thread. For the thousand time, the reason why the CMRI is schismatic is not their liberal interpretation of EENS, but sedevacantism or refusal to be in communion to the Bishop of Rome.
By the way none of those Popes and saints you named believe in the pelagian version of EENS that the CMRI promotes. All of them held that knowledge of the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation.
The article mentioned in bold is in the library right here on this forum:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=26486&f=16&min=0&num=5
Why not read it Cantarella, you might learn something TRUE.
Thanks for the resource.
-
From the article:
In the face of this, must one belief that anyone, without exception, that does not belong officially to the Church by means of the reception of Baptism and the public profession of the Faith is damned? Not at all!
Yet Holy Mother Church says:
"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Pope Boniface VIII, in the bull, Unam Sanctam, 1302)
"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." (Mansi, Concilia, xxxi, 1739; Pope Eugene IV, in the bull, Cantate Domino, 1441).
And
The Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation!
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra said: “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to 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 [/u]said:
“Since however there is for both regulars and seculars, for superiors and subjects, for exempt and non-exempt, one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of the apostle, that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5), may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate (Athanasian Creed).”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, The Athanasian Creed, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.” (Decrees of the Ecuмenical Councils, Vol. 1, pp. 550-553; Denzinger 39-40.)
Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832:“Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”
-
From the article:
Necessary conditions that must be fulfilled for non-Catholics to be part of the Soul of the Church:...Invincible Ignorance...
The Soul of the Church is the Holy Ghost, but the Church has a visible body. The Soul of the Church is not composed of non-Catholics!
The emerging conclusion from this is that affiliation with the Church can be in desire and invisible, or why not?... even unconscious!. Therefore, the good willed Hindu can actually be a member of the Church without knowing it! Liberalism and false "traditionalism" in the personification of the CMRI are both faces of the same liberal progressive mask. Rahner would be very proud.
Invisible Church Theory Condemned
The Church is visible because she has a body. Therefore they are straying from divine truth who imagine the Church to be something which can neither be touched or seen, something merely "spiritual" as they say, a Church in which many Christian communities, although separated from one another by faith, could be joined by some kind of bond invisible to the senses, How grievously are they mistaken who have imagined a hidden and invisible Church according to their own devices!
Those who arbitrary conjure up and picture to themselves a hidden and invisible Church are in grievous and pernicious error.
-
Cantarella....In following this discussion , I fail to see the word , "Anti-Pope" used. Is this Person occupying the Chair considered and "Anti pope". If not how do you describe the position he now holds, verses an "Anti-Pope ?
Second Q. You mentioned in few pages Back on this thread that , "I no longer attend the SSPX Chapels", Would you elaborate on where you practice your Religion , and what Church you might attend at this time ..
I thought she attended the FSSP and the Eastern Rite. Ask her if she still attends at the FSSP.
It's funny though because many Sedevacantists also attend the Eastern rites, maybe I've even sat next to her at Divine Liturgy, who knows?
(I myself, attend CMRI, Ukrainian rite, Independent, and SSPX, depending on what is necessary)
-
Cantarella....In following this discussion , I fail to see the word , "Anti-Pope" used. Is this Person occupying the Chair considered and "Anti pope". If not how do you describe the position he now holds, verses an "Anti-Pope ?
Second Q. You mentioned in few pages Back on this thread that , "I no longer attend the SSPX Chapels", Would you elaborate on where you practice your Religion , and what Church you might attend at this time ..
I thought she attended the FSSP and the Eastern Rite. Ask her if she still attends at the FSSP.
It's funny though because many Sedevacantists also attend the Eastern rites, maybe I've even sat next to her at Divine Liturgy, who knows?
(I myself, attend CMRI, Ukrainian rite, Independent, and SSPX, depending on what is necessary)
You thought so wrong. I regularly attend Divine Liturgy at a Byzantine Eastern Rite Chapel now; but I have many SSPX friends still because I used to attend a SSPX Chapel before. I would attend a FSSP Mass without a problem though, if the priest is really orthodox, and in case of necessity.
If were a sedevacantist, I would be consistent and stay home alone on Sundays. It would be more true to my word.
-
Cantarella....In following this discussion , I fail to see the word , "Anti-Pope" used. Is this Person occupying the Chair considered and "Anti pope". If not how do you describe the position he now holds, verses an "Anti-Pope ?
Second Q. You mentioned in few pages Back on this thread that , "I no longer attend the SSPX Chapels", Would you elaborate on where you practice your Religion , and what Church you might attend at this time ..
I thought she attended the FSSP and the Eastern Rite. Ask her if she still attends at the FSSP.
It's funny though because many Sedevacantists also attend the Eastern rites, maybe I've even sat next to her at Divine Liturgy, who knows?
(I myself, attend CMRI, Ukrainian rite, Independent, and SSPX, depending on what is necessary)
You thought so wrong. I regularly attend Divine Liturgy at a Byzantine Eastern Rite Chapel now; but I have many SSPX friends still because I used to attend a SSPX Chapel before. I would attend a FSSP Mass without a problem though, if the priest is really orthodox, and in case of necessity.
If were a sedevacantist, I would be consistent and stay home alone on Sundays. It would be more true to my word.
And of course if I was so fortunate to live in or around New Hampshire (or whenever I go to), then I attend Mass at Saint Benedict Center. :smile:
-
Ah ha!. It is not easy, but it IS possible according to Myrna.
However Our Lord said:
"I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
Ah ha! to you! Sounds like you deny or haven't thought it out, that everyone in Sanctifying grace, and I mean everyone has in their soul this said grace because of the merits of Jesus Christ, through the precious BLOOD that God the Father WILLED TO BE APPEASED BY.
<<<And the Catholic Church declared infallibly:>>>> NOT TO JUDGE THE SOUL OF OTHERS
In his Bull Unam Sanctam, Pope Boniface VIII declared to the Universal Church that "We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins."
So contrary to the above de fide decree, you appear to believe like the protestants that "everyone has in their soul this said grace because of the merits of Jesus Christ" when it is de fide that outside the Church there is no forgiveness of sins.
Please explain how anyone outside the Church can possibly be in the state of sanctifying grace without the forgiveness of sins?
It is not us who judge the souls of others by adhering to the de fide teaching, rather those who claim sanctifying grace can be had outside the Church so that those who die outside the Church go to heaven are guilty of judging that non-Catholics go, or have a chance of going to heaven.
-
Stubborn, you delayed, and then evaded answering the questions, and then you pretend to answer them. Just like a modernist. You didn't really answer.
The Church says that if a Catholic in danger of death receives the Sacrament of Baptism, and the Sacrament of Penance, from the hands of a valid Old Catholic bishop, the Catholic does well. It doesn't make schism not schism. It simply means the Catholic does a good and necessary thing.
This is what the Church teaches.
You tell us, philosophically, why would receiving the Sacrament of Holy Orders in an emergency from that same bishop, make the recipient in schism?
I knew replying to you was an exercise in futility. Now read below and try to think like a Catholic. Understand that the way you are thinking now will certainly lead you to perdition.
First off, baptism may be administered by literally anyone -but ONLY if the danger of death is imminent, otherwise, the infant MUST be baptized by a Catholic priest.
Second off, when it comes to going to a schismatic Old Catholic for the sacrament of Penance, you are NOT permitted to do any such a thing, if you do, you commit sacrilege! First off, the Old Catholics do not say the proper words of absolution, second off, you are better of trusting a V2 ordained priest than one officially excommunicated by Pope Pius X to have valid orders.
In your bewildered state, what you are doing is referencing Canon 844, the NO new code of canon law which is in place for the purpose of promoting false ecuмenism.
As the SSPX puts it, "This ecuмenism condemned by Catholic morality and law, now goes so far as to permit the reception of the Sacraments of Penance, Holy Eucharist and Extreme Unction from ‘non-Catholic ministers’ (canon 844, CIC 1983), and encourages ‘ecuмenical hospitality’ by authorizing Catholic ministers to give the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist to non-Catholics….”
Third off, the only time we are permitted (not encouraged) to accept another sacrament from an Old Catholic or other schismatic priest is the sacrament of Extreme Unction and even then, ONLY IF the danger our of death is imminent and there is no Catholic priest available - not under any other circuмstance is it permitted.
Fourth off, ordinations and consecrations from schismatics Old Catholic bishops are not permitted, not ever, not under any circuмstances, not even in your wildest hallucinations are they ever permitted. I already told you why you cannot plead epikeia.........
"FYI, if there is an Old Catholic who is able to administer the sacraments in an emergency - THEN YOU DO NOT NEED TO GET ORDAINED SO THAT YOU CAN DO IT YOURSELF. Try to always remember this, it's a good thing to know."
Now try to start thinking like a Roman Catholic and stop trying to defend schism. Catholics do not defend schism, schismatics defend schism!
-
Ah ha!. It is not easy, but it IS possible according to Myrna.
However Our Lord said:
"I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
Ah ha! to you! Sounds like you deny or haven't thought it out, that everyone in Sanctifying grace, and I mean everyone has in their soul this said grace because of the merits of Jesus Christ, through the precious BLOOD that God the Father WILLED TO BE APPEASED BY.
<<<And the Catholic Church declared infallibly:>>>> NOT TO JUDGE THE SOUL OF OTHERS
In his Bull Unam Sanctam, Pope Boniface VIII declared to the Universal Church that "We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins."
So contrary to the above de fide decree, you appear to believe like the protestants that "everyone has in their soul this said grace because of the merits of Jesus Christ" when it is de fide that outside the Church there is no forgiveness of sins.
Please explain how anyone outside the Church can possibly be in the state of sanctifying grace without the forgiveness of sins?
It is not us who judge the souls of others by adhering to the de fide teaching, rather those who claim sanctifying grace can be had outside the Church so that those who die outside the Church go to heaven are guilty of judging that non-Catholics go, or have a chance of going to heaven.
Myrna's reasoning is flawed. Everyone is born with Original Sin and we do not merit nothing but damnation. God's grace is granted to us gratuitously yes, but Original Sin can only be remitted by the Sacrament of Baptism in which the "old man" dies and we are "born again" as part of the Christian Race. Nobody enters Heaven with the stain of sin.
What the soul is to a body of man, the Holy Ghost is to the Body of Christ which is the Catholic Church. If something gets cut off from the body, the spirit does not follow. Those outside the church have not the holy ghost in them.
-
Myrna's reasoning is flawed. Everyone is born with Original Sin and we do not merit nothing but damnation. God's grace is granted to us gratuitously yes, but Original Sin can only be remitted by the Sacrament of Baptism in which the "old man" dies and we are "born again" as part of the Christian Race. Nobody enters Heaven with the stain of sin.
What the soul is to a body of man, the Holy Ghost is to the Body of Christ which is the Catholic Church. If something gets cut off from the body, the spirit does not follow. Those outside the church have not the holy ghost in them.
I agree.
All BODers judge that chances are, that souls outside the Church are saved because God miraculously forces upon the infidels the necessary graces which put them in the state of sanctifying grace in their last nano second of life.
What God offered to them for their conversion throughout their entire life, they rejected, but in their last moment, He finally is able to force upon them that which they rejected - the BODers must believe that it must be the infidel's weakened state God is finally able to take advantage of.
While forcing graces upon the infidel, God welcomes them into the Church and dispenses with them needing any sacrament at all and dispenses with them needing to submit to the pope. God then must introduce Our Blessed Mother, the saints, the Mass, the sacraments and the whole court of heaven to this infidel as He says; "Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world" - I'd say that is one lucky infidel.
It is as if in their mind they believe that God cannot bare or wouldn't think of condemning the infidel. The ones who will surely end up in hell or course are those of us who defend what He Himself said is a necessity and what his popes and councils have infallibly declared to be an absolute necessity for everyone's hope of salvation.
-
The futility is on your end. I asked perfectly good questions and, you keep evading directly answering them. You are trying to pass off a quantity of words hoping the readers won't notice that you didn't actually answer the questions.
You are showing that you yourself don't even know what the term "schismatic" means. For instance, if one obtained ordination from a non-Catholic (outside of an emergency) it would not be schism, it would be another sin, but the sin doesn't cut one off from the Church.
You have no idea what you are even talking about.
You cannot even conceive in your brain that if your thinking had any validity whatsoever, which it doesn't, but if it did, then why oh why did Schuckardt get Brown to perform the farce abjurationand welcome him into the church BEFORE letting him ordain and consecrate him?
Hhhhmmmmm?
It is because it is an absolute MUST that one MUST receive Holy Orders from a bishop of the Catholic Church, which is to say conversely that one CAN NEVER receive Holy Orders from a bishop in schism without themselves entering schism - EVEN SCHUCKARDT KNEW THAT HE COULD NOT PLEAD EPIKEIA, THAT IT COULD NOT APPLY. You are worse than Schuckardt to keep harping on about this ridiculous reasoning in your attempt to justify schism.
Remember, you are thoroughly bewildered through your NO thinking that you can even go to confession to an Old Catholic priest. That thinking is not Catholic. Accept that fact and you will at least have taken a step in the right direction.
-
The futility is on your end. I asked perfectly good questions and, you keep evading directly answering them. You are trying to pass off a quantity of words hoping the readers won't notice that you didn't actually answer the questions.
You are showing that you yourself don't even know what the term "schismatic" means. For instance, if one obtained ordination from a non-Catholic (outside of an emergency) it would not be schism, it would be another sin, but the sin doesn't cut one off from the Church.
You have no idea what you are even talking about.
You cannot even conceive in your brain that if your thinking had any validity whatsoever, which it doesn't, but if it did, then why oh why did Schuckardt get Brown to perform the farce abjurationand welcome him into the church BEFORE letting him ordain and consecrate him?
Hhhhmmmmm?
BUMP
-
From the article:
Necessary conditions that must be fulfilled for non-Catholics to be part of the Soul of the Church:...Invincible Ignorance...
The Soul of the Church is the Holy Ghost, but the Church has a visible body. The Soul of the Church is not composed of non-Catholics!
The emerging conclusion from this is that affiliation with the Church can be in desire and invisible, or why not?... even unconscious!. Therefore, the good willed Hindu can actually be a member of the Church without knowing it! Liberalism and false "traditionalism" in the personification of the CMRI are both faces of the same liberal progressive mask. Rahner would be very proud.
Invisible Church Theory Condemned
The Church is visible because she has a body. Therefore they are straying from divine truth who imagine the Church to be something which can neither be touched or seen, something merely "spiritual" as they say, a Church in which many Christian communities, although separated from one another by faith, could be joined by some kind of bond invisible to the senses, How grievously are they mistaken who have imagined a hidden and invisible Church according to their own devices!
Those who arbitrary conjure up and picture to themselves a hidden and invisible Church are in grievous and pernicious error.
Q. 512. How are such persons said to belong to the Church?
A. Such persons are said to belong to the "soul of the church"; that is, they are really members of the Church without knowing it. Those who share in its Sacraments and worship are said to belong to the body or visible part of the Church.
I'm going to put my trust in the Baltimore Catechism which is approved by the Church rather than put my trust in Cantarella.
-
From the article:
Necessary conditions that must be fulfilled for non-Catholics to be part of the Soul of the Church:...Invincible Ignorance...
The Soul of the Church is the Holy Ghost, but the Church has a visible body. The Soul of the Church is not composed of non-Catholics!
The emerging conclusion from this is that affiliation with the Church can be in desire and invisible, or why not?... even unconscious!. Therefore, the good willed Hindu can actually be a member of the Church without knowing it! Liberalism and false "traditionalism" in the personification of the CMRI are both faces of the same liberal progressive mask. Rahner would be very proud.
Invisible Church Theory Condemned
The Church is visible because she has a body. Therefore they are straying from divine truth who imagine the Church to be something which can neither be touched or seen, something merely "spiritual" as they say, a Church in which many Christian communities, although separated from one another by faith, could be joined by some kind of bond invisible to the senses, How grievously are they mistaken who have imagined a hidden and invisible Church according to their own devices!
Those who arbitrary conjure up and picture to themselves a hidden and invisible Church are in grievous and pernicious error.
Q. 512. How are such persons said to belong to the Church?
A. Such persons are said to belong to the "soul of the church"; that is, they are really members of the Church without knowing it. Those who share in its Sacraments and worship are said to belong to the body or visible part of the Church.
I'm going to put my trust in the Baltimore Catechism which is approved by the Church rather than put my trust in Cantarella.
Baltimore Catechism created by notorious Americanist Cardinal Gibbons in which he inserted some questions about Baptism?. No wonder.
The Americanists were determined to change the dogma on salvation. BOD was never relevant or an issue with EENS but the Americanists made it one and unfortunately today the Americanist error of invincible ignorance as an exception to EENS has spread throughout the Church as to become "Church teaching". The sedevacantists here in CI have elevated the concept into a DOGMA, which not even the Conciliar Popes have done.
-
Baltimore Catechism contains errors that were not in the more orthodox Catechism of Trent:
Q. 510. Is it ever possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?
A. It is possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, provided that person:
1. Has been validly baptized;
2. Firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion, and
3. Dies without the guilt of mortal sin on his soul.
The Liberal Catholics are not true Catholics and through their influence we have received catechisms that are less than, and inferior to, the CATECHISM OF TRENT. The so-called BALTIMORE CATECHISM is one example of how subtle this liberalism can be. Following we have a comparison of THE TRENT CATECHISM with the BALTIMORE CATECHISM on two dogmatic points. THE BALTIMORE CATECHISM: “No one can be saved except by being united to the Catholic Church. It is like Noah’s Ark, which saved men from the flood. Only through Christ and his Mystical Body can men be saved. They must be either in the ark of the church or at least hanging onto the ropes which trail from its sides.” Also in this Catechism: “But he who finds himself outside the Church without fault of his own, and who lives a good life, can be saved by the love called charity, which unites unto God, and in a spiritual way also to the Church…” THE TRENT CATECHISM: “Infidels are outside the Church because they never belonged to, or never knew the Church and were never made partakers of any of her Sacraments.” “She (the church) is also called universal, because all who desire eternal salvation must cling to and embrace her, like those who entered the ark to escape perishing in the flood.” “… the ark of Noah … was a symbol of the Church, which God has so constituted that all who enter herein through Baptism may be safe from danger or eternal death, while such as are outside the Church, like those who were not in the ark are overwhelmed by their own crimes.”
In other words, according to TRENT, one must have ENTERED the Ark, not hang onto the ropes on the outside as THE BALTIMORE CATECHISM presumes, because once this assumption is made, it opens doors that might allow anyone to be a part of the Church when in fact he is not. Also, can ignorance be an excuse, as is claimed in THE BALTIMORE CATECHISM? THE TRENT CATECHISM quotes from Optatus of Mileve: “You cannot be excused on the score of ignorance, knowing as you do that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was first conferred on Peter, …” Also, Pope Saint Pius X quotes from his predecessor, Benedict XIV, the following: “We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.”. It is easily seen from this, that there would be no need for the Church and all its missionary work if ignorance can get you into Heaven . It has been said that if ignorance of civil tax law doesn’t excuse you from paying those taxes, then ignorance of God’s Law, which is the highest authority, doesn’t excuse you from knowing and obeying His Law to reach salvation.
Catholicism.org
-
Who should I believe about the "soul of the Church"? Should I believe Cantarella and her Feeneyite doctrine? Or should I trust Pope Leo XIII, Pope St. Pius X, Pope Benedict XV, Pope Pius XI, and Pope Pius XII, none of whom ever condemned the Baltimore Catechism? Pope Leo condemned Americanism but he didn't condemn the Baltimore Catechism. Silence implies consent. So I will put my trust in all these popes rather than put my trust in those who advocate for the condemned heresy of Fr. Feeney.
-
Who should I believe about the "soul of the Church"? Should I believe Cantarella and her Feeneyite doctrine? Or should I trust Pope Leo XIII, Pope St. Pius X, Pope Benedict XV, Pope Pius XI, and Pope Pius XII, none of whom ever condemned the Baltimore Catechism? Pope Leo condemned Americanism but he didn't condemn the Baltimore Catechism. Silence implies consent. So I will put my trust in all these popes rather than put my trust in those who advocate for the condemned heresy of Fr. Feeney.
Yes Clemens Maria, the heresy of Modernism took over and the Church collapsed overnight in 1967... :baby: The fact that the Americanist Baltimore Catechism has not been officially condemned does not mean that it did not introduce liberal teachings, just the same as the New Catechism of the Catholic Church, although not officially condemned, is a rampart demonstration of leftist progressivism in the Church.
The heresy of Modernism and its children was already present in time of Pope Pius X. Since the French Revolution it has been a degrading slippery slope that no one has been able to stop.
The subtle Liberalism of the day got its way into the Baltimore Catechism, in the form of the "soul of the Church" and the introduction of the "three Baptisms". In 1949, the loosen interpretation of EENS, became "official" with the heretical novel doctrine of Invincible Ignorance, and in 1986 ends up with the Prayers at Assisi.
The Baltimore Catechism was one of the first to phrase the question about Baptism in such a way that children were required to answer that “there are three kinds of baptism.” As you yourself admit, Saint Thomas did not call baptism in desire or blood ”baptisms” except “analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of the sacrament of Baptism, namely the grace that remits sins.” (Verbum quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia) Furthermore, the Council of Trent issued its own Catechism, under orders of Pope Saint Pius V, without including Saint Thomas’ phraseology about baptism in desire or blood. In conformity with Trent, both Saints Robert Bellarmine and Peter Canisius refrained from including the same in their proper catechisms. Subsequent catechisms which did speak about desire and martyrdom taking the place of the water did not phrase the question as carelessly as the Baltimore. And in so doing, the Baltimore Catechism (and Cardinal Gibbons) swerved from the more exact terminology of Saint John Neumann’s work, on which it was supposed to be based.
