Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: CathMomof7 on April 09, 2011, 05:09:47 PM

Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: CathMomof7 on April 09, 2011, 05:09:47 PM
I usually don't keep up with the happenings in our local diocese, but I heard this from a friend and thought it was too funny.

Apparently, a NO couple of the conservative type organized an event at Marywood University, which is a Catholic university in the Diocese of Scranton, PA.  But the Bishop, and what a great guy he is  :smirk:, banned him from speaking.  Here is their official statement:

Quote
The Diocese of Scranton has determined that Mr. Voris will not be allowed to speak in a Diocesan or parish facility. After these engagements were scheduled, the Diocese became aware of concerns about this individual’s views regarding other religious groups. In videos posted on the Internet, Mr. Voris makes comments that certainly can be interpreted as being insensitive to people of other faiths. The Catholic Church teaches us to respect all people, regardless of their faith tradition.

Although the Diocese shares Mr. Voris’ support of efforts to protect human life, his extreme positions on other faiths are not appropriate and therefore the Diocese cannot host him.
[/b]

The couple, who wanted to be obedient to the bishop, tried to set up another venue but they were refused that as well.

I'm bringing this up, not because I "love" Michael Voris, but because this is what "traditional minded" NO Catholics face every day.  I was one of them, trapped inside the Church, locked away from the truth.  We had the courage, eventually, to leave, but their are many, many more who are told that they must be obedient to their bishops instead of being faithful to the Magisterium.  

It's really sad.  

Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: Jitpring on April 09, 2011, 05:16:45 PM
Nauseating.

Was it St. Athanasius who said something about the floor of hell being paved with the skulls of bishops?  :scratchchin:
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: stevusmagnus on April 09, 2011, 08:04:11 PM
Who is "the Diocese"? Someone in the Diocesan office? Or the Bishop himself?

Plus there is a BIG difference in being disrespectful/ insensitive to PERSONS of other faiths and "having extreme positions ON other faiths". What does that even mean? Did they cite specific videos or quotes from him? Did he get a hearing?

In contrast, take a look at this. Are these speakers not disrespectful/ insensitive to orthodox Catholics? Do they not have "extreme" positions on the CATHOLIC Faith?

http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=1736afa6-2dc1-49b4-8011-ff09a5604e2a

Published: March 16, 2010

"Why is Cardinal Mahony promoting such speakers?"
Group calls for picketing at LA archdiocese’s 2010 Religious Education Congress, calls it ‘dissent-fest’


ANAHEIM, March 15 /Christian Newswire/ -- "Our committee is calling all Catholics to come join us and oppose Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony's latest dissent-fest," says Kenneth M. Fisher, chairman of Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc. (CRCOA). "He's going to make tens of thousands of Catholics hear Faith-subverters, the kind who get people to defy the Church on abortion, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, contraception, New Age practices and ordination of women."

Fisher announced that on Saturday, March 20, 2010, from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., his group will picket Cardinal Mahony's annual Religious Education Congress, the world's largest training event for Catholic schoolteachers. (The Congress will be at the Anaheim Convention Center, March 18-21. The Saturday protest will be outside the Center's main exhibit hall. CRCOA will supply picket signs to picketers.)

"Many of the presenters aren't objectionable, and Cardinal Mahony does have a few well-known 'token' orthodox Catholic speakers,” Fisher said. “But he's also bringing in speakers with long track records of dissent from Catholic doctrine.

"Cardinal Mahony's pro-gαys, women-priest advocates, New Agers and anti-Pope rebels will tell Catholic educators what to teach," Fisher warned. "Then the teachers will go home and infect countless innocent Catholic children with those errors."

Fisher said CRCOA members will hand out flyers that expose speakers who dissent from the Church's doctrines. Here are examples of some of Cardinal Mahony's 188 speakers:

A non-Catholic, far left, pro-contraception speaker who's said we don't need to ban aborting babies and who's advised U.S. senators and representatives on how to get believers to vote for pro-gαy, pro-abortion Democrats

A laicized priest who dissents from "a wide range of Church teachings" and wants women priests and women bishops

A nun who called Catholic doctrine against non-marital sex "a fixation."

A Catholic priest who told the 2005 REC that "we" need "public models" of "healthy gαy priests for Catholics to reflect on."

"Why is Cardinal Mahony promoting such speakers?" Fisher asked. "Shouldn't a cardinal make sure his speakers are loyal to the Church?"

Fisher invites faithful Catholics to join CRCOA's peaceful, prayerful protest by calling him at: 714-491-2284 or e-mailing him at crcoa@dslextreme.com.


Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: Exilenomore on April 10, 2011, 10:03:58 AM
Quote from: Jitpring
Nauseating.

Was it St. Athanasius who said something about the floor of hell being paved with the skulls of bishops?  :scratchchin:


Saint John Chrysostom, if I am correct.
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: Raoul76 on April 10, 2011, 10:24:32 AM
Perfect Hegelianism. Now a bunch of people will get up-in-arms defending Michael Voris, who is questionable at best, and will never get beyond that to see the other myriad heresies and errors of Vatican II.

It's the same way that there are some people in the Novus Ordo who style themselves conservative who often cling onto the abortion issue.  They decide in their mind that as long as they're against abortion they are "conservative," sort of like how on this site certain people say they will leave Vatican II finally when women priests are ordained.