If Clemens Maria cannot trace this back is because he is indoctrinated by sede propaganda which sells the idea that there was never nothing wrong with the Church up until Vatican II. They idealize Pope Pus XII in the process, who by the way, knew Roncally personally, very well, for over a decade, and in fact appointed him to key positions within the Vatican, but the CMRI rather no comments on this. Too much information for gullible souls.
-
Clemens Maria, who adheres so fervently to st. Bellarmine's famous teaching on the "Manifest Heretic Pope who loses his pontificate immediately" dares to disagree with Bellarmine himself on this one, though. How ironic!
The Church is a society, not of Angels, nor of souls, but of men. But it cannot be called a society of men, unless it consist in external and visible signs; for it is not a society unless they who are called members acknowledge themselves to be so, but men cannot acknowledge themselves to be members unless the bonds of the society be external and visible. And this is confirmed by those customs of all human societies; for in an army, in a city, in a kingdom, and other similar societies men would not be enrolled otherwise than by visible signs. Whence Augustine, in Book 19 Against Faustus, Chapter 11, says: “Men cannot assemble in the name of any religion, whether it be true or false, unless they be bound together by some fellowship of visible signs or sacraments.” 32
The novel doctrine of "soul of the Church" composed of non Catholics simply destroys central doctrines of the Church, for the Church has always taught that she is a visible society and the only kind of membership in her must necessarily be a visible and external one as St. Robert Bellarmine here teaches: that no one can be a member of the Church who is not visibly affiliated with the one visible society founded by Christ, subject to the authority of His vicar, the Roman Pontiff.
-
Who should I believe about the "soul of the Church"? Should I believe Cantarella and her Feeneyite doctrine? Or should I trust Pope Leo XIII, Pope St. Pius X, Pope Benedict XV, Pope Pius XI, and Pope Pius XII, none of whom ever condemned the Baltimore Catechism? Pope Leo condemned Americanism but he didn't condemn the Baltimore Catechism. Silence implies consent. So I will put my trust in all these popes rather than put my trust in those who advocate for the condemned heresy of Fr. Feeney.
Don't forget Pope Pius X's own Catechism which teaches the same. If anyone were to condemn such "Modernist" errors in the Baltimore Catechism, it would be him. And he certainly wouldn't allow the same "Modernist" errors to be included in his own catechism.
-
If Clemens Maria cannot trace this back is because he is indoctrinated by sede propaganda which sells the idea that there was never nothing wrong with the Church up until Vatican II. They idealize Pope Pus XII in the process,
Also If PPXII had backed Fr Feeney (as he should have), In Fr. s defense of No Salvation Outside the Church, there never would have been a Vat II, and the mess we have today ..
-
Clemens Maria, who adheres so fervently to st. Bellarmine's famous teaching on the "Manifest Heretic Pope who loses his pontificate immediately" dares to disagree with Bellarmine himself on this one, though. How ironic!
The Church is a society, not of Angels, nor of souls, but of men. But it cannot be called a society of men, unless it consist in external and visible signs; for it is not a society unless they who are called members acknowledge themselves to be so, but men cannot acknowledge themselves to be members unless the bonds of the society be external and visible. And this is confirmed by those customs of all human societies; for in an army, in a city, in a kingdom, and other similar societies men would not be enrolled otherwise than by visible signs. Whence Augustine, in Book 19 Against Faustus, Chapter 11, says: “Men cannot assemble in the name of any religion, whether it be true or false, unless they be bound together by some fellowship of visible signs or sacraments.” 32
The novel doctrine of "soul of the Church" composed of non Catholics simply destroys central doctrines of the Church, for the Church has always taught that she is a visible society and the only kind of membership in her must necessarily be a visible and external one as St. Robert Bellarmine here teaches: that no one can be a member of the Church who is not visibly affiliated with the one visible society founded by Christ, subject to the authority of His vicar, the Roman Pontiff.
I accept St. Robert Bellarmine's teaching on this. But theologians have always made a distinction between the visible members of the Church and those non-members of the Church who are nevertheless united to Her by desire and longing. Catechumens are not members of the Church and yet the Church has always taught that they can be saved if they meet the other requirements for salvation. St. Ambrose taught this. So your interpretation of St. Robert Bellarmine is a falsification of his teaching. I am certain that St. Robert Bellarmine would condemn you for teaching that the approved Baltimore Catechism is in error (as well as the Catechism of St. Pius X).
-
But theologians have always made a distinction between the visible members of the Church and those non-members of the Church who are nevertheless united to Her by desire and longing.
Uhm, no, they haven't "ALWAYS" made this distinction. In fact it was entirely uneard-of until well after the 13th century or so. And even the ones who did were not promoting Pelagianism like the vast majority of you are.
-
But theologians have always made a distinction between the visible members of the Church and those non-members of the Church who are nevertheless united to Her by desire and longing.
Uhm, no, they haven't "ALWAYS" made this distinction. In fact it was entirely uneard-of until well after the 13th century or so. And even the ones who did were not promoting Pelagianism like the vast majority of you are.
St Ambrose (d. 397). So the St. Ambrose was Pelagian? And the Church has been wrong for 1600+ years?
-
But theologians have always made a distinction between the visible members of the Church and those non-members of the Church who are nevertheless united to Her by desire and longing.
Uhm, no, they haven't "ALWAYS" made this distinction. In fact it was entirely uneard-of until well after the 13th century or so. And even the ones who did were not promoting Pelagianism like the vast majority of you are.
St Ambrose (d. 397). So the St. Ambrose was Pelagian? And the Church has been wrong for 1600+ years?
St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, XIII, vii) says: "When any die for the confession of Christ without having received the washing of regeneration, it avails as much for the remission of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism." 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism, Baptism of Blood
-
Baptism of Desire (for catechumens) was a theological speculation emerged to teaching in modern times. The discussion is not about Baptism of Desire but about the Salvation of non-Catholics. This idea that the "Soul of the Church" can be composed of non Catholics not only undermines the dogma of "No salvation Outside the Church" but the Incarnation itself. The whole point of the Incarnation is that the Word assumed human flesh in order to redeem us from our sins as Man, by dying on the Cross, and in order to institute a visible society with a visible head and visible sacraments, in which society every man must be visibly incorporated if he wishes to be saved.
If the Soul of the Church are the non Catholics and can be saved as CMRI claims, then it follows that:
- One can be saved outside the Church.
- One can be saved without having the Catholic Faith.
- Baptism is not necessary for salvation.
- To confess the supremacy and infallibility of the Roman Church and of the - Roman Pontiff is not necessary for salvation.
- One can be saved without submitting personally to the authority of the Roman Pontiff.
- Ignorance of Christ and His Church excuses one from all fault and confers justification and salvation.
- One can be saved who dies ignorant of Christ and His Church.
- One can be saved who dies hating Christ and His Church.
- God, of His Supreme Goodness and Mercy, would not permit anyone to be punished eternally unless he had incurred the guilt of voluntary sin.
- A man is sure of his salvation once he is justified.
- One can be saved by merely an implicit desire for Baptism.
- There are two Churches, the one visible, the other invisible.
- There are two kinds of membership in the Church.
- Membership in the Church can be invisible or even unconscious.
- To know and love the Blessed Virgin is not necessary for salvation.
But such are the results of Modern Liberalism.
-
No saint EVER (No st. Ambrose, no St. Augustine, no sT. Thomas, no St, Alphonsus) taught that someone could be saved without the Catholic Faith, which is what the CMRI and the other liberals say: what they defend is Salvation by Implicit Desire for non Catholics. What they believe and these saints believed about Baptism of Desire are NOT the same doctrine.
Those who believe in "Salvation by Implicit Desire", are actually radically opposed to any teachings of these saints who all believed that explicit faith, submission to the Roman Pontiff and a "votum" to receive the sacrament was necessary for salvation.
-
But theologians have always made a distinction between the visible members of the Church and those non-members of the Church who are nevertheless united to Her by desire and longing.
Uhm, no, they haven't "ALWAYS" made this distinction. In fact it was entirely uneard-of until well after the 13th century or so. And even the ones who did were not promoting Pelagianism like the vast majority of you are.
St Ambrose (d. 397). So the St. Ambrose was Pelagian? And the Church has been wrong for 1600+ years?
Of course st. Ambrose was not a pelagian. Here is his actual teaching on Baptism from his book, De Mysteriis,
“One is the Baptism which the Church administers: the Baptism of water and the Holy Ghost, with which catechumens need to be baptized . . . Nor does the mystery of regeneration exist at all without water, for ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom.’ Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, with which he also signs himself; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot receive remission of his sins nor the gift of spiritual grace.” (4,4: 4,20 Patrologia Latina, 16, 394)
-
But theologians have always made a distinction between the visible members of the Church and those non-members of the Church who are nevertheless united to Her by desire and longing.
Uhm, no, they haven't "ALWAYS" made this distinction. In fact it was entirely uneard-of until well after the 13th century or so. And even the ones who did were not promoting Pelagianism like the vast majority of you are.
St Ambrose (d. 397). So the St. Ambrose was Pelagian? And the Church has been wrong for 1600+ years?
St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, XIII, vii) says: "When any die for the confession of Christ without having received the washing of regeneration, it avails as much for the remission of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism." 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism, Baptism of Blood
Yes, but later on he recanted his error in his writings against the Donastists.
“no matter what progress a catechumen may make, he still carries the burden of iniquity, and it is not taken away until he has been baptized.” (Chapter 13, Tract 7)
“How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their deathbeds? And how many sincere catechumens die unbaptized and are lost forever”
And of course, St. Augustine was not referring to hesitant catechumens who put off their baptism, but only "sincere catechumens".
-
You're not positing "material errors" at all; yes, there's such a thing as material error, but you don't know what it is and you aren't talking about these.
-
Every CMRI priest professes that everyone who is now in heaven or purgatory got there with the divine virtue of faith and the divine virtue of charity (sanctifying grace).
Yes, but they happen to believe that these virtues could be actually found in non-Catholics and the invincible ignorant, forgetting that it is dogma that the Catholic Faith is the foundation of all justification. The Church teaches that outside the Church no sinner can attain sanctifying grace, which is true, since outside the Catholic Church there is no remission of sins (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 1302, ex cathedra).
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra: “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation NOR REMISSION OF SIN…”
-
Every CMRI priest professes that everyone who is now in heaven or purgatory got there with the divine virtue of faith and the divine virtue of charity (sanctifying grace).
Yes, but they happen to believe that these virtues could be actually found in non-Catholics and the invincible ignorant, forgetting that it is dogma that the Catholic Faith is the foundation of all justification. The Church teaches that outside the Church no sinner can attain sanctifying grace, which is true, since outside the Catholic Church there is no remission of sins (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 1302, ex cathedra).
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra: “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation NOR REMISSION OF SIN…”
Of course you are right. But you cannot seem to make the distinction of what happens when a person first converts.
You do know that when a person converts, it is first in the heart and will, and some time can go buy before they approach a Catholic about joining the Church?
That is a catechumen. That is not the discussion here.
The CMRI error that must be resisted is the novel concept of an exceptional way of salvation: through "invincible ignorance" while the person is in a "false religion". This objective error was spread in the Catholic Church and carried over Vatican II. It is the main basis for liberalism and dissent in the Church.
Ask any CMRI if it would be possible for a Jew, a Muslim, or hindu, to be saved without converting and totally ignorant of the Catholic Faith. All say yes, without exception.
-
I posted the entire article here: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=34921
Please identify exactly what parts of the article you find objectionable. Objecting to the "Soul of the Church" terminology isn't going to gain you any converts since that exact terminology is also used in the Baltimore Catechism and in The Pius X Catechism which are approved catechisms of the Catholic Church. Objecting to that terminology will just make you look like a dissenter.
Cantarella, I think it would be best if you stick to a criticism of this article because this article can be assumed to be an exposition of the topic in question which is agreeable to the CMRI. But if you insist on attacking CMRI clergy, in justice you should be specific about what you heard said, where and when it was said and by whom. Otherwise, your criticism amounts to nothing more than a gossip-based calumny. If you do post specifics, I will attempt to bring it to the attention of the CMRI clergy and we will see if they agree with your accusations or not.
-
I posted the entire article here: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=34921
Please identify exactly what parts of the article you find objectionable. Objecting to the "Soul of the Church" terminology isn't going to gain you any converts since that exact terminology is also used in the Baltimore Catechism and in The Pius X Catechism which are approved catechisms of the Catholic Church. Objecting to that terminology will just make you look like a dissenter.
Cantarella, I think it would be best if you stick to a criticism of this article because this article can be assumed to be an exposition of the topic in question which is agreeable to the CMRI. But if you insist on attacking CMRI clergy, in justice you should be specific about what you heard said, where and when it was said and by whom. Otherwise, your criticism amounts to nothing more than a gossip-based calumny. If you do post specifics, I will attempt to bring it to the attention of the CMRI clergy and we will see if they agree with your accusations or not.
Many thanks for the text. It was hard to copy from Myrna's docuмent image.
Here are the objections with the corresponding annotations (and comments) from the Infallible Magisterium:
1) First, let's start for the title:
THE SALVATION OF THOSE OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
This is equivalent to say:
"The Original Sin of Our Lady"
It is a clear denial right there of the thrice infallibly defined dogma of "THERE IS NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH"
"There is only one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved." (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215)
"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Pope Boniface VIII, in the bull, Unam Sanctam, 1302)
"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." (Mansi, Concilia, xxxi, 1739; Pope Eugene IV, in the bull, Cantate Domino, 1441).
2) In the face of this, must one believe that everyone,
without exception, who does not OFFICIALLY belong to the Church
by means of the reception of Baptism and the public profession
of the Catholic faith, is damned? Not at all.
Council of Trent, Canons of Baptism (Canon 2)
If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.
3)
THE EXTRAORDINARY MANNER ...for salvation
If the Church teaches that the sacraments instituted by
the Son of God made man oblige the Father to give His graces to
whomsoever validly receives them, she has never taught that His
generosity is restricted to this methodology.
Council of Trent, Canons of Baptism, Canon 5:
If anyone says that Baptism of optional, that is not necessary for salvation, let it be anathema.
Session 7, Canon 4 of the Sacraments in General from the Decree Concerning the Sacraments:
If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema.
4) It is then clear that God, who has promised to give His graces through these ordinary means of the sacraments, can also give them in an extraordinary manner. Holy Scripture provides us with numerous examples of this. Thus, Saint Dismas, the good thief, received the grace of regeneration without any sacrament, and this with such efficacy that Our Lord said to him, "This very day you will be with me in Paradise" (Luke XXIII:43).
The Good Thief died before the foundation of the Catholic Church at Pentecost, and therefore before the sacrament of Baptism became obligatory. They died under the Old Law. After Christ came, he established the New Law for the salvation of humankind which was fulfilled after He died for our sins. In the Old Testament two things were required for "salvation": the strict fulfillment of the commandments and the sincere belief on the Messiah to come. The Good Thief showed perfect contrition and child-like faith in the Savior before he died, therefore he was saved.
5)
These examples show with a certitude which cannot be
denied that it is possible to belong to the Soul of the Church
without belonging to her Body, and that God can bestow His
graces in an extraordinary manner which is independent of the
sacraments.
Again,
Session 7, Canon 4 of the Sacraments in General from the Decree Concerning the Sacraments:
If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema.
Session 7, Canons 2 & 5 of the Canons on Baptism from the Decree Concerning the Sacraments:
Can. 5. If anyone says that baptism is optional , that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.
Can. 2. If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,” let him be anathema.
6)
With regard to these latter and all those who deny the
mysteries of God, it is necessary to make the following point.
If it is possible that non-Catholics can belong to the Soul of
the Church while in good faith knowing nothing of the divine
Mysteries, this is absolutely impossible for those who
blaspheme against them.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra said:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”
Pius XI said:
For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad:whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.
7)
INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE
This is the error in which those who without any fault on
their part find themselves. It presumes good faith. It can be
met with among those to whom the true religion has never been
presented, and among those to whom it has been presented and to
whom, despite this, it does not appear to be the truth. Such
is to be found in parts of the world which are completely
adherent to the schismatic churches or some other cult, such as
Islam, Judaism, Protestantism, etc. This ignorance excuses
those involved of all culpability.
The Invincibly Ignorant is damned at least for the guilt of Original Sin. They are justly deprived of the only means of salvation, which is membership in the Holy Catholic Church (visibly, explicitly,....). They have neither innocence nor excuse in this matter. Their ignorance of the Divine Faith is a punishment for the original sin. It is the will of God, and it suffices for damnation.
The Roman Catholic Church infallibly defined at the ecuмenical councils of Lyons and Florence, that the guilt of original sin suffices for damnation in hell.
8.
If God helps non-Catholics to save their souls outside of
the norms established by His Son, it is because He would "have
all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth"
(I Tim. II:4). This desire induces the Father to continuously
draw souls (John VI:44) that His Son chooses (John XV:16). In
order to enlighten them, He normally uses the ministers of His
Church. But this habitual disposition in no way hinders Him
from drawing some souls directly and without any minister
whatsoever, and regardless of the situation in which they find
themselves. God, who wishes the salvation of every soul,
provides every soul with the necessary graces.
A human being that is properly and sincerely disposed will receive the necessary Sacrament of Baptism, just the way Our Lord instituted it, before he dies. God can make it possible for a person that truly seeks and asks salvation. God will ensure that his elect gets baptized.
Council Of Trent, on Justification (Chapter 11)
God does not command impossibilities, but by commanding admonishes you both to do what you can do, pray for what you cannot do, and He assists you that you may be able. For God does not forsake those who have once been justified by His grace, unless He be first forsaken by them.
And
If anyone shall say that the commandments of God are, even for a man who is justified, impossible to observe; let him be anathema (Canon18)
God can see into the souls of people, and if He finds unworthy dispositions, then He could very well keep that person from receiving Baptism. "For the lord searches all hearts, and understands all the thoughts of minds. If you seek Him, you shall find Him, but if you forsake Him, He will cast you off forever" (Chronicles 28:9).
9.
It is also to HIS Church that Jesus confided the seven
sacraments; non-Catholics are deprived of this, and this
deprivation can only make their perseverance in the path of
salvation more precarious.
Makes salvation impossible, given that no one can enter Heaven with Original Sin which is remitted only though the Sacrament of Baptism.
Council of Lyons:
"The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to Hell, yet to be punished with different punishments"
Council of Florence:
" It is likewise defined that the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into Hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds".
Pope Innocent III:
" The punishment of original sin is the loss of the vision of God; the punishment for actual sin is the torments of everlasting Hell".
-
THE SALVATION OF THOSE OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
"There is only one universal Church, outside of which
absolutely no one can be saved." Gregory XVI gave enunciation
to this dogma which is "one of the most important and most
clearly enunciated" teachings of our religion. . . . . .
. . . . .In the face of this, must one believe that everyone,
without exception, who does not OFFICIALLY belong to the Church
by means of the reception of Baptism and the public profession
of the Catholic faith, is damned? Not at all.
For those who can see, it is unimaginable that anyone who claims to be Catholic, much less a priest, could write this self contradictory and heretical adulteration of the dogma, but is that worse than having readers who treat this heresy as though it is a Church teaching?
Fr. Wathen states it this way.........
"Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject
explains the doctrine by explaining it away......
He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecciesiam, etc.,
and ends by denying it - while continuing to insist vigorously that he
is not doing so."
He goes on.......
"This doctrine is the basis for the labors of all who seek to
maintain and restore traditional Catholicity, though most of those who
are engaged in this struggle have yet to realize the fact. Without this
doctrine, assented to absolutely, Traditionalists have no cause and no
argument against the current "reform" in the Church, as it is called......
In truth, Catholics who do not accept this sacred doctrine do not
know their religion, even if they be priests. Ironically, those who
claim to be maintaining the traditional Catholic Faith, insisting the
while that their stand is necessary for the sake of salvation, do so on
the basis of this doctrine, even if they do not realize it. Yes, of course,
they say that they believe it. But we emphasize once again, they do
not unless they accept it absolutely. Their only argument for their
"Traditionalism" is this doctrine in its absolute and uncompromising
affirmation. If they qualify it in any way, their whole position
becomes inconsistent to the point of being self-contradictory."
-
Now the Feeneyites have turned this into a Feeneyism thread!
Time to threaten them with your power to call upon Matthew and have them banned. :rolleyes:
-
Now the Feeneyites have turned this into a Feeneyism thread!
Time to threaten them with your power to call upon Matthew and have them banned. :rolleyes:
I don't recall Nado ever doing this. I do remember him questioning why Matthew allows Feeneyite discussions when Feeneyism goes against the Catholic Faith. A fair question since I don't think any other Catholic forum allows it.
-
Now the Feeneyites have turned this into a Feeneyism thread!
No. Just the response for this request:
I posted the entire article here: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=34921
Please identify exactly what parts of the article you find objectionable. Objecting to the "Soul of the Church" terminology isn't going to gain you any converts since that exact terminology is also used in the Baltimore Catechism and in The Pius X Catechism which are approved catechisms of the Catholic Church. Objecting to that terminology will just make you look like a dissenter.
Cantarella, I think it would be best if you stick to a criticism of this article because this article can be assumed to be an exposition of the topic in question which is agreeable to the CMRI. But if you insist on attacking CMRI clergy, in justice you should be specific about what you heard said, where and when it was said and by whom. Otherwise, your criticism amounts to nothing more than a gossip-based calumny. If you do post specifics, I will attempt to bring it to the attention of the CMRI clergy and we will see if they agree with your accusations or not.
Nothing to do with "Fenneyism", but the heretical CMRI stance on "Salvation Outside the Church", via NO SACRAMENTS AT ALL. But of course, Nado & Mabel would not know this, since they do not even comprehend what "Feeneyism" consist of, to begin with. In the mean time, and in lack of a better argument, they must content themselves with posting silly interruptions.
-
Now the Feeneyites have turned this into a Feeneyism thread!
Time to threaten them with your power to call upon Matthew and have them banned. :rolleyes:
I don't recall Nado ever doing this. I do remember him questioning why Matthew allows Feeneyite discussions when Feeneyism goes against the Catholic Faith. A fair question since I don't think any other Catholic forum allows it.
No, he did not, but he was the object of such a threat. :surprised:
-
1) First, let's start for the title:
THE SALVATION OF THOSE OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
Given that the rest of the article explains how there is no salvation outside the Church, I think the title can be excused. The title doesn't actually say that there is salvation outside the Church. In fact, here is a thought experiment:
Title: THE SALVATION OF THOSE OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
Article: Dedicated to the memory of Fr. Leonard Feeney
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus -- Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. QED.
Right away I see that you fail to acknowledge that Fr. Barbara is making a distinction between inside/outside and membership/non-membership. The article explains that membership involves receiving baptism of water and professing the Catholic Faith whereas being inside the Church involves "all those in whom the Holy Spirit dwells. These are those who have theological faith, possess the divine life and are in a state of grace." Not all members of the Church are saved but all those who are inside the Church are certainly saved. So Fr. Barbara is not claiming that anyone outside the Church is saved. Personally, I think I would have chosen a better title but it is what it is. It certainly is not heretical if understood correctly in the context of the entire article.
2) In the face of this, must one believe that everyone,
without exception, who does not OFFICIALLY belong to the Church
by means of the reception of Baptism and the public profession
of the Catholic faith, is damned? Not at all.
Council of Trent, Canons of Baptism (Canon 2)
If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.
In Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott, Part 2, Chapter 5, Sec 20, The Necessity for Membership of the Church, is written:
Membership of the Church is necessary for all men for salvation. (De fide.) ... The necessity for belonging to the Church is not merely a necessity of precept (necessitas praecepti), but also a necessity of means (nec. medii), as the comparison with the Ark, the means of salvation from the biblical flood, plainly shows. The necessity of means is, however, not an absolute necessity, but a hypothetical one. In special circuмstances, namely, in the case of invincible ignorance or of incapability, actual membership of the Church can be replaced by the desire (votum) for the same.
The book has an nihil obstat and imprimatur dated 1954.
Likewise, Monsignor G. Van Noort gives a similar although much more detailed treatment. On p. 262 of Dogmatic Theology Vol. 2 - Christ's Church he writes, "[A]ll the fathers vehemently teach that the Church alone leads to salvation; nonetheless they admit that not all those who are actually outside the Church's membership are necessarily damned." This book has a nihil obstat and imprimatur dated 1956.
So Fr. Barbara's treatment is in line with approved theology manuals. Therefore it is not heretical.
3)
THE EXTRAORDINARY MANNER ...for salvation
If the Church teaches that the sacraments instituted by
the Son of God made man oblige the Father to give His graces to
whomsoever validly receives them, she has never taught that His
generosity is restricted to this methodology.
Council of Trent, Canons of Baptism, Canon 5:
If anyone says that Baptism of optional, that is not necessary for salvation, let it be anathema.
You must have missed where Fr. Barbara wrote this: "Now, among the things that are pleasing to God must be included the necessary obligation of receiving the Baptism of water." So in fact, Fr. Barbara is not guilty of saying that Baptism is optional. Rather, he understands the distinction between an absolute necessity of means and a hypothetical necessity of means.
4) It is then clear that God, who has promised to give His graces through these ordinary means of the sacraments, can also give them in an extraordinary manner. Holy Scripture provides us with numerous examples of this. Thus, Saint Dismas, the good thief, received the grace of regeneration without any sacrament, and this with such efficacy that Our Lord said to him, "This very day you will be with me in Paradise" (Luke XXIII:43).
The Good Thief died before the foundation of the Catholic Church at Pentecost,
Fine. But you have to admit that there is no error in what Fr. Barbara has written. Saint Dismas was saved without any sacrament. No error there. It might not be the most relevant example but it is not an error.
5)
These examples show with a certitude which cannot be
denied that it is possible to belong to the Soul of the Church
without belonging to her Body, and that God can bestow His
graces in an extraordinary manner which is independent of the
sacraments.
Again,
Session 7, Canon 4 of the Sacraments in General from the Decree Concerning the Sacraments:
If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema.
Answered above.
6)
With regard to these latter and all those who deny the
mysteries of God, it is necessary to make the following point.
If it is possible that non-Catholics can belong to the Soul of
the Church while in good faith knowing nothing of the divine
Mysteries, this is absolutely impossible for those who
blaspheme against them.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra said:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”
Pius XI said:
For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad:whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.
On this one, you might have a point but I would not go so far as to accuse Fr. Barbara of heresy. It is obvious that he is attempting to explain the teaching according to approved sources. If there is a little imprecision, it doesn't imply that he is denying the teaching of the Church. And I assure you that the CMRI doesn't intend to imply that one can be saved without supernatural faith. In fact, Fr. Barbara writes elsewhere in the article, "It is requisite that the intention by which one is ordered to the Church should be informed by perfect charity; and no explicit intention can produce its effect unless the man have supernatural faith."
7)
INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE
This is the error in which those who without any fault on
their part find themselves. It presumes good faith. It can be
met with among those to whom the true religion has never been
presented, and among those to whom it has been presented and to
whom, despite this, it does not appear to be the truth. Such
is to be found in parts of the world which are completely
adherent to the schismatic churches or some other cult, such as
Islam, Judaism, Protestantism, etc. This ignorance excuses
those involved of all culpability.
The Invincibly Ignorant is damned at least for the guilt of Original Sin. They are justly deprived of the only means of salvation, which is membership in the Holy Catholic Church (visibly, explicitly,....). They have neither innocence nor excuse in this matter. Their ignorance of the Divine Faith is a punishment for the original sin. It is the will of God, and it suffices for damnation.
The Roman Catholic Church infallibly defined at the ecuмenical councils of Lyons and Florence, that the guilt of original sin suffices for damnation in hell.
The term invincible ignorance can be found in Ott, Van Noort, Pius IX and Pius XI among other Church approved sources. I believe Fr. Barbara is again in line with the Church's teaching. Nowhere does he deny that those who die with the stain of original sin are damned.
8.
I'm skipping this one because I don't see where you have pointed out any error on Fr. Barbara's part. It looks to me like you are just trying to justify the Feeneyite position by saying that God will make sure that everyone whom he desires to be saved will receive Baptism of Water.
9.
It is also to HIS Church that Jesus confided the seven
sacraments; non-Catholics are deprived of this, and this
deprivation can only make their perseverance in the path of
salvation more precarious.
Makes salvation impossible, given that no one can enter Heaven with Original Sin which is remitted only though the Sacrament of Baptism.
You are dissenting from the Ordinary Universal Magisterium of the Church on this point. As I have already pointed out above, there are many Church-approved sources which point out that Original Sin can be remitted without Baptism of Water in some extraordinary circuмstances. Fr. Barbara is simply following Church-approved sources. It is you who are dissenting against Church-approved sources.
-
The problem with sedevacantists is that they are under the impression that every single book or theologian which was ever "approved" before Vatican II is free from error, protected by infallibility. (this is part of the general sede belief that everything before Vatican II was impeccable but all collapsed overnight after 1967). This is clearly not so. There were liberal doctrinal errors rampant in the preceding decades before Vatican II Council.
In fact, it was because of these errors (mainly in regards to salvation outside the Church) that were already vastly impregnated in the Church hierarchy that even the "traditionalists" bishops succuмbed so easily to the ecuмenical liberal reforms of Vatican II. Truth is that almost every theology manual produced in the decades leading up to Vatican II was erroneous on the topic of salvation. Even ultra modernist Rahner himself agrees that the stage was already set for Modernism to triumph in Vatican II.
“This optimism concerning salvation [of non-Catholics] appears to me one of the most noteworthy results of the Second Vatican Council. For when we consider the officially received theology concerning all these questions, which was more or less traditional right down to the Second Vatican Council, we can only wonder how few controversies arose during the Council with regard to these assertions of optimism concerning salvation, and wonder too at how little opposition the conservative wing of the Council brought to bear on this point, how all this took place without any setting of the stage or any great stir even though this doctrine marked a far more decisive phase in the development of the Church’s conscious awareness of her faith than, for instance, the doctrine of collegiality in the Church, the relationship between Scripture and tradition, the acceptance of the new exegesis, etc.” (1)
It follows that just because Van Voort happened to be one of those approved "theologians" before Vatican II does not make his works infallible. As a matter of fact, there are several doctrinal errors in his position: basically he concludes that even pagans that do not believe in Christ could be saved via Baptism of Desire, which denies the entire dogmas of salvation / justification. This paves the way to ultra modernist Rahner's theology of the "Anonymous Christian" most Catholics (and surprisingly traditionalists!)believe today. No matter what these modernists say though, if Baptism of Desire is not a dogma, much less so is salvific "Invincible Ignorance".
Another point about what CM wrote is that CMRI as well as other sedevacantists wrongly focus on the necessary "Supernatural Faith" and "Perfect Charity" for the non-Catholic to be saved. The problem is that the only real supernatural Faith there is, is the Catholic Faith and there can be no "Perfect Charity" for the one that is not converted . As St. Bellarmine says that "only perfect conversion can be called baptism of the Spirit, and this includes true contrition and charity". It follows that the good willed Hindu cannot have sanctifying grace nor be a temple of the Holy Ghost nor be a heir of Heaven because the Catholic Faith is necessary for all justification, as well as the Sacraments are necessary for salvation.
-
Given that the rest of the article explains how there is no salvation outside the Church, I think the title can be excused.
:roll-laugh1:
That heretical article does absolutely NOTHING of the sort. It spends its ENTIRE time talking about how non-Catholics and those outside the Church can be saved.
No, a heretical title like that can NEVER be excused; it denies Catholic dogma word for word. It's horrifically scandalous, and I'd be surprised if Father Barbara doesn't still have years and years of Purgatory left for promoting such a blasphemy.
-
Given that the rest of the article explains how there is no salvation outside the Church, I think the title can be excused.
:roll-laugh1:
That heretical article does absolutely NOTHING of the sort. It spends its ENTIRE time talking about how non-Catholics and those outside the Church can be saved.
No, a heretical title like that can NEVER be excused; it denies Catholic dogma word for word. It's horrifically scandalous, and I'd be surprised if Father Barbara doesn't still have years and years of Purgatory left for promoting such a blasphemy.
I found this in The Catechism Explained, by Rev. Francis Spirago, Edited by Richard F. Clarke, SJ, Nihil Obstat: Arthur J. Scanlan, STD, Imprimatur: Patrick J. Hayes, DD, 1921. The original edition was printed in 1899, pp. 246-247 of the TAN edition:
Whoever through his own fault remains outside the Church will not be saved ... If, however, a man, through no fault of his own, remains outside the Church, he may be saved if he lead a God-fearing life; for such a one is to all intents and purposes a member of the Catholic Church. ... They do not belong to the body of the Church, that is, they are not externally in union with the Church, but they are of the soul of the Church. ... Thus the Catholic Church has members both visible and invisible.
So Lad, are we supposed to believe that the ordinary universal magisterium fell into heresy? When did it fall? Why did no one complain until Fakhri Malouf's article in the September 1947 issue of From the Housetops? Fr. Spirago's book was written in 1899. Am I supposed to believe that the problem went unnoticed for 48 years? Not a single bishop nor priest noticed? Pope St. Pius X didn't notice? Lad, your problem isn't with Fr. Barbara. It is with the magisterium of the Catholic Church. Fr. Barbara is teaching exactly what Church-approved catechisms and theology manuals were teaching for at least 63 years before the Second Vatican Council was convened. How do you explain that? Fr. Barbara isn't doing any time in purgatory for teaching exactly the same teaching which the Church had previously approved. On the other hand, I am not too confident about your situation. You are dissenting against the Church's magisterium.
I have to conclude that those of you accusing the CMRI of heresy and/or schism based on this article are guilty of an unjust calumny. The CMRI is teaching exactly the same doctrine which the Church had previously approved prior to V2.
-
The problem with sedevacantists is that they are under the impression that every single book or theologian which was ever "approved" before Vatican II is free from error, protected by infallibility. (this is part of the general sede belief that everything before Vatican II was impeccable but all collapsed overnight after 1967). This is clearly not so. There were liberal doctrinal errors rampant in the preceding decades before Vatican II Council.
Essentially you are denying the infallibility/indefectibility of the ordinary universal magisterium. That itself is a heresy.
-
The problem with sedevacantists is that they are under the impression that every single book or theologian which was ever "approved" before Vatican II is free from error, protected by infallibility. (this is part of the general sede belief that everything before Vatican II was impeccable but all collapsed overnight after 1967). This is clearly not so. There were liberal doctrinal errors rampant in the preceding decades before Vatican II Council.
Essentially you are denying the infallibility/indefectibility of the ordinary universal magisterium. That itself is a heresy.
No, Clemens Maria, just as Nado (and sedes in general), has a very poor understanding of what the Infallibility of the Church actually is. (and Indefectibility has nothing to do what we are discussing here). Not every single approved docuмent, book, or theologian is necessarily protected by infallibility. That is making of infallibility an unrealistic and romanticized caricature. No wonder why they do not understand what has happened with the Church & the heresy of Modernism.
The Ordinary Magisterium includes the potentially fallible teachings of the pope and ecuмenical Councils (i.e., not given ex cathedra) and, more commonly, of individual Bishops or groups of Bishops as taken separately from the whole College. Such teachings are fallible and could possibly contain errors; they are subject to revisions or even, rarely, revocation. In the case of the teachings of individual bishops to their diocese, there can of course even be disagreement among the individual bishops on such issues.
-
THE SALVATION OF THOSE OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH is impossible because THERE IS NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
"There is only one universal Church, outside of which
absolutely no one can be saved." Gregory XVI gave enunciation
to this dogma which is "one of the most important and most
clearly enunciated" teachings of our religion. . . . . .
. . . . .In the face of this, must one believe that everyone,
without exception, who does not OFFICIALLY belong to the Church
by means of the reception of Baptism and the profession
of the Catholic faith, is damned? Yes, "in the face of this", that is we must believe.
Reply: But we must understand dogma the way the Church herself understands it.
Answer: Vatican 1 infallibly decreed that the Church herself understands dogma as dogma has been declared.
Vatican 1 decreed:
"Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."
If one does not understand what the thrice defined dogma EENS means, then is it possible that they also do not understand what the above decree means?
I do not know - let's ask: Nado, 2Vermont, Mabel, Myrna, Clemens Maria, anyone else - do you understand that the decree from V1 means that the Church understands dogma as declared and that dogma is to be understood as declared?
-
Essentially you are denying the infallibility/indefectibility of the ordinary universal magisterium. That itself is a heresy.
No, Clemens Maria, just as Nado (and sedes in general), has a very poor understanding of what the Infallibility of the Church actually is. (and Indefectibility has nothing to do what we are discussing here). Not every single approved docuмent, book, or theologian is necessarily protected by infallibility. That is making of infallibility an unrealistic and romanticized caricature. No wonder why they do not understand what has happened with the Church & the heresy of Modernism.
This isn't a CMRI or sedvacantist issue. The SSPX has also published a condemnation of the Feeneyite understanding of EENS (cf. Fr. Laisney's Is Feeneyism Catholic?). Feeneyism is only a very small but vocal percentage of the traditional Catholic milieu. Not even all of the Catholics who go to Mass in Still River are Feeneyites. The traditional priest (Fr. Carlton) who offered Mass during the week at Immaculate Heart of Mary Chapel for years was opposed to the Feeneyite doctrine. In Still River they could not find one Feeneyite priest to offer Mass. Fr. hαɾɾιson who was speaking at The NH Benedict Center conferences in the 2000s was opposed to the Feeneyite doctrine. Trying to cast this as a sedevacantist issue is intellectually dishonest. The vast majority of traditional Catholics think that Feeneyism is a heresy to be avoided.
Can you give any references to Church-approved publications which support your contention that Spirago, Van Noort, Ott, Fenton, Bainvel, among others are guilty of spreading heresy?
Ironically, Feeneyites need the Conciliar Church in order to provide cover for their un-Catholic doctrine. Without the Conciliar Church, they would be forced to admit that Fr. Feeney and his doctrine remains condemned by Suprema Haec Sacra (1949).
-
You just undermine the divinity and holiness of the Church and Her magisterium.
No, Nado, it is you who undermine the Magisterium and the Holiness of the Church by making it into a bizarre caricature of itself.
With regard to EENS, either the Majority Opinion is wrong or else the Minority Opinion is wrong. Yet the Church "tolerated" the Majority Opinion for about 1600 years. Your argument is that the Minority Opinion cannot be an error because the Church tolerated it since it first cropped up in the 1600s. But if the Minority Opinion is right (i.e. cannot be wrong), then the Majority Opinion is wrong. But how could the Church have tolerated the erroneous Majority Opinion for so long then?
There have been many cases in which the Church has failed to step in to resolve contrary opinions (cf. the famous case between the Thomists and the Molinists). Both camps accused the other of heresy and error, and if one position was right, then the other was wrong. Yet the Church tolerated both, i.e. the Church tolerate an erroneous opinion.
Right until the 1950s, the majority of theologians considered the minority opinion to be erroneous.
-
... [dishonest babble] ...
As with all the BoDers (with one single exception here on CI), you simply use Baptism of Desire as a weapon to reject EENS and to promote Pelagianism and to undermine Trent's dogmatic teaching regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation. In point of fact, Father Feeney's problem was with those who held the so-called "Minority Opinion" and then leveraged that into the aforementioned heresies. And, on this point, according to Monsignor Fenton, the MAJORITY of Catholic theologians still considered that position to be in error, in support of Father Feeney. Father Feeney would have had no problem with the position held by someone like Nishant.
It's only the dishonest bad-willed trads like yourself who try to make BoD the issue. Why? Because you can find some Church Doctors who hold the opinion. But you fail to mention that these same Church Doctors held the MAJORITY opinion and would have condemned the heretical ramblings of Father Barbara for what they were. St. Thomas and St. Robert Bellarmine would not have recognized Father Barbara's bad-willed screed as even remotely Catholic. Monsignor Fenton himself would have absolutely shredded Father Barbara's nonsense. In fact, he did explicitly address most of the false pseudo-arguments and pseudo-distinctions and distortions used by Father Barbara in that perverse and blasphemous article of his.
-
... [dishonest babble] ...
As with all the BoDers (with one single exception here on CI), you simply use Baptism of Desire as a weapon to reject EENS and to promote Pelagianism and to undermine Trent's dogmatic teaching regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation. In point of fact, Father Feeney's problem was with those who held the so-called "Minority Opinion" and then leveraged that into the aforementioned heresies. And, on this point, according to Monsignor Fenton, the MAJORITY of Catholic theologians still considered that position to be in error, in support of Father Feeney. Father Feeney would have had no problem with the position held by someone like Nishant.
It's only the dishonest bad-willed trads like yourself who try to make BoD the issue. Why? Because you can find some Church Doctors who hold the opinion. But you fail to mention that these same Church Doctors held the MAJORITY opinion and would have condemned the heretical ramblings of Father Barbara for what they were. St. Thomas and St. Robert Bellarmine would not have recognized Father Barbara's bad-willed screed as even remotely Catholic. Monsignor Fenton himself would have absolutely shredded Father Barbara's nonsense. In fact, he did explicitly address most of the false pseudo-arguments and pseudo-distinctions and distortions used by Father Barbara in that perverse and blasphemous article of his.
I base my opinion on Church-approved sources which I have already specified in the discussion above. On what authority do you base your opinions? Don't bother with quotes from the Fathers of the Church. My sources have already shown how their doctrine is compatible with the Fathers and their teaching is approved by the Church as recently as the 1950s. Please site a Church-approved source for your opinion that Barbara, Spirago, Fenton, Bainvel, Ott, The Holy Office (Ottaviani?), Van Noort among others are all teaching heresy.
You don't have those sources, do you? You only have opinions from Feeneyite sources who don't have Church approval, don't have imprimaturs nor nihil obstats and don't have the support of a single Catholic bishop anywhere in the world today nor for centuries in the past. You only have some false private interpretations that have only been around since the late 1940s.
-
This isn't a CMRI or sedvacantist issue. The SSPX has also published a condemnation of the Feeneyite understanding of EENS (cf. Fr. Laisney's Is Feeneyism Catholic?). ....Trying to cast this as a sedevacantist issue is intellectually dishonest. The vast majority of traditional Catholics think that Feeneyism is a heresy to be avoided.
This is true but that does not mean that these "traditionalists" are right (I am not SSPX by the way). That is why they seem to be stuck in useless nostalgic fiftieism. They all point out the "errors' of Vatican II but can't see the forest for the trees. The crisis is not about the liturgy but the dogma. The Novus Ordo Mass is only a symptom of the real illness. This people have no idea what they are really fighting against. They are like the defeated soldier who does not even know who enemy he fought.
ALL the problematic doctrine of Vatican II reduces ultimately to the erosion of a single dogma, that of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (EENS). If one has a loose interpretation of EENS, then the theology of Vatican II flows logically from it. If the criteria for salvation is now subjective, then people unquestionably have a God-given right to follow their consciences and save their souls, which is the foundation for Religious Liberty. The belief that the Holy Ghost can actually dwell in non-Catholics and that all can be saved in and out the Church is the foundation of false ecuмenism and inter-Faith movements where Christ is just another god among the others. That non - Catholics can be part of the Church is what sets up the entire new Vatican II "Anonymous Christian" ecclesiology.
ALB himself famously stated that people can be saved IN their false religions but not BY them. But according to the dogma of No Salvation Outside the Church, all souls must be explicitly converted to Catholicism via water baptism. Ironically, the SSPX accepts this loose definition of EENS but Sedevacantists are even much more rigorous on the issue. CMRI openly PROMOTES the salvation for non-Catholics as the discussed docuмent proves.
-
I base my opinion on Church-approved sources which I have already specified in the discussion above. On what authority do you base your opinions? Don't bother with quotes from the Fathers of the Church. My sources have already shown how their doctrine is compatible with the Fathers and their teaching is approved by the Church as recently as the 1950s. Please site a Church-approved source for your opinion that Barbara, Spirago, Fenton, Bainvel, Ott, The Holy Office (Ottaviani?), Van Noort among others are all teaching heresy.
No, you base your opinion on your bad-willed refusal to accept the dogma EENS. Correct, many authorities believed in Baptism of Desire. What's incorrect is your attempting to extrapolate from Baptism of Desire the salvation of non-Catholics. You are a Pelagian, a denier of EENS, and refuse to accept also the dogmatic teaching of Trent regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation. You deliberately conflate your heresies with BoD and try to wrap up the excrement in a brown paper bag, mark the bag "BoD", and try to convince everyone that what's inside is really something that St. Thomas put in there. False.
If you want to understand the distinction, look up my thread on Catholic vs. Heretical Baptism of Desire. If you want to understand a Catholic view of BoD, ask Nishant; he's very articulate about a BoD that's 1) consisent with the mind of St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, et al., 2) is not Pelagian, 3) does not reject the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, and 4) does not gut EENS into a meaningless tautological formula. But you don't care. Why? Because you're not sincerely seeking the truth. You are of bad will. You find EENS unpalatable. You have therefore exploited the notion of BoD and twisted it to suit your purposes. Nishant, who is NOT a Feeneyite by any stretch of the imagination, has writtten several very thoughtful and charitable posts to address this issue. Not one of you bad-willed obstinate EENS-deniers have ever bothered with a response. You just keep frothing at the mouth about "Feeneyism". Nishant's only mistake is to take a tone which implies that you might be of good will and might listen to reason. In point of fact, most of you are obstinate in your heresies.
-
Why exactly do you list Fenton and Barbara in the same list? Fenton has addressed most of Barbara's false arguments, errors, and heresies -- and would have shredded Barbara.
That's another joke about BoD. For every BoD proponent you get a completely different understanding of what it and what it is not; the only thing you all have in common is your insistence that non-Catholics can be saved.
So here's the true definition of BoD: the principle that those outside the Church can be saved somehow.
-
I base my opinion on Church-approved sources which I have already specified in the discussion above. On what authority do you base your opinions? Don't bother with quotes from the Fathers of the Church. My sources have already shown how their doctrine is compatible with the Fathers and their teaching is approved by the Church as recently as the 1950s. Please site a Church-approved source for your opinion that Barbara, Spirago, Fenton, Bainvel, Ott, The Holy Office (Ottaviani?), Van Noort among others are all teaching heresy.
No, you base your opinion on your bad-willed refusal to accept the dogma EENS. Correct, many authorities believed in Baptism of Desire. What's incorrect is your attempting to extrapolate from Baptism of Desire the salvation of non-Catholics. You are a Pelagian, a denier of EENS, and refuse to accept also the dogmatic teaching of Trent regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation. You deliberately conflate your heresies with BoD and try to wrap up the excrement in a brown paper bag, mark the bag "BoD", and try to convince everyone that what's inside is really something that St. Thomas put in there. False.
If you want to understand the distinction, look up my thread on Catholic vs. Heretical Baptism of Desire. If you want to understand a Catholic view of BoD, ask Nishant; he's very articulate about a BoD that's 1) consisent with the mind of St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, et al., 2) is not Pelagian, 3) does not reject the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, and 4) does not gut EENS into a meaningless tautological formula. But you don't care. Why? Because you're not sincerely seeking the truth. You are of bad will. You find EENS unpalatable. You have therefore exploited the notion of BoD and twisted it to suit your purposes. Nishant, who is NOT a Feeneyite by any stretch of the imagination, has writtten several very thoughtful and charitable posts to address this issue. Not one of you bad-willed obstinate EENS-deniers have ever bothered with a response. You just keep frothing at the mouth about "Feeneyism". Nishant's only mistake is to take a tone which implies that you might be of good will and might listen to reason. In point of fact, most of you are obstinate in your heresies.
I accept the dogma of EENS. I didn't extrapolate. I quoted approved Catholic sources. I didn't add anything nor subtract anything. I am not a theologian. I accept the approved teaching of the Catholic Church. Fr. Feeney was excommunicated. The Holy Office condemned his doctrine. You accuse Fr. Barbara of heresy (not just heresy but bad-willed heresy, actually you accused me of bad will but I do not teach anything, I am just defending Fr. Barbara's and the CMRI's orthodoxy so I assume that you are accusing Fr. Barbara of bad will despite the fact that he is not attempting to deny any of the Church's teaching). I quoted multiple Catholic sources for the "soul of the Church" terminology which Cantarella found objectionable. I also pointed out that Fr. Barbara teaches that supernatural faith is necessary for salvation which was another of Cantarella's objections (i.e. that Fr. Barbara was denying the necessity of faith). You didn't offer any specific criticisms of Fr. Barbara's article so I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to Pelagianism or denying EENS. No one that I quoted claimed that you could achieve salvation without grace. None have denied EENS. All the sources I quoted affirm EENS while at the same time allowing for BOD. I don't find EENS unpalatable. I believe the doctrine of EENS. I haven't seen Nishant's posts. I am only defending Fr. Barbara and the CMRI because I know that they have no desire to teach anything other than what the Church has always taught. All of my sources, including Fr. Barbara teach that all those who have Catholic Faith and have not had the opportunity through no fault of their own to receive water baptism can be saved if they have perfect contrition for there sins. If you think Fr. Barbara has deviated from those approved Catholic sources then in justice you should be specific about where you think he has gone wrong.
I note too that Fr. Bainvel disagreed with the "soul of the Church" terminology but he did not therefore characterize it as a heresy much less accuse people of bad will. He just said it didn't fit the data very well. He understood it as Catholic theologians struggling to find the best way to explain the conflict between EENS and BOD. But one thing that all truly Catholic theologians agree on is that you cannot resolve this conflict by throwing out BOD.
-
Why exactly do you list Fenton and Barbara in the same list? Fenton has addressed most of Barbara's false arguments, errors, and heresies -- and would have shredded Barbara.
That's another joke about BoD. For every BoD proponent you get a completely different understanding of what it and what it is not; the only thing you all have in common is your insistence that non-Catholics can be saved.
So here's the true definition of BoD: the principle that those outside the Church can be saved somehow.
I don't see any conflict between Fr. Fenton and Fr. Barbara. Fr. Fenton was a highly regarded pre-Vatican II theologian and if Fr. Barbara disagreed with Fr. Fenton, I'm sure he would have noted that. I don't think Fr. Barbara was trying to say anything different from Fr. Fenton but I could be wrong. Please feel free to point out the specific differences.
-
I accept the dogma of EENS.
Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject explains the doctrine by explaining it away, as we shall see further on. He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecciesiam, etc., and ends by denying it-while continuing to insist vigorously that he is not doing so. He seems to think it a clever thing to state the formula, then to weasel out of it. What he ought to do is one of two things: either admit that he does not believe this dogma (and also in the same breath, that he does not believe in the Dogma of the Church's Infallibility); or he should allow for the possibility that there is something about the Catholic Doctrine of Salvation of which he is unaware, or which he refuses to accept, or has been misled into denying.
Since we hold the Doctrine of Exclusive Salvation, we hold all modifications, qualifications, attenuations, and denials of it to be heresy, and those who defend these positions to be material heretics at least. It is contrary to Catholic tradition to treat heresy amicably, or heretics as brothers in Christ, but rather, as His enemies. If in places the language of this writing seem acidic, it is so in order to brace dissenters with their true standing with respect to Christ, Who is the Truth.
This doctrine is the basis for the labors of all who seek to maintain and restore traditional Catholicity, though most of those who are engaged in this struggle have yet to realize the fact. Without this doctrine, assented to absolutely, Traditionalists have no cause and no argument against the current "reform" in the Church, as it is called.
-
I accept the dogma of EENS.
Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject explains the doctrine by explaining it away, as we shall see further on. He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecciesiam, etc., and ends by denying it-while continuing to insist vigorously that he is not doing so. He seems to think it a clever thing to state the formula, then to weasel out of it. What he ought to do is one of two things: either admit that he does not believe this dogma (and also in the same breath, that he does not believe in the Dogma of the Church's Infallibility); or he should allow for the possibility that there is something about the Catholic Doctrine of Salvation of which he is unaware, or which he refuses to accept, or has been misled into denying.
Since we hold the Doctrine of Exclusive Salvation, we hold all modifications, qualifications, attenuations, and denials of it to be heresy, and those who defend these positions to be material heretics at least. It is contrary to Catholic tradition to treat heresy amicably, or heretics as brothers in Christ, but rather, as His enemies. If in places the language of this writing seem acidic, it is so in order to brace dissenters with their true standing with respect to Christ, Who is the Truth.
This doctrine is the basis for the labors of all who seek to maintain and restore traditional Catholicity, though most of those who are engaged in this struggle have yet to realize the fact. Without this doctrine, assented to absolutely, Traditionalists have no cause and no argument against the current "reform" in the Church, as it is called.
I have quoted Church-approved sources. Do you believe the Church has defected?
-
I have quoted Church-approved sources. Do you believe the Church has defected?
False dichotomy.
-
Dear Clemens Maria, you asked what was Fr. Fenton's view, I think it might interest you to know that he believed, as many theologians still did right up until Vatican II, that explicitly believing in Jesus Christ by divine and Catholic Faith, and loving Him with divine charity or contrition, was necessary for salvation.
In the American Ecclesiastical Review, in Dec. 1952, this eminent theologian wrote, "most theologians teach that the minimum explicit content of supernatural and salvific faith includes, not only the truths of God’s existence and of His action as the Rewarder of good and the Punisher of evil, but also the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation." These two doctrines are the core mysteries of the Catholic Faith, as the Athanasian Creed for example attests, and St. Thomas with almost all the Doctors like St. Robert, St. Bernard, St. Alphonsus etc held. Based on Magisterial texts of St. Pius X, of Clement XI, and of Alexander VII, as well as the consent of the Fathers, many theologians used to argue that this Papal teaching was irreformable, even though the Church does not censure the contrary proposition. This teaching, at any rate, was almost completely disregarded in the aftermath of the Council.
Fr. Wathen was in many ways a good priest during a period of immense difficulties in the Church, but, as per what has been posted above, he clearly fell into error on this point. He is not in agreement with the traditional teaching of the Church, which cannot be mistaken, therefore on this point, his opinion must be rejected. It is not correct to say or to think that those who hold the doctrines of Baptism of Desire are Blood are "at least material heretics." They are nothing of the sort. Fr. Wathen should rather have made the traditional teaching of the Church, in that immutable sense in which they have always and everywhere been understood, "the basis for" his own otherwise commendable "labors" to "seek to maintain and restore traditional Catholicity."
Anyway, I will post some sources on this in another thread, perhaps with a text in the library section. It doesn't belong in this thread.
-
Thanks, Nishant. I agree with Fr. Fenton's view but I read in one source (I forget which one) that there is a less stringent view which was not condemned. I think holding the other view could be grounds for criticism but I don't think it is grounds for accusations of heresy (and especially not of bad will). I understand the danger of indifferentism and I see how in the post-Vatican II crisis the dogma of EENS has been trampled on and I understand how for some folks that can be a source of frustration. But at the same time, I feel obligated to defend clergy that are clearly trying to maintain the traditional teaching of the Church. I continue to pray for the election of a traditional Catholic Pope.
-
My point is that you can't just shoot from the hip in calling him a heretic. You have to prove it.
-
Here's the progression we see:
1) Baptism and Membership in the Catholic Church Necessary for Salvation.
2) Baptism and Membership in the Catholic Church Necessary for Salvation (with the exception of martyred catechumens)
3) Baptism of Blood or explicit Baptism of Desire for catechumens only
4) Baptism of Blood or implicit Baptism of Desire for catechumens only (implicit in wanting to become a Catholic)
5) Baptism of Blood or explicit / implicit Baptism of Desire for those who explicitly believe at least in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation (but are not necessarily catechumens intending to join the Church)
6) Baptism of Blood or explicit / implicit Baptism of Desire for those who explicitly believe at least in a "god" who rewards the good and punishes the wicked albeit with a supernatural formal motive of faith
7) Baptism of Blood or explicit / implicit Baptism of Desire for those who explicitly believe at least in a "god" who rewards the good and punishes the wicked and a general desire to do what this God wants (several steps removed implicit desire for Baptism)
8) faith and desire implicit in wanting to do good and be a good person
Now let's superimpose this on the historical progression:
Most Church Fathers never went past #1.
About 9-10 Church Fathers allowed for #2 (but most of these saw Baptism of Blood as the Sacrament of Baptism, but substituting blood for water as the matter of the Sacrament and having the form "administered by angels"); many of these explicitly rejected #3.
St. Augustine and, arguably, St. Ambrose speculated very tentatively regarding #3. St. Ambrose was most likely referring to #2.
You can find more Church Fathers, about 6-7, who rejected #3 than who (tentatively or dubiously) accepted it, about 1-2.
St. Augustine later backtracked to #2.
NOTHING for about 800 years except #1 or #2.
Innocent II and Innocent III adopt #3 and #4 ... again, based on the authority of Augustine and Ambrose, exactly TWO Church Fathers (out of hundreds), one of whom retracted the opinion and the other only ambiguously MAY have believed in it (but was more likely referring to #2).
Peter Lombard, the founder of scholasticism, has to decide between the opinions of his teachers, Abelard (#2) and Hugh of St. Victor (#3 or #4). He writes to St. Bernard, who tentatively adopts #3 / #4 based on the authority of St. Augustine, not knowing that St. Augustine had backtracked to #2.
St. Thomas, heavily influenced by Peter Lombard, appears to go to #5.
#5 opinion spreads due to the influence of St. Thomas.
It does not go past #5 until about the year 1600 when a number of theologians, predominantly Jesuits, start dabbling with #6.
From about 1600 until the 1950s, #6 still does not become the majority consensus, despite the fact that the forces of Protestant subjectivism have been urging it on since its inception. Some start also intermingling with #7.
1917 Code of Canon Law limits it to #3 / #4 only (i.e. to catechumens).
Francis, Jorge Bergoglio, MAY have implied #8.
-
My point is that you can't just shoot from the hip in calling him a heretic. You have to prove it.
You are indeed a Pelagian heretic. I have not, however, put you outside the Church for this, for the same reasons that I do not definitely conclude sedevacantism ... because your heresy isn't an explicit rejection of a defined dogma. I am quite consistent about this.
Nishant is absolutely wrong about this matter. He admits that it was taught and/or believed by all, everywhere, from the beginning of the Church until about the year 1600 that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation are necessary for supernatural faith and therefore for salvation. If THAT does not constitute an infallible teaching of the Church's Ordinary Universal Magisterium, then nothing does. Just because a few Jesuits show up at the time of the Protestant Reformation, heavily influenced by the Protestant subjectivism, and start undermining it, does not suddenly change something from being dogmatic teaching of the Church into acceptable "minority opinion".
You, furthermore, Clemens Maria, if you consider the V2 Popes to be manifest heretics outside the Church, then you condemn yourself. So you are the one who's completely inconsistent. You see, the ONLY heresy of which the V2 Popes could be convinced would be EENS-denial. Everything in Vatican II proceeds from the "Minority Opinion". So if the Minority Opinion is not heresy, then there's nothing heretical in Vatican II.
This doctrine is the basis for the labors of all who seek to maintain and restore traditional Catholicity, though most of those who are engaged in this struggle have yet to realize the fact. Without this doctrine, assented to absolutely, Traditionalists have no cause and no argument against the current "reform" in the Church, as it is called.
-
Here's the progression we see:
1) Baptism and Membership in the Catholic Church Necessary for Salvation.
2) Baptism and Membership in the Catholic Church Necessary for Salvation (with the exception of martyred catechumens)
3) Baptism of Blood or explicit Baptism of Desire for catechumens only
4) Baptism of Blood or implicit Baptism of Desire for catechumens only (implicit in wanting to become a Catholic)
5) Baptism of Blood or explicit / implicit Baptism of Desire for those who explicitly believe at least in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation (but are not necessarily catechumens intending to join the Church)
6) Baptism of Blood or explicit / implicit Baptism of Desire for those who explicitly believe at least in a "god" who rewards the good and punishes the wicked albeit with a supernatural formal motive of faith
7) Baptism of Blood or explicit / implicit Baptism of Desire for those who explicitly believe at least in a "god" who rewards the good and punishes the wicked and a general desire to do what this God wants (several steps removed implicit desire for Baptism)
8) faith and desire implicit in wanting to do good and be a good person
Now let's superimpose this on the historical progression:
Most Church Fathers never went past #1.
About 9-10 Church Fathers allowed for #2 (but most of these saw Baptism of Blood as the Sacrament of Baptism, but substituting blood for water as the matter of the Sacrament and having the form "administered by angels"); many of these explicitly rejected #3.
St. Augustine and, arguably, St. Ambrose speculated very tentatively regarding #3. St. Ambrose was most likely referring to #2.
You can find more Church Fathers, about 6-7, who rejected #3 than who (tentatively or dubiously) accepted it, about 1-2.
St. Augustine later backtracked to #2.
NOTHING for about 800 years except #1 or #2.
Innocent II and Innocent III adopt #3 and #4 ... again, based on the authority of Augustine and Ambrose, exactly TWO Church Fathers (out of hundreds), one of whom retracted the opinion and the other only ambiguously MAY have believed in it (but was more likely referring to #2).
Peter Lombard, the founder of scholasticism, has to decide between the opinions of his teachers, Abelard (#2) and Hugh of St. Victor (#3 or #4). He writes to St. Bernard, who tentatively adopts #3 / #4 based on the authority of St. Augustine, not knowing that St. Augustine had backtracked to #2.
St. Thomas, heavily influenced by Peter Lombard, appears to go to #5.
#5 opinion spreads due to the influence of St. Thomas.
It does not go past #5 until about the year 1600 when a number of theologians, predominantly Jesuits, start dabbling with #6.
From about 1600 until the 1950s, #6 still does not become the majority consensus, despite the fact that the forces of Protestant subjectivism have been urging it on since its inception. Some start also intermingling with #7.
1917 Code of Canon Law limits it to #3 / #4 only (i.e. to catechumens).
Francis, Jorge Bergoglio, MAY have implied #8.
CMRI, most traditionalists, and liberal Vatican II curia all share the version of EENS described in number 8. Modernists they really are, they affirm the EENS dogma but then twist the real meaning of the words until there is nothing left. They mask behind the genuine teaching in Baptism of Desire to continue doing so but they all believe that even a pagan can be saved, while totally ignorant of the Catholic Faith.
-
Anything past #5 is heretical.
#6 is Semi-Pelagianism.
#7 and #8 are full-blown Pelagianism.
Thus the accusation of heresy.
Nishant leaves off at #5. You'll note that I do not accuse him of heresy, even though I disagree.
-
I should also have added that neither St. Robert Bellarmine, nor the Council of Trent, nor the Catechism of Trent went past #4 (just as the Code of Canon Law never went past #4) ... even if I were to concede that Trent dealt with BoD.
-
You can see the insidious progression; it's a gradual boiling of the frog.
Now let's look at the stark contrast by juxtaposing the opposite poles.
1) Baptism and Membership in the Catholic Church Necessary for Salvation.
2) Baptism and Membership in the Catholic Church Necessary for Salvation (with the exception of martyred catechumens)
......
7) Baptism of Blood or explicit / implicit Baptism of Desire for those who explicitly believe at least in a "god" who rewards the good and punishes the wicked and a general desire to do what this God wants (several steps removed implicit desire for Baptism)
8) faith and desire implicit in wanting to do good and be a good person
It is OBVIOUS when looked at from this perspective that the Church Fathers who believed in #1-#2 would never have recognized modern Catholics (including most "Trads"), believers of #7-#8, as having the same faith that they did.
So how do we explain this short of some modernist "development of doctrine" theory? That's in fact how Karl Rahner describes the progression, that there was a growing awareness or consciousness regarding a hope for the salvation of non-Catholics as time went on.
-
CMRI, most traditionalists, and liberal Vatican II curia all share the version of EENS described in number 8. Modernists they really are, they affirm the EENS dogma but then twist the real meaning of the words until there is nothing left. They mask behind the genuine teaching in Baptism of Desire to continue doing so but they all believe that even a pagan can be saved, while totally ignorant of the Catholic Faith.
Some trads, like LoT, will articulate #7. But you're right, 90% of trads actually do believe in #8; they're flaming Pelagians.
-
Fr. Barbara quoted the entire 1949 Letter of the Holy Office (Suprema Haec Sacra). Obviously he intends his article to be in conformity with the Holy Office. Where do you place that letter on your spectrum? Also, Fr. Barbara actually complemented Fr. Feeney while still maintaining that Fr. Feeney was wrong. But as for JP2, Fr. Barbara quoted several statements that appear to show that JP2 was denying EENS. That presents a problem for you since you call Fr. Barbara a heretic while you say JP2 is not a heretic (or am I wrong about that?).
-
"As a sacrament of intimate union with God, the Church is in Christ, outside Whom there is no salvation."
St Pope John Paul II
"The mystery of salvation is revealed to us and is continued and accomplished in the Church, and from this genuine and single source ... it reaches the whole world. Dear young people, and members of the faithful ... we have to be conscious of and absorb this fundamental and revealed truth, contained in the phrase consecrated by tradition: There is no salvation outside the Church. From her alone there flows surely and fully the life-giving force destined, in Christ and in His Spirit, to renew the whole of humanity, and therefore directing every human being to become a part of the Mystical Body of Christ."
St Pope John Paul II
"We are born into the Church. She communicates to us the riches of life and grace entrusted to her. She generates us by Baptism, feeds us with the Sacraments and the Word of God, prepares us for our mission, leads us to the plan of God: she is the reason for our existence as Christians. We are her children. With just pride, we call her our Mo- ther, repeating a title which has come down through the centuries from the earliest times. She must therefore be called upon, respected, and served; for no one can have God for his Father if he does not have the Church for his Mother. One cannot love Christ without loving the Church Christ loves. The spirit of the Church is the spirit of Christ, and to the extent to which one loves the Church of Christ does he possess the Holy Spirit."
St Pope John Paul II
-
What is the prime support for this claim against the CMRI?
A short answer is that Bp. Thuc attempted to consecrate a bishop on 01/11/1976 at Palmar de Troya and ipso facto excommunicated himself by this schismatic act. He could only have his excommunication that he publicly admitted he incurred, lifted by a true Pope, which Thuc never did. Logically he was a schismatic when he again "consecrated" others by his own simony driven mandate in the future, which included those that eventually linked up with the CMRI tribe.
What you are saying begs the question. If the pope was false, what was done was perfectly understandable. The real issue is to talk about whether the man was a false pope, and then everything else fits into place.
Yes, dwell on the "impossible to prove fact" in order to justify two wrongs making a right. :facepalm:
-
You just begged the question on that, too. I am saying IF...THEREFORE, and you didn't address that hypothetical.
The question is rhetorical because no matter how you try to weasel, you can do nothing about it. There can be no "IF...THEREFORE" because Pope Paul IV, a valid pope, said there can be no "IF...THEREFORE". Why don't you believe him? Do you think he was also an imposter?
So, you believe Francis is the true pope, and you condemn the Novus Ordo....how does that schizophrenic theology work?
I don't know if he is a "true pope" or not and neither do you, but I know we are not permitted to go around saying he is not and if you had any faith in you, you'd know that too.
You view it as schizophrenic theology because of your popolatry syndrome and your inordinate obsession with whether or not popes are popes.
-
You just begged the question on that, too. I am saying IF...THEREFORE, and you didn't address that hypothetical.
The question is rhetorical because no matter how you try to weasel, you can do nothing about it. There can be no "IF...THEREFORE" because Pope Paul IV, a valid pope, said there can be no "IF...THEREFORE". Why don't you believe him? Do you think he was also an imposter?
So, you believe Francis is the true pope, and you condemn the Novus Ordo....how does that schizophrenic theology work?
I don't know if he is a "true pope" or not and neither do you, but I know we are not permitted to go around saying he is not and if you had any faith in you, you'd know that too.
You view it as schizophrenic theology because of your popolatry syndrome and your inordinate obsession with whether or not popes are popes.
Stubborn is as stubborn does.
What is that - another one of your Novus Ordo slogans?
How about answering why you, a dogmatic SV, do not listen to Pope Paul IV about none in this world being allowed to judge the pope.
-
How about answering why you, a dogmatic SV, do not listen to Pope Paul IV about none in this world being allowed to judge the pope.
I say the very same thing as Popes, Saints and Doctors of the Church about rejecting a man who was a pope but became a heretic, and you accuse me of heresy....and not them! Really, go check yourself in to see if it's Alzheimers.
You say the very same thing all SVs say - which completely contradicts what Pope Paul IV taught - "The Roman Pontiff.....who may judge all and be judged by none in this world,"
His Constitution is, according to SVs, infallible - so with that fact in mind, please present whatever evidence you can that proves the above infallible words of a genuine pope can be disobeyed by either Cardinals, Priests, a Counsel, lay folk or ?
I can tell you right now you will never be able to prove your claim that you "say the very same thing as Popes" because there has never been a pope that stupid.
So to be clear, 1) you need to provide proof that Popes (any pope will do), said the very same thing as you, ie that a pope can be deposed and a new one elected in his place. And 2) you need to answer why you, a dogmatic SV, will not listen to the infallible teaching of Pope Paul IV when he taught that none in this world is permitted to judge the pope.
-
How about answering why you, a dogmatic SV, do not listen to Pope Paul IV about none in this world being allowed to judge the pope.
I say the very same thing as Popes, Saints and Doctors of the Church about rejecting a man who was a pope but became a heretic, and you accuse me of heresy....and not them! Really, go check yourself in to see if it's Alzheimers.
You say the very same thing all SVs say - which completely contradicts what Pope Paul IV taught - "The Roman Pontiff.....who may judge all and be judged by none in this world,"
His Constitution is, according to SVs, infallible - so with that fact in mind, please present whatever evidence you can that proves the above infallible words of a genuine pope can be disobeyed by either Cardinals, Priests, a Counsel, lay folk or ?
I can tell you right now you will never be able to prove your claim that you "say the very same thing as Popes" because there has never been a pope that stupid.
So to be clear, 1) you need to provide proof that Popes (any pope will do), said the very same thing as you, ie that a pope can be deposed and a new one elected in his place. And 2) you need to answer why you, a dogmatic SV, will not listen to the infallible teaching of Pope Paul IV when he taught that none in this world is permitted to judge the pope.
It's clear to everyone that you misapply what Paul IV said, and clear you should be getting the message with the fact that you think Saints, Doctors and Popes have gone contrary to him, and just don't want to face the facts, Stubborn.
What is clear to everyone - or should be, is the fact that you cannot quote a single pope who says what you explicitly and falseheartedly accused "Popes" of saying. Again, you will never find any pope who would be so stupid to say such a stupid thing - hence, the real reason you chose to reply with another circular and topic side tracking reply.
It is also clear to everyone that of your own volition you promote further disobedience of the explicit teaching of the Church which literally declares that the Roman Pontiff may be judged by none in this world.
The very fact that you call yourself a sedevacantist demonstrates this hypocritical disobedience. Dwell on that fact for as long as you need to and repeat the above words from Pope Paul IV 10,000 times a day until you believe them. It may take you a few years or more, but once you accept the truth, it will all be worth it I assure you.
-
How about answering why you, a dogmatic SV, do not listen to Pope Paul IV about none in this world being allowed to judge the pope.
I say the very same thing as Popes, Saints and Doctors of the Church about rejecting a man who was a pope but became a heretic, and you accuse me of heresy....and not them! Really, go check yourself in to see if it's Alzheimers.
You say the very same thing all SVs say - which completely contradicts what Pope Paul IV taught - "The Roman Pontiff.....who may judge all and be judged by none in this world,"
His Constitution is, according to SVs, infallible - so with that fact in mind, please present whatever evidence you can that proves the above infallible words of a genuine pope can be disobeyed by either Cardinals, Priests, a Counsel, lay folk or ?
I can tell you right now you will never be able to prove your claim that you "say the very same thing as Popes" because there has never been a pope that stupid.
So to be clear, 1) you need to provide proof that Popes (any pope will do), said the very same thing as you, ie that a pope can be deposed and a new one elected in his place. And 2) you need to answer why you, a dogmatic SV, will not listen to the infallible teaching of Pope Paul IV when he taught that none in this world is permitted to judge the pope.
It's clear to everyone that you misapply what Paul IV said, and clear you should be getting the message with the fact that you think Saints, Doctors and Popes have gone contrary to him, and just don't want to face the facts, Stubborn.
What is clear to everyone - or should be, is the fact that you cannot quote a single pope who says what you explicitly and falseheartedly accused "Popes" of saying. Again, you will never find any pope who would be so stupid to say such a stupid thing - hence, the real reason you chose to reply with another circular and topic side tracking reply.
It is also clear to everyone that of your own volition you promote further disobedience of the explicit teaching of the Church which literally declares that the Roman Pontiff may be judged by none in this world.
The very fact that you call yourself a sedevacantist demonstrates this hypocritical disobedience. Dwell on that fact for as long as you need to and repeat the above words from Pope Paul IV 10,000 times a day until you believe them. It may take you a few years or more, but once you accept the truth, it will all be worth it I assure you.
"Now when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as S. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric."
So, you are saying that St. Francis, around 1600, violated what Pope Paul IV taught infallibly about 40 years previous?
Yes, or No?
Did I ask you to post something from St. Francis?
No.
You said you are saying the same thing thing that popes say - which in and of itself is an obvious lie that only a benighted person would say.
Therefore, I asked you to:
1) provide proof that Popes (any pope will do), said the very same thing as you, ie that a pope can be deposed and a new one elected in his place. And 2) you need to answer why you, a dogmatic SV, will not listen to the infallible teaching of Pope Paul IV when he taught that none in this world is permitted to judge the pope.
Further, why do you, a dogmatic sedevacantist, pit the infallible teaching of Pope Paul IV against the words of St. Francis? Who do you think has authority over whom? Why are you even sedevacantist if you reject infallible teaching of a genuine pope in favor of a contradictory teaching from St. Francis?
Try with every ounce of strength you have in you to actually answer the question - IOW, do everything in your power to avoid weaseling this time.
And why don't you try quoting a saint who was also sedevacantist - in fact, you really should limit yourself to only posting quotes from sedevacantist saints from now on. I'd be interested to see what you learn from doing that.
-
I believe I have given what you asked for. If not, then I cannot provide. If that is the end of that, then I am asking you for a Yes or No to my own question about what St. Francis de Sales taught.
No, clearly you have not given what I asked for - because no pope would be so stupid as to say what you say - which is why you cannot provide it.
So no, that is not the end of that, because you have not admitted you lied. Which means, we have no assurance other than you admitting that no pope ever said what you said, that you will cease slandering popes by putting heretical words in their mouths they never said.
Again, St. Francis is irrelevant. He has already been judged and the Church canonized him a saint - but not for the quote you chose, that's for sure.
What is relevant is that unlike St. Francis, without a doubt you KNOW what Pope Paul IV, a genuine pope, taught, yet you facetiously act as though Pope Paul IV's teaching is akin to that of V2, ie ambiguous and un-understandable.
In your own mind, this facetious act of yours permits you to reject what he, a genuine pope, infallibly taught - yet all that proves is that your entire position as a sedevacantist is a giant farce because if you'll ignore what Pope Paul IV, a certainly genuine and true pope taught, it doesn't matter to you if the Chair is vacant or not - you're going to to what you're going to do no matter what the Church teaches and no matter what any pope says. All you've proven is that you are a hypocrite.
-
Stubborn, take a look at my signature, again: quote from holy Scriptures. We should shun being "stubborn", but that is what you apparently are doing.
I have given quotes from approved Catholic sources including canonized Saints, declared "Doctors of the Church", and popes.....and you are outright condemning them...no, no, no, don't object! You are. You are basically in the category of your fellow Feeneyite, Cantarella, a "special olympics" neo-theologian who is condemning the impossible, like an agnostic.
Look at your own signature - you have it there for pharisaical reasons and nothing else. Not sure who you think you are fooling but most everyone here already knows that to be the truth.
You cannot provide any popes who said what you say they said: "I say the very same thing as Popes" and you know it - that makes you a liar, and a hypocrite - and you know that too.
You have zero approved sources, the only approved source for you would be a sedevacantist saint - well, lets see a quote from one of them. Or how about a sedevacantist pope, not that you would even listen to what he had to say.
No. You need to admit that you lied, that there are no popes who say what you said, that they'd need to be completely stupid to say what you said - until then, you will remain an enemy of the Church for your lying slanderous accusations against the popes and their Perennial teachings.
-
Again, St. Francis is irrelevant. He has already been judged and the Church canonized him a saint - but not for the quote you chose, that's for sure.
What is relevant is that unlike St. Francis, without a doubt you KNOW what Pope Paul IV, a genuine pope, taught, yet you facetiously act as though Pope Paul IV's teaching is akin to that of V2, ie ambiguous and un-understandable.
You are clearly rejecting the quote, even though the Church Herself did not. When the canonization process was going through, you are trying to say St. Francis taught publicly against Infallible teaching and nobody in the hierarchy noticed! How stupid of them! Then, after over 100 years go by, in 1877, his works were again scrutinized by the Church, and he was declared a "Doctor of the Church" because of his teachings....and nobody noticed then that the following quote was against infallible teaching of the Church! How stupid of everyone not to notice!
"we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII.; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was. Now when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as St. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric."
This quote was in the Saint's work entitled "Controversies" and Pope Pius IX then declared on that occasion of declaring him a Doctor that this work is "a full and complete demonstration of the Catholic religion". How stupid of him? But you are smarter, right "Stubborn"?
No, you still cannot reject what a genuine pope said in favor of what St. Francis said - do you know why?
Then we have 10 years later when the Holy Office under Pope Leo XIII scrutinized and approved a work of canon law for the clergy (in its 5th edition), and approved of the same teaching. Poor pope and his stupid Holy Office? Poor clergy throughout the United States who didn't notice? If only that had a man named "Stubborn" from the 21st century to warn them of their HUGE mistake against infallible doctrine!
No, Pope Leo XIII never approved any such teaching, all you've proved is that you've believed your own lies for too long.
St. Robert Bellarmine taught the same and was declared a Doctor in the 20th century.
Stubborn, you simply do not understand the difference between judging a man who is here and now a pope, and judging a man who is here and now already not a pope. Which is why what Paul IV wrote was true, and why what the Popes, Saints/Doctors have said, that I have mentioned here, are true also. Because of your lack of understanding you end up pitting popes against popes.
No, you invent fairy tails and believe your own lies.
FYI, there never has and never will be a pope so stupid as to say what you said because there is no pope so stupid as to relinquish his authority to the whims of his subjects. While that stupidity is rampant within your brain, you never have nor will you ever be able to produce any such quote from any pope, much less from popes.
Again, stop your lies, or go ahead and actually post what popes have actually said that you say you are repeating. After all, you are the liar who said; "I say the very same thing as Popes" so let's see exactly what popes have said.
Let's see you post some quotes from popes who would grant his subjects the permission and authority over himself to depose himself and elect a new pope for themselves - as I said, you will need to find popes who were sedevacantist and quote them - do you understand that?
-
Aside from your lies, that's all you have.
-
op- is the cmri schismatic? Yes, because they believe in salvation outside of the Catholic Church. The novus ordo teaches all men are united to Christ by the Incarnation, the cmri teaches that all invincibly ignorant men through no fault of their own are united to Christ by Incarnation as long as they follow their conscience, and are morally upright. They believe the same things as the schismatic novus ordo. They both refuse unity with the chair of Peter (Catholic Dogma), but the cmri is more of an evil sect because of the deception.
In reading ALOT of posts (crisis in the Church) the last week on this website it is sad . The common theme is the novus ordo is wrong, false, heretical etc... but all those arguing with each other adhere (are in communion) to it somehow. There are those who think heretics are still Catholics and remain in communion with the NO, and those who refuse unity, but believe the same things the NO teaches, i.e. out of one side of their mouth promote the pre-Vatican II theologians(heretics) and out of the other side of their mouths condemn the Vatican II religion that for the most part says the same things that were taught back in the 40-50's.
Romans 1 explains why this punishment is happening full scale today.
-
Aside from your lies, that's all you have.
You need serious help if that is the way you perceive what St. Francis de Sales and Pope Pius IX (among so many others) clearly taught.
"The Roman Pontiff.....who may judge all and be judged by none in this world". - Pope Paul IV
It could not be said with any more authority or any clearer.
-
Aside from your lies, that's all you have.
You need serious help if that is the way you perceive what St. Francis de Sales and Pope Pius IX (among so many others) clearly taught.
"The Roman Pontiff.....who may judge all and be judged by none in this world". - Pope Paul IV
It could not be said with any more authority or any clearer.
And infallibly declared in Unac Sanctam, 1302 by Pope Boniface VIII:
""Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle 'The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man' [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven' etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. "
-
Cantarella, your quote here ---> "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. "
Only applies if we have a Roman Pontiff.
To thinks as you do, denies the perpetuity of the Church. God's promise, you believed He failed.
-
The problem is that you cannot comprehend another truth - that the Church says a pope can become a heretic and automatically cease to be pope, and that we can recognize when that has already occurred.
The problem is that you say popes can be deposed. What's worse is that you accuse past popes of saying that popes can be deposed, and a new pope can then be elected.
Now above you say once a pope becomes a heretic that he automatically ceases to be pope. Well, whose going to judge him and tell him he is no longer pope - you? the Cardinals? the Bishops? Obama? - and once he's been judged and told, then what happens? What is his sentence? Do you have him apprehended and held by the Cardinals? the Bishops? the Nuns?
Yet, the entire obsessive opinion is an exercise in futility because according to SV logic, a true pope cannot become a heretic because a true pope cannot err, since a true pope cannot err, how pray tell does a true pope become a heretic?
-
Cantarella, your quote here ---> "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. "
Only applies if we have a Roman Pontiff.
To thinks as you do, denies the perpetuity of the Church. God's promise, you believed He failed.
That's another point you have wrong Myrna, as do all sedevacantists, in the words of +Williamson: "How could the Catholic Church, designed by Our Lord to be a visible structure, long survive without a visible head? For instance, if the Popes since 1958 or 1963 have been invalid Popes, how can they have appointed valid Cardinals? And if there are few [or no] valid Cardinals, how can another valid Pope ever be elected? Apparently inextricable difficulties for the survival of the structure and so of the very Church."
The road taken by Sedevacantism is the road that denies God's promise as regards the perpetuity of the Church.
-
Cantarella, your quote here ---> "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. "
Only applies if we have a Roman Pontiff.
To thinks as you do, denies the perpetuity of the Church. God's promise, you believed He failed.
And it has been decided by who that we no longer have a Pontiff?
At current times, this subjective conclusion only exists in your head and is totally based upon private judgment.
As all Modernists do, you obliterate Catholic dogma by using semantic "relativistic" games.
To decide entirely on your own NOT to be subject to Ecclesiastical Law; but merely personal whim is Protestant procedure. Not Catholic.
-
Simply put, the Pope must be Catholic, like St. Peter.
-
The Sedevacantists positions is one that has always been held as the least probable theological opinion and yet we fail to understand how one would base their salvation on a debatable theological opinion which in itself is not even the most probable according to Catholic teaching.
-
The problem is that you cannot comprehend another truth - that the Church says a pope can become a heretic and automatically cease to be pope, and that we can recognize when that has already occurred.
The problem is that you say popes can be deposed. What's worse is that you accuse past popes of saying that popes can be deposed, and a new pope can then be elected.
Now above you say once a pope becomes a heretic that he automatically ceases to be pope. Well, whose going to judge him and tell him he is no longer pope - you? the Cardinals? the Bishops? Obama? - and once he's been judged and told, then what happens? What is his sentence? Do you have him apprehended and held by the Cardinals? the Bishops? the Nuns?
Yet, the entire obsessive opinion is an exercise in futility because according to SV logic, a true pope cannot become a heretic because a true pope cannot err, since a true pope cannot err, how pray tell does a true pope become a heretic?
Every time I attempt to prove something to you, you become uncooperative in answering my questions. If you were truly confident that you had the truth, you wouldn't play games like that.
I have never said a pope can be deposed, nor have I every said that other popes have said that. This is just more indication that you don't understand the truth of what I am saying.
A Catholic Dictionary[/i] (1954)]"An heretical pope necessarily ceases to be head of the Church, for by his heresy he is no longer a member thereof: in the event of his still claiming the Roman see a general council, improperly so-called because without the pope, could remove him. But this is not deposition, since by his own act he is no longer pope."
You said that you say the same thing as popes, but you lie because what you quoted is not from popes, rather, it is from some phantom source, IOW, it's a farce because it is non-existent - even if you could produce the actual dictionary from 1954, it would not have that definition in it - but if it did, why do you promote the words from a dictionary as a source of teaching over the infallible teaching of a genuine pope, Paul IV? What kind of SV takes the word of some dictionary over the explicit teaching of a pope?
To show you how you adhere to lies, hopefully accidentally, the above A Catholic Dictionary, 1951. "Deposition" dictionary farce you quoted contradicts The Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04737b.htm) and the Catholic Dictionary (http://saints.sqpn.com/ncd02654.htm) as well as popes, because a "Deposition" is an ecclesiastical censure which doesn't "just happen" by an act of heresy, rather, this is a censure which cannot occur unless it be imposed on a subject by a superior, this is because of the gravity of the censure. Read the above links.
Do you understand that much at least?
If you understand nothing else, you should AT LEAST understand that your definition contradicts Pope Paul IV - yet you necessarily must completely ignore what the pope said in favor of what some lying "dictionary" quote, prevalent on all the sede web sites, says.
Again, what kind of sede rejects the explicit decree of a genuine pope in favor of every possible contrary teaching from other sources?
-
I have never said a pope can be deposed, nor have I every said that other popes have said that. This is just more indication that you don't understand the truth of what I am saying.
Nado, as all Modernists do, obliterate infallibly defined dogma by saying that "we are not exactly judging the Pope but merely the man who has ceased to be Pope". Of course, this loss of pontificate exists only in the minds of some individual Catholics who rather do not hear the Church but themselves and their private judgment.
This is an example of a common Modernist error: twisting the clear meaning of an already defined dogma approved by the Holy Ghost in order to fit the current agenda. Dogmatic statements mean what they say and say what the mean. Nothing further. Once one start adding subjective elements to the dogmatic definitions (for example, saying we are not judging THE POPE but merely the man), then one opens the door to an unlimited number of errors and heresies.
-
I have the book in my hands. In it's fourth printing. It was copyrighted from 1931, and I heard it was still published as late as the early 60's. It has a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. The quote I gave you is verbatim the same. As well the editor says in the preface, "It has been the editor's aim to avoid so far as possible direct affirmation or a tone of certainty about matters which are not certain."
When I say someone else says the "same", I am not talking word-for-word sentences. I am talking the same idea and concept.
No, you do not have the same idea and concept. The pope said what the pope said, you change what he said when you add your own idea and concept to what he said, then you say that you are saying the same thing - that is absurd.
Okay, so it is clear that no matter what imprimatured Catholic source I give you that is less than solemn papal teaching, you will reject it as being against the solemn infallible teaching of Paul IV. Is that right, you only accept solemn teachings of the Church?
I accept all teaching that agree with what the pope taught. When the impimatured Catholic source disagrees or contradicts with solemn papal teachings, then the impimatured Catholic source is wrong. One would think that as a sede yourself, no one would need to remind you of this.
"The Roman Pontiff.....who may judge all and be judged by none in this world" needs no further elaborations, interpretations or definitions *on purpose* and *by design*.
As an aside, your definition below makes zero sense. Read it, particularly the part I crossed out. There is your imprimatur at work.
Aside from it's purpose of promoting the SV agenda with the first and last sentence, the rest is pure nonsensical jibberish, hardly something one would find in a Catholic dictionary.
"An heretical pope necessarily ceases to be head of the Church, for by his heresy he is no longer a member thereof: in the event of his still claiming the Roman see a general council, improperly so-called because without the pope, could remove him. But this is not deposition, since by his own act he is no longer pope."
According to SV logic, a true pope cannot become a heretic because a true pope cannot err, since a true pope cannot err, how pray tell does a true pope become a heretic? How is it that you are able to embrace and promote such a conundrum as this?
-
This is in the Catholic dictionary exactly as I have printed it. There were no sedevacantists then. As well, Pius IX approved of the concept in 1877, and the Holy Office under Leo XIII in 1887 scrutinized and approved the same concept in a canon law book for the general clergy of the U.S. The Catholic dictionary being a natural result of what the Holy Office previously approved.
So it follows that a "true Pope" can in fact fall into heresy, after all?
Another sede argument debunked.
-
This is in the Catholic dictionary exactly as I have printed it. There were no sedevacantists then. As well, Pius IX approved of the concept in 1877, and the Holy Office under Leo XIII in 1887 scrutinized and approved the same concept in a canon law book for the general clergy of the U.S. The Catholic dictionary being a natural result of what the Holy Office previously approved.
So it follows that a "true Pope" can in fact fall into heresy, after all?
Another sede argument debunked.
Sounds like you really do admit he is a heretic, after all!
-
This is in the Catholic dictionary exactly as I have printed it. There were no sedevacantists then. As well, Pius IX approved of the concept in 1877, and the Holy Office under Leo XIII in 1887 scrutinized and approved the same concept in a canon law book for the general clergy of the U.S. The Catholic dictionary being a natural result of what the Holy Office previously approved.
So it follows that a "true Pope" can in fact fall into heresy, after all?
Another sede argument debunked.
Sounds like you really do admit he is a heretic, after all!
No, Myrna. You misunderstood. We are not talking about Pope Francis in particular (wow, you do have an unhealthy obsession with the Pope that blurs your reasoning, don't you?)
The reference was about a citation that Nado brings in the case of a heretical Pope which in itself refutes the common sedevacantist belief that the Pope cannot in fact become a heretic. If it is impossible for the Pope to fall into heresy, then why bringing this citation that clearly re affirms that possibility?
-
This is in the Catholic dictionary exactly as I have printed it. There were no sedevacantists then. As well, Pius IX approved of the concept in 1877, and the Holy Office under Leo XIII in 1887 scrutinized and approved the same concept in a canon law book for the general clergy of the U.S. The Catholic dictionary being a natural result of what the Holy Office previously approved.
So it follows that a "true Pope" can in fact fall into heresy, after all?
Another sede argument debunked.
Sounds like you really do admit he is a heretic, after all!
No, Myrna. You misunderstood. We are not talking about Pope Francis in particular (wow, you do have an unhealthy obsession with the Pope that blurs your reasoning, don't you?)
The reference was about a citation that Nado brings in the case of a heretical Pope which in itself refutes the common sedevacantist belief that the Pope cannot in fact become a heretic. If it is impossible for the Pope to fall into heresy, then why bringing this citation that clearly re affirms that possibility?
You talk about blurred reasoning? What are you talking about? After all this time, and all the Church quotes presented to you, it appears you haven't the faintest concept about this subject.
Infallibility protects a pope from entering mistakes against faith or morals into official acts of the Church.
Infallibility doesn't prevent a pope from deliberately choosing to believe heresy and then attempting to enter the error into the official acts of the Church, because the attempt will have been performed by a man who already ceased to be pope.
What is difficult about understanding this?
Perhaps it's a "theological complexity".
-
Infallibility doesn't prevent a pope from deliberately choosing to believe heresy and then attempting to enter the error into the official acts of the Church, because the attempt will have been performed by a man who already ceased to be pope.
The highlighted part is nothing but a novel invention based upon nothing but a personal conclusion.
-
I have the book in my hands. In it's fourth printing. It was copyrighted from 1931, and I heard it was still published as late as the early 60's. It has a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. The quote I gave you is verbatim the same. As well the editor says in the preface, "It has been the editor's aim to avoid so far as possible direct affirmation or a tone of certainty about matters which are not certain."
When I say someone else says the "same", I am not talking word-for-word sentences. I am talking the same idea and concept.
No, you do not have the same idea and concept. The pope said what the pope said, you change what he said when you add your own idea and concept to what he said, then you say that you are saying the same thing - that is absurd.
You are speaking of Paul IV. I am speaking of Pius IX, for example. Pius IX has said what I am saying; nothing absurd about that. You reject what Pius IX said because you wrongly perceive it to be contrary to Paul IV.
No, Pope Pius IX never said what you are saying and it is absurd to accuse him of that.
Okay, so it is clear that no matter what imprimatured Catholic source I give you that is less than solemn papal teaching, you will reject it as being against the solemn infallible teaching of Paul IV. Is that right, you only accept solemn teachings of the Church?
I accept all teaching that agree [I perceive does not disagree] with what the pope taught. When the impimatured Catholic source disagrees or contradicts with solemn papal teachings, then the impimatured Catholic source is wrong. One would think that as a sede yourself, no one would need to remind you of this.
"The Roman Pontiff.....who may judge all and be judged by none in this world" needs no further elaborations, interpretations or definitions *on purpose* and *by design*.
I have corrected what you really are saying.
No, you are simply doing with what I meant to say that you do with what the Church teaches - you cross out what the Church teaches and replace it with your own teaching. Unlike you, I understand the pope meant exactly what he said, I have no need to change his words in any way in order to justify completely twisting his words to fit my opinion.
You accuse Pope Paul IV and the perennial teachings of speaking like V2 and Paul VI - ambiguous and purposely unclear, but the fact is they meant exactly what they taught.
You and all NOers and SVs do this out of habit because of your years within the NO where everything the conciliar church taught was purposely ambiguous and requires interpretation and is still not understandable, however, before V2, when popes and councils taught, they always meant exactly what they said.
If you and all SVs and NOers can ever break this obsession of adding your own exceptions to everything the pre-V2 popes and councils have taught, you will have taken a step in the right direction - until then, you'd be better off praying and reading nothing rather than adulterating every pre-V2 papal teaching to suit your own opinion.
According to SV logic, a true pope cannot become a heretic because a true pope cannot err, since a true pope cannot err, how pray tell does a true pope become a heretic? How is it that you are able to embrace and promote such a conundrum as this?
It makes zero sense to you, because you don't personally understand it. It's all about you and your misunderstandings. A pope cannot "err", meaning he cannot make a MISTAKE when officially representing the Church. It does not mean that it prevents a pope from DELIBERATELY choosing heresy by his own free-will. The doctrine of free-will is thus preserved because God does not force the free-will of anyone.
Again, you adulterate your own misconception in order to justify your own error.
"A true pope cannot err" - - that's written in every SV handbook (if there were such a thing) in the world. It is the SV Lex Orandi which feeds the SV Lex Credendi. Again, what kind of SV are you that doesn't believe this most fundamental of all SV doctrine?
"It does not mean that it prevents a pope from DELIBERATELY choosing heresy by his own free-will. The doctrine of free-will is thus preserved because God does not force the free-will of anyone."
Contrary to another one of your circular bewildered replies, yes, that is EXACTLY what it means. Infallibility means that the Holy Ghost prevents a pope from the possibility of error - from DELIBERATELY teaching heresy by his own free-will. No matter how strong the free will of the pope is, the Holy Ghost will not permit even the possibility of error - THAT is papal infallibility fyi.
What kind of sede are you anyway that you don't accept this most fundamental of all SV doctrines? (did I ask that already? - perhaps this time you'll answer)
The entire SV opinion is based on their obsession that A true pope cannot become a heretic because a true pope cannot err, because the Holy Ghost prevents a true pope from DELIBERATELY teaching error. A false pope can err because the Holy Ghost does not protect a false pope from error. This is the whole doctrine of SVsm in a nutshell.
Go back and look in your SV handbook and you'll see I am right and you are wrong.
Now, in your circular bewildered state, your story has changed yet again because according to you, a true pope can choose to err against the dictates of God the Holy Ghost from whom we received the promise that the pope would be safeguarded from the possibility of error.
Not sure how many more circles you can make in your attempts to justify the rejection of papal teachings before your head spins right off.
-
You are speaking of Paul IV. I am speaking of Pius IX, for example. Pius IX has said what I am saying; nothing absurd about that. You reject what Pius IX said because you wrongly perceive it to be contrary to Paul IV.
As I already said, Pope Pius IX never said anything of the sort.
I have corrected what you really are saying.
No, you changed what I said, you did not correct what I said.
According to SV logic, a true pope cannot become a heretic because a true pope cannot err, since a true pope cannot err, how pray tell does a true pope become a heretic? How is it that you are able to embrace and promote such a conundrum as this?
It makes zero sense to you, because you don't personally understand it. It's all about you and your misunderstandings. A pope cannot "err", meaning he cannot make a MISTAKE when officially representing the Church. It does not mean that it prevents a pope from DELIBERATELY choosing heresy by his own free-will. The doctrine of free-will is thus preserved because God does not force the free-will of anyone.
The FINAL ANALYSIS is this......you believe that in Christ's divine Church, the pope can solemnly teach a dogma, and that after that it's possible for popes and his Holy Office to make quite public and solemn utterances that call into question that previous taught solemn dogma AND for nobody in the Church to notice but to peacefully accept it.
What you are doing is common among Feeneyites. It undermines and makes shipwreck of the virtue of divine Faith. Divine Faith trusts that such a thing is impossible in the Church, but you Feeneyites are imbued with that false principle against the Faith. It's an absolutely noxious principle to Catholicism and never existed among the Saints or anywhere else, except among heretics who have lost sight of what the divinity of the Church means. It entails that generations of faithful can live an die peacefully accepting what the pope and holy office say against a previously defined dogma. IMPOSSIBLE. The divine Faith demands you submit your will.
Again, you adulterate your own misconception in order to justify your own error.
"A true pope cannot err" - - that's written in every SV handbook (if there were such a thing) in the world. It is the SV Lex Orandi which feeds the SV Lex Credendi. Again, what kind of SV are you that doesn't believe this most fundamental of all SV doctrine?
"It does not mean that it prevents a pope from DELIBERATELY choosing heresy by his own free-will. The doctrine of free-will is thus preserved because God does not force the free-will of anyone."
Contrary to another one of your circular bewildered replies, yes, that is EXACTLY what it means. Infallibility means that the Holy Ghost prevents a pope from the possibility of error - from DELIBERATELY teaching heresy by his own free-will. No matter how strong the free will of the pope is, the Holy Ghost will not permit even the possibility of error - THAT is papal infallibility fyi.
What kind of sede are you anyway that you don't accept this most fundamental of all SV doctrines? (did I ask that already? - perhaps this time you'll answer)
The entire SV opinion is based on their obsession that A true pope cannot become a heretic because a true pope cannot err, because the Holy Ghost prevents a true pope from DELIBERATELY teaching error. A false pope can err because the Holy Ghost does not protect a false pope from error. This is the whole doctrine of SVsm in a nutshell.
Go back and look in your SV handbook and you'll see I am right and you are wrong.
Now, in your circular bewildered state, your story has changed yet again because according to you, a true pope can choose to err against the dictates of God the Holy Ghost from whom we received the promise that the pope would be safeguarded from the possibility of error.
Not sure how many more circles you can make in your attempts to justify the rejection of papal teachings before your head spins right off.
-
Stubborn....don't stubbornly ignore my "final analysis". You hold a doctrinally IMPOSSIBLE principle that is behind your whole problem of misunderstanding Church teaching.
You believe that popes and their holy offices can quite solemnly and publicly teach against previously solemnly taught dogma....and for nobody in Christendom to notice.
That is a principle of heretics who don't have the divine virtue of Faith. You ignored that in your response. But that is what you hold, which undermines and destroys the Catholic faith.
I didn't ignore it, I proved your analysis to be wrong and gave the reason it is wrong which reason, btw, comes from the SV doctrine that "true" popes cannot err. You keep changing my quote to suit your opinion - then you say I ignore your analysis and then it's more round and round in circles you go.
You now claim popes can err, which effectively destroys any reason to hold to your opinion that the Chair is vacant and is contrary to the whole doctrine of SVism.
Which is why I keep asking, what kind of SV are you? You reject the solemn papal teaching of Pope Paul IV and you believe "true" popes can err - kinda defeats the whole purpose of declaring yourself to be an SV.
Certainly even you agree with that.
-
Nope. The very first cause of your problem is that you believe this: that popes and their holy offices can quite solemnly and publicly teach against previously solemnly taught dogma....and for nobody in Christendom to notice.
Do you deny that you believe that?
You are not even asking the correct question. All your question does is exemplify your adulterated understanding of what papal infallibility even is and can only lead to more circular argumentation.
I find it hard to believe that SVs on this site have sat by and let you continually degrade their position and that they have not corralled you in to correct you a long time ago.
-
You're still not asking the correct question, all you did is rephrase your last question. Again, the reason is obvious - it's because you have no idea what papal infallibility is.
-
You're still not asking the correct question, all you did is rephrase your last question. Again, the reason is obvious - it's because you have no idea what papal infallibility is.
Evading the question once again. This is because you yourself don't understand that "papal infallibility" is NOT the infallibility of the Church. You think the Church is only protected by infallibility at those rare and solemn instances of dogma definition, where outside those rare, solemn instances, it becomes a free-for-all. You are missing a HUGE piece of Catholicism.
You don't appear to accept the truth that you must believe, with the SAME divine and Catholic faith as you believe solemn teachings, also all the truths taught by the Church that are not solemnly taught.
I'm not evading the question - you are asking a question that by design can only result in more circular arguments which I am not going to partake of.
You need to ask the question correctly, by that I mean the question you ask should reflect your sede doctrine directly and not as the wandering argument machine that you are.
You have embraced the conundrum, I haven't, but you don't even understand the conundrum you embrace and your question demonstrates this.
Now you can attempt to actually answer the below question:
According to SV logic, a true pope cannot become a heretic because a true pope cannot err, since a true pope cannot err, how pray tell does a true pope become a heretic? How is it that you are able to embrace and promote such a conundrum as this?
You need to actually understand and believe in the doctrines of Infallibility and Indefectibility, which you don't, but if you did, you would be able to answer the above question with a coherent reply, one which while being the truth, contradicts your current opinion.
-
I already DIRECTLY answered that question two days ago when Cantarella asked it, and she just dropped out of the discussion. You need to keep up with the thread if you are going to participate.
Because you end up with a logical fallacy. You have no better argument than "a heretical Pope ceases to be Pope", however:
1. You don't know what heresy even is.
2. You don't know what bishops are "holding the keys" or supplying to Jurisdiction... or wait yes, you respond to this that jurisdiction is not really needed or that these bishops can be "invisible" which is heresy.
3. You don't know why after more than half a century the "Citizens of Rome" have not yet elected a new Pope.
4. You don't know who the last true Pope is.
5. You cannot make a difference between what is infallible and what is not (therefore, what MAY contain errors). You don't understand the difference between infallibility and impeccability.
6. You are in complete denial of the fact that after a Pope election has been accepted by all bishops and cardinals, then this constitute proof that the elections are valid.
7. You fail to understand that the Church MUST INCLUDE a hierarchy and a visible Magisterium.
8. You fail to understand that Catholicism without the Pope is an oxymoron.
etc etc etc!!!!
...Or then you go rambling about a concept you simple have no understanding of which is "Epikeia"...you are all over the place but 99% of what you say are nothing but errors you make up as you go along the thread. That is why it gets exhausting keeping up.
You keep redefining the Church to fit your pet theory but to all of these questions you have nothing better to say than "a heretic cannot be Pope" and that is the end of your whole argument.
Very, very simplistic indeed. Sorry, but reality does not fit with your elementary understanding of things, Nado.
-
I already DIRECTLY answered that question two days ago when Cantarella asked it, and she just dropped out of the discussion. You need to keep up with the thread if you are going to participate.
Because you end up with a logical fallacy. You have no better argument than "a heretical Pope ceases to be Pope", however:
1. You don't know what heresy even is.
2. You don't know what bishops are "holding the keys" or supplying to Jurisdiction... or wait yes, you respond to this that jurisdiction is not really needed or that these bishops can be "invisible" which is heresy.
3. You don't know why after more than half a century the "Citizens of Rome" have not yet elected a new Pope.
4. You don't know who the last true Pope is.
5. You cannot make a difference between what is infallible and what is not (therefore, what MAY contain errors). You don't understand the difference between infallibility and impeccability.
6. You are in complete denial of the fact that after a Pope election has been accepted by all bishops and cardinals, then this constitute proof that the elections are valid.
7. You fail to understand that the Church MUST INCLUDE a hierarchy and a visible Magisterium.
8. You fail to understand that Catholicism without the Pope is an oxymoron.
etc etc etc!!!!
...Or then you go rambling about a concept you simple have no understanding of which is "Epikeia"...you are all over the place but 99% of what you say are nothing but errors you make up as you go along the thread. That is why it gets exhausting keeping up.
You keep redefining the Church to fit your pet theory but to all of these questions you have nothing better to say than "a heretic cannot be Pope" and that is the end of your whole argument.
Very, very simplistic indeed. Sorry, but reality does not fit with your elementary understanding of things, Nado.
I will have a one-on-one discussion about anything in particular here, and you are known for dropping out of the conversation very quickly....because that is all you really can do. I have specifically answered several of the things you mention above, and after you had dropped out, you seem to spend time conveniently forgetting that you ever got an answer, and then you start up again like a parrot. It's like you had Alzheimers.
Who is the last true Pope, Nado?
-
I already DIRECTLY answered that question two days ago when Cantarella asked it, and she just dropped out of the discussion. You need to keep up with the thread if you are going to participate.
Because you end up with a logical fallacy. You have no better argument than "a heretical Pope ceases to be Pope", however:
1. You don't know what heresy even is.
2. You don't know what bishops are "holding the keys" or supplying to Jurisdiction... or wait yes, you respond to this that jurisdiction is not really needed or that these bishops can be "invisible" which is heresy.
3. You don't know why after more than half a century the "Citizens of Rome" have not yet elected a new Pope.
4. You don't know who the last true Pope is.
5. You cannot make a difference between what is infallible and what is not (therefore, what MAY contain errors). You don't understand the difference between infallibility and impeccability.
6. You are in complete denial of the fact that after a Pope election has been accepted by all bishops and cardinals, then this constitute proof that the elections are valid.
7. You fail to understand that the Church MUST INCLUDE a hierarchy and a visible Magisterium.
8. You fail to understand that Catholicism without the Pope is an oxymoron.
etc etc etc!!!!
...Or then you go rambling about a concept you simple have no understanding of which is "Epikeia"...you are all over the place but 99% of what you say are nothing but errors you make up as you go along the thread. That is why it gets exhausting keeping up.
You keep redefining the Church to fit your pet theory but to all of these questions you have nothing better to say than "a heretic cannot be Pope" and that is the end of your whole argument.
Very, very simplistic indeed. Sorry, but reality does not fit with your elementary understanding of things, Nado.
I will have a one-on-one discussion about anything in particular here, and you are known for dropping out of the conversation very quickly....because that is all you really can do. I have specifically answered several of the things you mention above, and after you had dropped out, you seem to spend time conveniently forgetting that you ever got an answer, and then you start up again like a parrot. It's like you had Alzheimers.
Who is the last true Pope, Nado?
Is CMRI schismatic?
IOW, I think you need to start a new thread.
Classic Nado!
He says he is willing to one-on-one discuss any of the 8 points presented and then at the first question, he is evasive.
What happen Nado, don't you have an speculation about who the last True Pope may be?
CMRI says Pope Pius XII. What say you?
-
why would receiving the Sacrament of Holy Orders in an emergency from that same [schismatic Old Catholic] bishop, make the recipient in schism?
Where on Earth did you learn this? Stubborn is right here. Cite the provision in the law that allows for this, or a theologian who teaches this is allowed, or retract your statement, because anyone who follows the advice you give them will find it gives them a one way ticket straight to hell. Canon Law, Pope Pius XII and innumerable theologians on the contrary teach you that you will incur an automatic excommunication reserved to the Pope for doing so.
We are not talking about one Catholic consecrating another Catholic and awaiting Papal confirmation, something that has happened before. You are claiming that a schismatic "Old Catholic" can consecrate a Catholic, and that the Catholic who receives that can just continue the schismatic lineage, is that correct?
The truth is something completely different and should be well known, Bp. Fellay aptly explained a while ago, "There is a principle of action in the Catholic Church that says if a Catholic receives ordination outside of the Church from a schismatic movement, (the Orthodox, etc.), he may come back into the Church, but may never exercise the sacramental power he has stolen from outside the Church. It is a general principle applied up to the present."
We have basically two issues here 1. When a Catholic dares to "steal" Holy Orders from the hands of a schismatic bishop outside the Church, he incurs an excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See. This means only the Pope can remit that censure, which according to you is not possible now. 2 Second, even after he submits to the Papacy and the keys, abjures his error, repents of his sin, and is received back to the communion of the Church, he is never ever allowed to exercise that order, because receiving orders and especially consecration from a schismatic is a heinous and intrinsically schismatic act. That line is forever tainted, and though the Pope may forgive the sin later on, as a penalty for that sin, that "stolen" order cannot be exercised.
This is a far cry from what you are claiming, that one can receive and continue a schismatic lineage at one's pleasure and without scruple. It is heretical and it shows just how far into error you have fallen once you have dispensed with any necessity of the Papacy for the continuation of the hierarchical Church.
Do you also believe now that you can attend a schismatic Old Catholic Mass, or an Orthodox (not Eastern Catholic) Divine Liturgy celebrated outside the Church, given the state of necessity? And are you really claiming that if one of us can find a schismatic "Old Catholic" kook out there willing to commit the sacrilegious, illicit and criminal act, any of us can actually lawfully obtain episcopal consecration from him if we wished, given the state of necessity? Utterly heretical garbage. Even the CMRI has never ever claimed what you are claiming. In charity I must warn you, what you claim puts you in danger of heresy.
-
Nado has been told repeatedly that the concept of Epikeia des not apply to Jurisdiction issues. Therefore a false and schismatic Bishop will not become a real and true Bishop by means of Epikeia. Epikeia is not a concept to be carelessly toying around, is used in extremely rare cases, and is not a free pass to do whatever you want with the law. But as all schismatics and heretics do, they twist the real meaning of the concepts in order to obliterate Catholic dogma.
Nado's claims are actually quite dangerous and no Catholic, who has a real concern for his soul, should listen to this type of heretic and schismatic speech. Perhaps Nado does not have an ill intention but he just does not see how serious this can be.
Nado, do you understand that only Jesus enters Heaven? This means that anyone outside the Body of Christ (The Church) will perish forever in Hell.
All those consecrated by Bishop Thuc or by others of his line (or by any other heretic or schismatic) cannot exercise their orders lawfully since they (in addition to being heretics and outside the Church) lack the canonical mission which the Council of Trent dogmatically teaches to be necessary for a bishop to be a legitimate minister of the word and the sacraments:
“If anyone say… that those who have not been rightly ordained by ecclesiastical and canonical power and have not been sent [by the Church], but come from some other source [such as a heretical or schismatical source], are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments: let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Session XXIII, Canon VII; Denzinger 967).
If illegal bishops and priests, such as the Thucites, want to enter the Catholic Church and have their sins forgiven, they must abjure by renouncing their schismatic crime and any heresies they believe in, along with the public crimes of schism and heresy of the non-Catholic bishop who consecrated or ordained them.
The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Holy Orders: “[p. 103] If they had embraced any errors, they had previously to abjure them; if they had not embraced any errors, they had nevertheless to renounce the schism of their ordaining prelate. The abjuration was to be made either publicly or secretly, as the facts in the case directed.”
-
Nado has been told repeatedly that the concept of Epikeia des not apply to Jurisdiction issues. Therefore a false and schismatic Bishop will not become a real and true Bishop
Yet, you believe a false schismatic pope can become a true pope just because he has possession of worldly things (Catholic Property), yet lacks the Faith.
-
1. When a Catholic dares to "steal" Holy Orders from the hands of a schismatic bishop outside the Church, he incurs an excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See. This means only the Pope can remit that censure, which according to you is not possible now.
Any valid Sacraments existing outside of the Catholic Church are considered to have been stolen by the non-Catholic, not the other way around. The excommunication is by ecclesiastical law, not by divine law. Epikeia applies to ecclesiastical law. I will skip a lot of things you said, because they are all excused by epikeia in an extreme circuмstance.
Don't you remember we already went over this? As Nishant said: "Even the CMRI has never ever claimed what you are claiming."
Schuckardt and his little group had priests, had the sacraments, had the Mass, God saw to it that he and his little group had what they needed to persevere in the faith, crisis or no crisis - but no, Schuckardt willingly threw that all away, this is why you cannot claim epikeia.
Also
FYI, if there is an Old Catholic who is able to administer the sacraments in an emergency - THEN YOU DO NOT NEED TO GET ORDAINED SO THAT YOU CAN DO IT YOURSELF. Try to always remember this, it's a good thing to know.
Also
It is because it is an absolute MUST that one MUST receive Holy Orders from a bishop of the Catholic Church, which is to say conversely that one CAN NEVER receive Holy Orders from a bishop in schism without themselves entering schism - EVEN SCHUCKARDT KNEW THAT HE COULD NOT PLEAD EPIKEIA, THAT IT COULD NOT APPLY. You are worse than Schuckardt to keep harping on about this ridiculous reasoning in your attempt to justify schism.
-
Nado has been told repeatedly that the concept of Epikeia des not apply to Jurisdiction issues. Therefore a false and schismatic Bishop will not become a real and true Bishop
Yet, you believe a false schismatic pope can become a true pope just because he has possession of worldly things (Catholic Property), yet lacks the Faith.
Yet, you believe a false schismatic sect can become the true church just because they have possession of worldly things (Catholic Property), yet lacks the Faith.
You have only your opinion that the pope is a false pope, the really terrible thing is, that is all you will ever have.
The Sedevacantists position is one that has always been held as the least probable theological opinion and yet we fail to understand how one would base their salvation on a debatable theological opinion which in itself is not even the most probable according to Catholic teaching.
-
Nado has been told repeatedly that the concept of Epikeia des not apply to Jurisdiction issues. Therefore a false and schismatic Bishop will not become a real and true Bishop
Yet, you believe a false schismatic pope can become a true pope just because he has possession of worldly things (Catholic Property), yet lacks the Faith.
Yet, you believe a false schismatic sect can become the true church just because they have possession of worldly things (Catholic Property), yet lacks the Faith.
You have only your opinion that the pope is a false pope, the really terrible thing is, that is all you will ever have.
The Sedevacantists position is one that has always been held as the least probable theological opinion and yet we fail to understand how one would base their salvation on a debatable theological opinion which in itself is not even the most probable according to Catholic teaching.
:roll-laugh1: Sorry if this wasn't so sad, it would be funny!
How dare you and Cantarella use the word schismatic in the same sentence with our Bishop, when YOUR POPE is:
http://tinyurl.com/pxybkxd
-
I gave you a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia showing that historically there were "wandering bishops" without ordinary jurisdiction, and no mention they were not Catholic. This is because the laws of the Church require a bishop to at least have a title to a diocese, even if the see doesn't really exist (titular bishop).
The Pope and the hierarchy are still visible in Rome to "supply jurisdiction" for these "wandering popes" but of course, in the sede pet theory not such thing can occur, since there is no Pope. Again, supplied jurisdiction comes from the authority which is wielded by the Pope, and held by the Church (Bishops). This supplied jurisdiction arises when there is an error on the part of the laymen as to the validity of the faculties, if the laymen were to receive the sacraments from a Priest who lacked faculties and was ignorant of that fact, the Church would supply it. It is the Church that supplies it, not a lone self-proclaimed Bishop hiding in the crowd which is what the CMRI cult pretends.
As said before, the bishop has absolutely no right to his own diocese. It is the Pope who grants the title of a diocese to a bishop.
But the point is, what Trent is demanding is NOT divine law, but ecclesiastical law.
Ecclesiastical Law DOES NOT and CAN NOT contradict Divine Law. End of story.
Pope Pius XII's encyclical about bishoprics in China also reveals that it is not divine law.
Again, the China example does not apply. The visible magisterium still existed in Rome, with the Pope and Bishops. The magisterium must always exist and the Church includes a hierarchy.
-
I gave you a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia showing that historically there were "wandering bishops" without ordinary jurisdiction, and no mention they were not Catholic. This is because the laws of the Church require a bishop to at least have a title to a diocese, even if the see doesn't really exist (titular bishop).
The Pope and the hierarchy are still visible in Rome to "supply jurisdiction" for these "wandering popes" but of course, in the sede pet theory not such thing can occur, since there is no Pope. Again, supplied jurisdiction comes from the authority which is wielded by the Pope, and held by the Church (Bishops). This supplied jurisdiction arises when there is an error on the part of the laymen as to the validity of the faculties, if the laymen were to receive the sacraments from a Priest who lacked faculties and was ignorant of that fact, the Church would supply it. It is the Church that supplies it, not a lone self-proclaimed Bishop hiding in the crowd which is what the CMRI cult pretends.
Supplied jurisdiction is automatically supplied by the Church whether there is a reigning pope, or whether they are still waiting to elect a new one. It is something that simply occurs automatically upon each act that is performed out of necessity. How many times do I have to say this to you while you ignore it? I already gave quotes from an approved Catholic dissertation to support it.
As said before, the bishop has absolutely no right to his own diocese. It is the Pope who grants the title of a diocese to a bishop.
This is true, but it has nothing to so with the fact that wandering bishops (without title or diocese) have historically been considered Catholic and part of the hierarchy.
But the point is, what Trent is demanding is NOT divine law, but ecclesiastical law.
Ecclesiastical Law DOES NOT and CAN NOT contradict Divine Law. End of story.
This is true, but I don't know why you are saying this, because I have never claimed otherwise.
Well, Ecclesiastical Law presumes we have a valid Pope unless the Church formally declares otherwise. These ecclesiastical laws serve the Divine Law and the Church’s unicity and indefectibility. They also reflect the wisdom of the Church which recognizes that determining formal heresy is a sensitive matter requiring great caution and prudence, especially when dealing with the Roman Pontiff!. To be a formal heretic, one must willfully and pertinaciously deny or doubt a dogma of the Faith.
Why would the Church be waiting more than half a century ago, to elect a New Pope? That is imprudent non-sense.
-
I gave you a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia showing that historically there were "wandering bishops" without ordinary jurisdiction, and no mention they were not Catholic. This is because the laws of the Church require a bishop to at least have a title to a diocese, even if the see doesn't really exist (titular bishop).
The Pope and the hierarchy are still visible in Rome to "supply jurisdiction" for these "wandering popes" but of course, in the sede pet theory not such thing can occur, since there is no Pope. Again, supplied jurisdiction comes from the authority which is wielded by the Pope, and held by the Church (Bishops). This supplied jurisdiction arises when there is an error on the part of the laymen as to the validity of the faculties, if the laymen were to receive the sacraments from a Priest who lacked faculties and was ignorant of that fact, the Church would supply it. It is the Church that supplies it, not a lone self-proclaimed Bishop hiding in the crowd which is what the CMRI cult pretends.
Supplied jurisdiction is automatically supplied by the Church whether there is a reigning pope, or whether they are still waiting to elect a new one. It is something that simply occurs automatically upon each act that is performed out of necessity. How many times do I have to say this to you while you ignore it? I already gave quotes from an approved Catholic dissertation to support it.
As said before, the bishop has absolutely no right to his own diocese. It is the Pope who grants the title of a diocese to a bishop.
This is true, but it has nothing to so with the fact that wandering bishops (without title or diocese) have historically been considered Catholic and part of the hierarchy.
But the point is, what Trent is demanding is NOT divine law, but ecclesiastical law.
Ecclesiastical Law DOES NOT and CAN NOT contradict Divine Law. End of story.
This is true, but I don't know why you are saying this, because I have never claimed otherwise.
Well, Ecclesiastical Law presumes we have a valid Pope unless the Church formally declares otherwise. These ecclesiastical laws serve the Divine Law and the Church’s unicity and indefectibility. They also reflect the wisdom of the Church which recognizes that determining formal heresy is a sensitive matter requiring great caution and prudence, especially when dealing with the Roman Pontiff!. To be a formal heretic, one must willfully and pertinaciously deny or doubt a dogma of the Faith.
Why would the Church be waiting more than half a century ago, to elect a New Pope? That is imprudent non-sense.
Let it be seen here, that all you did was click REPLY, as if you were going to actually respond to my points, but instead you completely changed the subject!
What you say here is what Stubborn has been denying (that a man who ceased to be pope, can finally be judged to not be a pope), yet don't expect a fellow Feeneyite traveler to publicly object! If he is consistent, he should be saying to you that you are going against the dogma that nobody can judge a pope.
You are here admitting that a pope can become a heretic, and that "great caution and prudence" are needed to determine it. I don't object to this. However, I have in another thread explained how this can become certain....and all you did was post a picture of a unicorn because you didn't want to hear it!
First of all, that the Pope can become a heretic is only but speculation not a fact. Second, what happens IF the Pope does become a heretic, also belongs to the realm of theological speculation. Bellarmine's opinion is only that, an opinion. Not Church teaching. Whatever it is, fact remains that it is de fide that the Pope cannot be judged by anyone in this earth. A Pope can be rebuked and corrected but this can be done by the Catholic bishops (particularly cardinals and archbishops), not individual laymen. In a worst case scenario, an ecuмenical council of the whole Catholic Church can be called, as we saw with the Council of Constance.
These are opinions. There is no consensus among theologians about what happens in the case of a heretical Pope. I personally tend to share Suarez opinion: that the Pope in fact CAN become a heretic, and that he needs to be resisted and eventually properly dealt with by competent authority (bishops and cardinals) following the necessary procedures and warnings.
Whatever it is, reality does not fit with sede pet logic.
-
I gave you a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia showing that historically there were "wandering bishops" without ordinary jurisdiction, and no mention they were not Catholic. This is because the laws of the Church require a bishop to at least have a title to a diocese, even if the see doesn't really exist (titular bishop).
The Pope and the hierarchy are still visible in Rome to "supply jurisdiction" for these "wandering popes" but of course, in the sede pet theory not such thing can occur, since there is no Pope. Again, supplied jurisdiction comes from the authority which is wielded by the Pope, and held by the Church (Bishops). This supplied jurisdiction arises when there is an error on the part of the laymen as to the validity of the faculties, if the laymen were to receive the sacraments from a Priest who lacked faculties and was ignorant of that fact, the Church would supply it. It is the Church that supplies it, not a lone self-proclaimed Bishop hiding in the crowd which is what the CMRI cult pretends.
Supplied jurisdiction is automatically supplied by the Church whether there is a reigning pope, or whether they are still waiting to elect a new one. It is something that simply occurs automatically upon each act that is performed out of necessity. How many times do I have to say this to you while you ignore it? I already gave quotes from an approved Catholic dissertation to support it.
As said before, the bishop has absolutely no right to his own diocese. It is the Pope who grants the title of a diocese to a bishop.
This is true, but it has nothing to so with the fact that wandering bishops (without title or diocese) have historically been considered Catholic and part of the hierarchy.
But the point is, what Trent is demanding is NOT divine law, but ecclesiastical law.
Ecclesiastical Law DOES NOT and CAN NOT contradict Divine Law. End of story.
This is true, but I don't know why you are saying this, because I have never claimed otherwise.
Well, Ecclesiastical Law presumes we have a valid Pope unless the Church formally declares otherwise. These ecclesiastical laws serve the Divine Law and the Church’s unicity and indefectibility. They also reflect the wisdom of the Church which recognizes that determining formal heresy is a sensitive matter requiring great caution and prudence, especially when dealing with the Roman Pontiff!. To be a formal heretic, one must willfully and pertinaciously deny or doubt a dogma of the Faith.
Why would the Church be waiting more than half a century ago, to elect a New Pope? That is imprudent non-sense.
Let it be seen here, that all you did was click REPLY, as if you were going to actually respond to my points, but instead you completely changed the subject!
What you say here is what Stubborn has been denying (that a man who ceased to be pope, can finally be judged to not be a pope), yet don't expect a fellow Feeneyite traveler to publicly object! If he is consistent, he should be saying to you that you are going against the dogma that nobody can judge a pope.
You are here admitting that a pope can become a heretic, and that "great caution and prudence" are needed to determine it. I don't object to this. However, I have in another thread explained how this can become certain....and all you did was post a picture of a unicorn because you didn't want to hear it!
First of all, that the Pope can become a heretic is only but speculation not a fact. Second, what happens IF the Pope does become a heretic, also belongs to the realm of theological speculation. Bellarmine's opinion is only that, an opinion. Not Church teaching. Whatever it is, fact remains that it is de fide that the Pope cannot be judged by anyone in this earth. A Pope can be rebuked and corrected but this can be done by the Catholic bishops (particularly cardinals and archbishops), not individual laymen. In a worst case scenario, an ecuмenical council of the whole Catholic Church can be called, as we saw with the Council of Constance.
These are opinions. There is no consensus among theologians about what happens in the case of a heretical Pope. I personally tend to share Suarez opinion: that the Pope in fact CAN become a heretic, and that he needs to be resisted and eventually properly dealt with by competent authority (bishops and cardinals) following the necessary procedures and warnings.
Whatever it is, reality does not fit with sede pet logic.
I see you insist to stay to the subject you suddenly switched to, instead of to the original points.
All this has been addressed with you before, and you bail out every time, only to return weeks later as if you never heard anything.
Bellarmine is the Saint, as well as the declared "Doctor" (Teacher) of the Church. What he wrote as being the "fifth opinion" he said was the "true" one, supported by all the Church fathers. St. Francis de Sales, also the Saint and Doctor, absolutely taught the same, as the truth, when writing to Protestants about it. Pope Pius IX, on the occasion of declaring St. Francis a Doctor, said that what he wrote to the Protestants was a "full and complete demonstration of the Catholic religion". After the Vatican Council (1870), all approved Catholic publications for general clergy and laity, even scrutinized by the Holy See directly, teach this as the truth, with no other opinion mentioned.
It's all based on the solid Church teachings that:
1) God forces no man's free-will.
2) a man can be neither pope nor Catholic without the divine virtue of Faith.
3) a pope can be judged by nobody.
All the quotes say the man who ceases to be pope, can be judged and punished by the Church. This is because the man is already recognized with certainty to no longer be pope.
You are the one that evaded the question of who the last True Pope is, which has not been talked about before and that has everything to do with the CMRI schism given that they are schismatics precisely because of sedevacantism and their refusal to be in juridical communion with the visible reigning Bishop of Rome. You are the one that always come to the same old erroneous ideas, like you did not hear anything.
-
I gave you a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia showing that historically there were "wandering bishops" without ordinary jurisdiction, and no mention they were not Catholic. This is because the laws of the Church require a bishop to at least have a title to a diocese, even if the see doesn't really exist (titular bishop).
The Pope and the hierarchy are still visible in Rome to "supply jurisdiction" for these "wandering popes" but of course, in the sede pet theory not such thing can occur, since there is no Pope. Again, supplied jurisdiction comes from the authority which is wielded by the Pope, and held by the Church (Bishops). This supplied jurisdiction arises when there is an error on the part of the laymen as to the validity of the faculties, if the laymen were to receive the sacraments from a Priest who lacked faculties and was ignorant of that fact, the Church would supply it. It is the Church that supplies it, not a lone self-proclaimed Bishop hiding in the crowd which is what the CMRI cult pretends.
Supplied jurisdiction is automatically supplied by the Church whether there is a reigning pope, or whether they are still waiting to elect a new one. It is something that simply occurs automatically upon each act that is performed out of necessity. How many times do I have to say this to you while you ignore it? I already gave quotes from an approved Catholic dissertation to support it.
As said before, the bishop has absolutely no right to his own diocese. It is the Pope who grants the title of a diocese to a bishop.
This is true, but it has nothing to so with the fact that wandering bishops (without title or diocese) have historically been considered Catholic and part of the hierarchy.
But the point is, what Trent is demanding is NOT divine law, but ecclesiastical law.
Ecclesiastical Law DOES NOT and CAN NOT contradict Divine Law. End of story.
This is true, but I don't know why you are saying this, because I have never claimed otherwise.
Well, Ecclesiastical Law presumes we have a valid Pope unless the Church formally declares otherwise. These ecclesiastical laws serve the Divine Law and the Church’s unicity and indefectibility. They also reflect the wisdom of the Church which recognizes that determining formal heresy is a sensitive matter requiring great caution and prudence, especially when dealing with the Roman Pontiff!. To be a formal heretic, one must willfully and pertinaciously deny or doubt a dogma of the Faith.
Why would the Church be waiting more than half a century ago, to elect a New Pope? That is imprudent non-sense.
Let it be seen here, that all you did was click REPLY, as if you were going to actually respond to my points, but instead you completely changed the subject!
What you say here is what Stubborn has been denying (that a man who ceased to be pope, can finally be judged to not be a pope), yet don't expect a fellow Feeneyite traveler to publicly object! If he is consistent, he should be saying to you that you are going against the dogma that nobody can judge a pope.
You are here admitting that a pope can become a heretic, and that "great caution and prudence" are needed to determine it. I don't object to this. However, I have in another thread explained how this can become certain....and all you did was post a picture of a unicorn because you didn't want to hear it!
First of all, that the Pope can become a heretic is only but speculation not a fact. Second, what happens IF the Pope does become a heretic, also belongs to the realm of theological speculation. Bellarmine's opinion is only that, an opinion. Not Church teaching. Whatever it is, fact remains that it is de fide that the Pope cannot be judged by anyone in this earth. A Pope can be rebuked and corrected but this can be done by the Catholic bishops (particularly cardinals and archbishops), not individual laymen. In a worst case scenario, an ecuмenical council of the whole Catholic Church can be called, as we saw with the Council of Constance.
These are opinions. There is no consensus among theologians about what happens in the case of a heretical Pope. I personally tend to share Suarez opinion: that the Pope in fact CAN become a heretic, and that he needs to be resisted and eventually properly dealt with by competent authority (bishops and cardinals) following the necessary procedures and warnings.
Whatever it is, reality does not fit with sede pet logic.
I see you insist to stay to the subject you suddenly switched to, instead of to the original points.
All this has been addressed with you before, and you bail out every time, only to return weeks later as if you never heard anything.
Bellarmine is the Saint, as well as the declared "Doctor" (Teacher) of the Church. What he wrote as being the "fifth opinion" he said was the "true" one, supported by all the Church fathers. St. Francis de Sales, also the Saint and Doctor, absolutely taught the same, as the truth, when writing to Protestants about it. Pope Pius IX, on the occasion of declaring St. Francis a Doctor, said that what he wrote to the Protestants was a "full and complete demonstration of the Catholic religion". After the Vatican Council (1870), all approved Catholic publications for general clergy and laity, even scrutinized by the Holy See directly, teach this as the truth, with no other opinion mentioned.
It's all based on the solid Church teachings that:
1) God forces no man's free-will.
2) a man can be neither pope nor Catholic without the divine virtue of Faith.
3) a pope can be judged by nobody.
All the quotes say the man who ceases to be pope, can be judged and punished by the Church. This is because the man is already recognized with certainty to no longer be pope.
Even if the opinion is true, that is not excuse for a Catholic to separate himself from the Church that Christ founded and start receiving the "sacraments" from schismatics hands. Being outside the Church is being outside the Body of Jesus Christ, lacking in supernatural Grace and unable to enter Heaven.
To do just this only because of a personal speculation?
Not worthy!
-
Cantarella I agree there is no question that CMRI is schismatic. Yet the Modernist Mr. Bergoglio was a docuмented manifest heretic (as were Ratzinger, Wojtyla and the other V2 impostors) prior to their "elections as pope", which cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio clearly teaches made them ineligible to ever become pope.
It is impossible for a human being who is a non-pope to create Catholic Cardinals. How are you claiming Mr. Bergoglio was lawfully elected? You are familiar of the eternal curses emanating from Paul IV's cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio for those who disobey its infallible teachings?
cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio
"Providently, Church judgments, such as the Bulla of Pope Paul IV, become operative without need of official action. The Bulla of Paul IV is conditional not on reprimand but on public heresy. The Bulla, itself, constitutes the essential canonical reprimand. Accordingly, one who, before his election to the Papal Chair, was a hardened, public heretic, as in the case of Paul 6, cannot be the legitimate successor of Peter. If he should sit in the Holy Chair, he does so as an usurper." (TVS, 1979)
BULLA OF PAUL IV (from cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio)
"We declare that if ever a Bishop, Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate, a Cardinal or a Legatee, OR EVEN A SOVEREIGN POPE, had, before their elevation to the Cardinalcy or Pontificate, deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy, the promotion or elevation - even if it had taken place with the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals - is INVALID and NULL, without value and one cannot say that it is valid because the person concerned accepts the Office, receives the Consecration and then enters into possession of the government and administration [of the Office], or by the homage rendered to him by all; one cannot accept him as legitimate, and none of his acts of power or administration may be deemed valid whether Bishops, Cardinals OR SOVEREIGN POPES. All their words, deeds and actions, their administration and all that proceeds from them - all these are without value and have no authority or command over anyone. These men, so promoted and elevated, will be by the same fact deprived of all dignity, place, honor, title and power." (February 15, 1559.)
[By this Papal Decree allegiance and loyalty to the Second Vatican Council, a council dishonoring the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church and introducing false doctrine (heresy) into the Church disqualifies one from legitimate succession to the Chair of Peter. Paul IV's Decree marks the V-2 holders of the Holy Office as bogus popes having absolutely no power, dignity, honor or title. Thus no obedience or respect is owed to them.]
Everything makes sense in cuм Ex Apostolatus no doubt. However, that docuмent has been abrogated at least 3 times by three different pontiffs proving that is was actually Ecclesiastical Law, not Divine Law so it was modified and no longer applies.
Pope St. Pius X: “None of the Cardinals may be in any way excluded from the active or
passive election of the Sovereign Pontiff under pretext or by reason of any
excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment” (Vacante
Sede Apostolica, 1904).
Pope Pius XII: “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any
excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical
impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff”
(Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945).
Another point to consider about the invalidity of the elections themselves is that we know with certainty that the acceptance of a Papal election by the Church, in particular by the Cardinals and Bishops "is a sign and infallible effect" of a valid election.
Ex cuм is not infallible. It is about disciplinary matters and that is why they could abrogated it.
-
cuм ex Apostolatus Officio does too still apply!
If a prior law is bound up with an actual 'oath' (which cuм ex Apostolatus Officio has at its end) which reads into it immunity from abrogation, the law is not countermanded unless express mention is made to that effect. The reasons for this assertion are that the legislator is mindful of a law which has an oath attached and hence abrogation would be invalid.
So if abrogation is invalid, then what about Pope Pius X and XII? Are you saying that they both abrogated Ex cuм invalidly?
-
Pope St. Pius X: “None of the Cardinals may be in any way excluded from the active or passive election of the Sovereign Pontiff under pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment” (Vacante Sede Apostolica, 1904).
Pope Pius XII: “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff”
(Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945).
These disciplines from Popes Pius X, and Pius XII on voting procedures at a Papal Conclave must to be understood by the "mind of the Church".
I have seen docuмentation that Roncalli was a manifest heretic prior to the October 1958 Conclave, which he voted at. As a Freemason he was a hidden heretic as well. He alluded detection to get into the 1958 Conclave to commit one of the gravest crimes in the history of the world. (The violent pushing aside of the true Pope elected on Oct 26, 1958).
So Roncalli's being a manifest heretic prior to the 1958 Conclave, made him ineligible to ever be pope, according to Pope Paul IV's infallible cuм ex Apostolatus Officio.
"The Rock has always withstood the test of time. But one will be entered into the House of God. Woe to man when
he [not God] places him upon the See of Peter for then, the Great Day of the Lord is at hand." -Pope St. Pius X:
If cuм Ex Apostolic was infallible (divine law) then it could not have been modified. To teach opposite would be heresy but that was precisely done by three pontiffs: Pius X, Benedict XIV, and Pius XII.
In any case, where is the docuмentation proving that Roncalli was a "Manifest Heretic"? and if his heresy was so undoubtedly manifest, how come Pope Pius XII did not ever say anything, but in fact appointed him and placed him in positions of power within the Vatican?. Why there was no legal procedure conducted on him as required in the 1917 Code of Canon Law in cases of heresy?.
-
Pope St. Pius X: “None of the Cardinals may be in any way excluded from the active or passive election of the Sovereign Pontiff under pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment” (Vacante Sede Apostolica, 1904).
Pope Pius XII: “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff”
(Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945).
These disciplines from Popes Pius X, and Pius XII on voting procedures at a Papal Conclave must to be understood by the "mind of the Church".
I have seen docuмentation that Roncalli was a manifest heretic prior to the October 1958 Conclave, which he voted at. As a Freemason he was a hidden heretic as well. He alluded detection to get into the 1958 Conclave to commit one of the gravest crimes in the history of the world. (The violent pushing aside of the true Pope elected on Oct 26, 1958).
So Roncalli's being a manifest heretic prior to the 1958 Conclave, made him ineligible to ever be pope, according to Pope Paul IV's infallible cuм ex Apostolatus Officio.
"The Rock has always withstood the test of time. But one will be entered into the House of God. Woe to man when
he [not God] places him upon the See of Peter for then, the Great Day of the Lord is at hand." -Pope St. Pius X:
If cuм Ex Apostolic was infallible (divine law) then it could not have been modified. To teach opposite would be heresy but that was precisely done by three pontiffs: Pius X, Benedict XIV, and Pius XII.
In any case, where is the docuмentation proving that Roncalli was a "Manifest Heretic"? and if his heresy was so undoubtedly manifest, how come Pope Pius XII did not ever say anything, but in fact appointed him and placed him in positions of power within the Vatican?. Why there was no legal procedure conducted on him as required in the 1917 Code of Canon Law in cases of heresy?.
What are you claiming Pius X, Benedict XIV, and Pius XII precisely taught that was opposite of Pope Paul IV's infallible *cuм ex Apostolatus Officio?
*which is part of the Ordinary Magisterium
Because they clearly teach that an excommunicated person can still be elected Roman Pontiff. Major excommunications are incurred for heresy and schism (sins against the faith) and certain other major sins.
From Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis:
"None of the cardinals may in any way, or by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the supreme pontiff. We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor"
-
Regarding Pope Pius XII. No one can judge a pope. However it is a fact that there have been strong and weak popes. He was a WEAK pope, and perhaps the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, which will be with us until the end of time, may make some solemn judgement against him, in the future.
"God will permit a great evil against His Church"
"These are evil times, a century full of dangers and calamities. Heresy is everywhere, and the followers of heresy are in power almost everywhere. Bishops, prelates, and priests say that they are doing their duty, that they are vigilant, and that they live as befits their state in life. In like manner, therefore, they all seek excuses. But God will permit a great evil against His Church: Heretics and tyrants will come suddenly and unexpectedly; they will break into the Church while bishops, prelates and priests are asleep. They will enter Italy and lay Rome waste; they will burn down the churches and destroy everything." -Ven. Bartholomew Holzhauser (17th c.)
I don't see any problem with your post above, but let me ask you out of curiosity, where can a Siri partisan receive the Sacraments from? We both agree that the CMRI is schismatic, and as I said before somewhere, I would be more willing to give the Siri Thesis / Hierarchy in Exile the benefit of the doubt rather than believing in the absurdity of a See Vacante for over half century.
-
But the main problem with the Siri Thesis and the invalidity of the elections is that it is unanimously believed that the acceptance of a Papal election by the Church, (Cardinals and Bishops) "is a sign and infallible effect" of a valid election. There have been such acceptance by the legitimate bishops and cardinals of the Church in all the elections of the post-conciliar pontificates.
-
Pope St. Pius X: “None of the Cardinals may be in any way excluded from the active or passive election of the Sovereign Pontiff under pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment” (Vacante Sede Apostolica, 1904).
Pope Pius XII: “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff”
(Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945).
These disciplines from Popes Pius X, and Pius XII on voting procedures at a Papal Conclave must to be understood by the "mind of the Church".
I have seen docuмentation that Roncalli was a manifest heretic prior to the October 1958 Conclave, which he voted at. As a Freemason he was a hidden heretic as well. He alluded detection to get into the 1958 Conclave to commit one of the gravest crimes in the history of the world. (The violent pushing aside of the true Pope elected on Oct 26, 1958).
So Roncalli's being a manifest heretic prior to the 1958 Conclave, made him ineligible to ever be pope, according to Pope Paul IV's infallible cuм ex Apostolatus Officio.
"The Rock has always withstood the test of time. But one will be entered into the House of God. Woe to man when
he [not God] places him upon the See of Peter for then, the Great Day of the Lord is at hand." -Pope St. Pius X:
If cuм Ex Apostolic was infallible (divine law) then it could not have been modified. To teach opposite would be heresy but that was precisely done by three pontiffs: Pius X, Benedict XIV, and Pius XII.
In any case, where is the docuмentation proving that Roncalli was a "Manifest Heretic"? and if his heresy was so undoubtedly manifest, how come Pope Pius XII did not ever say anything, but in fact appointed him and placed him in positions of power within the Vatican?. Why there was no legal procedure conducted on him as required in the 1917 Code of Canon Law in cases of heresy?.
What are you claiming Pius X, Benedict XIV, and Pius XII precisely taught that was opposite of Pope Paul IV's infallible *cuм ex Apostolatus Officio?
*which is part of the Ordinary Magisterium
Because they clearly teach that an excommunicated person can still be elected Roman Pontiff. Major excommunications are incurred for heresy and schism (sins against the faith) and certain other major sins.
From Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis:
"None of the cardinals may in any way, or by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the supreme pontiff. We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor"
"The excommunications spoken by Pope Pius XII are not referring to heretics, apostates, and Freemasons because they fall under the rubric of MAJOR excommunication. God Himself cannot lift them! What Pope Pius XII is referring to are MINOR excommunications. Such excommunications come by way of declaration for things like the selling of relics or stealing money from the Church. If a Cardinal becomes a heretic, he ceases to be a Cardinal, but a Cardinal who sells or steals money gets a minor excommunication but remains a Cardinal. The provisional law of Pope Pius XII is calling for Cardinals who were excommunicated by declaration, not ex-Cardinals who were excommunicated by Divine Law. Remember, a Cardinal who becomes a *heretic/apostate/Mason is not a Cardinal any longer and so Pius XII was not calling on them. All minor excommunications can be lifted for good, but not major excommunications. ("Can a Catholic Pope be a Non-Catholic" by Steven Speray)
*Pope Paul IV teaches that even if the whole world acknowledged a heretic as pope, such a man would not be pope. Automatic excommunications for these crimes apply regardless if they are known, because they are of Divine law.
Well, Pope Pius XII did not make such distinctions between major and minor excommunications. In fact, none of these docuмents where Ex cuм is abrogated made the difference or were explicit about that, so it seems to be a case in which one reads into these paragraphs distinctions that the authors did not put in.
-
Actually, re-reading these quotes again:
Pope St. Pius X: “None of the Cardinals may be in any way excluded from the active or passive election of the Sovereign Pontiff under pretext or by reason of ANY excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment” (Vacante Sede Apostolica, 1904).
Pope Pius XII: “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of ANY excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff” (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945).
It states clearly that a cardinal is not excluded from being elected to the papacy by reason of ANY excommunication…whatsoever”. "Any" excommunication whatsoever” necessarily includes an excommunication for heresy, which demonstrates that st. Pius X and st Pius XII did abrogate Paul IV's cuм Ex.
-
Hey magisterium, could you provide any evidence that Siri released a public docuмent containing the names of his in pectore Cardinals before his death?
-
Well, I guess my only remark on this would be that since God has provided that the Holy Catholic Church would not cease to be, and that it is required for Cardinals created via in pectore to have their names released by means of a public consistory, given the fact that even facing the dire circuмstances of the situation, one could conclude that the Pope could release such information publicly, without being too presumptuous of God's Providence and placing oneself in unnecessary danger, the latter point especially because in this case it would be absolutely necessary that this be done for the sake of the faithful.
I do not "judge" this action, rather I see the secretiveness of it to be unnecessary, given the Church has faced greater foes in the past. Death being only a fleeting thing if one is surely in the Church. A simple docuмent stating who these Cardinals are with a date, that is not a Word docuмent. This is sufficient.
-
A sect is created after admonitions are given, rejected by the suspect, and then an official excommunication is promulgated to the world to tell Catholics that all who join the following will also be excommunicated.
Popes Gregory XVII & Gregory XVIII and their delegated representatives have given admonitions to various leaders of the V2 sect & pseudo traditionalists (of all stripes) and their followers. And unfortunately it can be said, the leaders/controllers of these two sects have rejected their admonitions. One case that comes to mind is Richard Williamson who was confided intimate detail about Pope Gregory XVII and his hierarchy over a period of time - and [Williamson] said he was "not ready" at that time (to be part of the Church governed by St. Peter's Successors). There is One Church.
The Petrine Hierarchy has clearly communicated to millions all over the world, that to be part of the schismatic N.O. or schismatic pseudo-traditionalists "religious societies", is to be in opposition to the Church and, hence to to be a member of a non-Catholic sect.
Fr. Joseph Fenton writes:
"Now the questions may arise: is there any particular form which the Roman Pontiff is obliged to follow in setting forth a doctrinal decision in either the positive or the negative manner? Does the Pope have to state specifically and explicitly that he intends to issue a doctrinal decision on this particular point? Is it at all necessary that he should refer explicitly to the fact that there has hitherto been a debate among theologians on the question he is going to decide?
There is certainly nothing in the divinely established constitutional law of the Catholic Church which would in any way justify an affirmative response to any of these inquiries. The Holy Father's doctrinal authority stems from the tremendous responsibility Our Lord laid upon him in St. Peter, whose successor he is. Our Lord charged the Prince of the Apostles, and through him, all of his successors until the end of time, with the commission of feeding, of acting as a shepherd for, of taking care of, His lambs and His sheep.[7] Included in that responsibility was the obligation, and, of course, the power, to confirm the faith of his fellow Christians.
And the Lord said: "Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren."[8]
St. Peter had, and has in his successor, the duty and the power to confirm his brethren in their faith, to take care of their doctrinal needs. Included in his responsibility is an obvious obligation to select and to employ the means he judges most effective and apt[/u] for the accomplishment of the end God has commissioned him to attain." (Fr. Joseph Clifford Fenton THE DOCTRINAL AUTHORITY OF PAPAL ALLOCUTIONS, c. 1956)
To clarify. The point in adding Fr. Fenton's words (above) was to convey that a pope is not limited [boxed in] in any way, on how [i.e., the means he judges most effective and apt to employ] to fulfill his obligation of feeding/admonishing his sheep. This is an important point to stress when the enemies of the Faith have stolen the Holy Father's patrimony.
So could a Pope, under this train of thought, ordain a woman to the priesthood and raise her to the bishopric, in order "to fulfill his obligation of feeding his sheep?"
-
So could a Pope, under this train of thought, ordain a woman to the priesthood and raise her to the bishopric, in order "to fulfill his obligation of feeding his sheep?"
Such has already been seriously discussed in Conciliar circles.
-
So could a Pope, under this train of thought, ordain a woman to the priesthood and raise her to the bishopric, in order "to fulfill his obligation of feeding his sheep?"
Such has already been seriously discussed in Conciliar circles.
:facepalm:
Wah, wah, wah, wahhhhhh
Unfortunately, I am all too aware...
http://www.romancatholicwomenpriests.org/
-
Look, buddy, the bottom line is this: if a Catholic has a CMRI chapel within an hour's commute - or the other option is to stay home like a dogmatic cultist schizoid, or go to a novus queerdo chapel - then his soul will be in far better shape through the graces bestowed upon him by assisting a true Catholic Mass and receiving the Sacraments. Otherwise, he would be committing mortal sin by staying home when he could be at a Catholic Mass, or committing sin attending a sacrilegious, calvinist, masonic service known as the "mass of Paul VI". CMRI are valid and Catholic. There is no evidence in their history to the contrary. That is the work of jewry and their General - Satan - who work to divide real Catholics an attack the true Faith.
Ascent states the issue about as well as it can be stated.
In his post against the Dimond fools, ascent describes some of the facts of the CMRI, namely;
*1) they are not organic, they cannot trace their lineage back to a member of the Church who was consecrated in the Holy Orders,
*2) the CMRI is not organic because it is 100% lay founded, hence lacking any authenticity and
*3) their monastery is no different than some bozo waking up tomorrow morning and allotting his barn and land for a few lay people to start their "monastery" while they call themselves "monks" and "brothers" and "priests".
1) They trace their lineage back to Bishop Francis Schuckardt who was ordained and consecrated in 1971 by Old Catholic Bishop Daniel Q. Brown, who traces his lineage back to Old Catholic Bishop, Arnold hαɾɾιs Mathew whom Pope Pius X himself excommunicated.
2) CMRI was founded in 1967 by lay man Francis Schuckardt. The CMRI officially trace their lineage back to this lay man.
3) The difference here is that "some bozo" woke up one morning and ended up buying authentic Catholic buildings with all the authentic statues and furnishings and started a community - but he took it a few steps further by hooking up with and getting ordained and consecrated by a schismatic bishop, then called that community "Catholic".
The above are historical facts which are indisputable.
Fantastic Summary.