People make up a dividing line in their own minds and stick to it.  But what about the dividing line for the Church?

The Novus Ordo structures, like the pagan world that infects them, have a "form of religion" but lacking the power thereof.  What you see in there often is really a form of relative morality, like with the neo-pagans.  Sort of like how a neo-pagan who lives in sin, but who doesn't cheat on his partner, considers himself better than other neo-pagans who have lots of one-night stands.  The famous "cafeteria Catholicism."

With each day that passes, it gets more and more unlikely you will find many people who keep the faith whole and entire.  Luckily God doesn't expect everyone to be St. Thomas, I'm sure there are still some there who WOULD accept the truth if they heard it, but don't.  
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: stevusmagnus on April 10, 2011, 12:13:42 PM
Quote from: Raoul76
sort of like how on this site certain people say they will leave Vatican II finally when women priests are ordained.


Where in Vatican II was the ordination of women approved? If not, why would they have to "leave Vatican II" if women were ordained?

Quote
The Novus Ordo structures, like the pagan world that infects them, have a "form of religion" but lacking the power thereof.


How so?

Quote
What you see in there often is really a form of relative morality, like with the neo-pagans.  Sort of like how a neo-pagan who lives in sin, but who doesn't cheat on his partner, considers himself better than other neo-pagans who have lots of one-night stands.  The famous "cafeteria Catholicism."


Traditional Catholics don't do this?

Quote
With each day that passes, it gets more and more unlikely you will find many people who keep the faith whole and entire.  Luckily God doesn't expect everyone to be St. Thomas, I'm sure there are still some there who WOULD accept the truth if they heard it, but don't.  


He doesn't? How else will they ever find out, after poring over treatises, that sede-ism is correct and save their souls?
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: ServusSpiritusSancti on April 11, 2011, 01:44:03 PM
The Catholic Church doesn't teach that we should respect all religions, but rather Vatican II teaches it. The libs are not on the same level that the Trads are in terms of knowledge of religion, they are quite a few notches below.
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: Jehanne on April 11, 2011, 09:59:20 PM
Here is their response:

Quote
Dear Friend in Christ,
 
Every now and then, it becomes necessary to take one on the chin for the Faith.  Recent developments in Scranton Pennsylvania have proved it isn't the first and certainly won't be the last.  Please pass this episode of The Vortex along to as many friends and family as possible.
 
http://www.youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV?feature=mhum#p/u/0/UDJx49A5D-4
 
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/110408
Article from Matt Abbott, containing Scranton's response
 
http://thetimes-tribune.com/bishop-raises-concern-about-university-of-scranton-speaker-1.768404
Bishop's concern over speaker
 
http://www.realcatholictv.com/docuмents/vort-2011-04-11.pdf
The 'gαy-friendly' Archdiocese of Detroit history from Catholic World Report
 
http://www.realcatholictv.com/docuмents/vort-2011-04-11-a.pdf
Our response
 
GOD Bless you and your loved ones,
 
Michael Voris
~senior executive producer, RealCatholicTV.com
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: stevusmagnus on April 12, 2011, 01:10:53 AM
The same Bishop allowed a pro-abortion and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ rights speaker in his diocese? What is the Bishop's response to this? Is it true?
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: Jehanne on April 12, 2011, 06:42:23 AM
Quote from: stevusmagnus
The same Bishop allowed a pro-abortion and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ rights speaker in his diocese? What is the Bishop's response to this? Is it true?


Call his office; please let us know.
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: TKGS on April 12, 2011, 06:48:10 AM
Scranton used to be the darling diocese of the neo-conservatives until the bishop there was forced to resign for health reasons.  The Conciliar church is so far gone that it may be impossible to reform it.
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: MyrnaM on April 12, 2011, 08:13:43 AM
Quote from: stevusmagnus
Where in Vatican II was the ordination of women approved? If not, why would they have to "leave Vatican II" if women were ordained?


When they allowed the altar girls and women speaking at the pulpit.  Now its just a matter of timing.  
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: CathMomof7 on April 13, 2011, 03:13:32 PM
Quote from: stevusmagnus
The same Bishop allowed a pro-abortion and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ rights speaker in his diocese? What is the Bishop's response to this? Is it true?


Yes, Stevus, this is true.  I live in this diocese.  I am a former member of the NO church in this diocese.  I don't usually keep up with it, and I don't care really, but this is what people must put up with.

Bishop Bambera was appointed by B16.

He allowed a pro-abort, pro-lesbian to speak at same College as long as she was "monitored."

Yet he refused Michael Voris because he criticizes the VII theology of "religious freedom."

I would like to say, I am NOT a supporter of Michael Voris, but I think he does offer a voice that "conservative" Catholics won't here otherwise.
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: CathMomof7 on April 13, 2011, 03:26:15 PM
Quote from: TKGS
Scranton used to be the darling diocese of the neo-conservatives until the bishop there was forced to resign for health reasons.  The Conciliar church is so far gone that it may be impossible to reform it.


There are so many misconceptions about the Diocese of Scranton.  I live here.  I know what is happening around this diocese.  They are liars and pretenders.  Bishop Martino, who was no friend to tradition, was run out on a rail because he had the audacity to stand up the USSCB.  He routinely sent out letters to priests that they ignored telling them not to support pro-abort congressmen and politicians.  He stayed in skirmishes with the universities because he demanded an account of their curriculum and lecturers.  He also refused to give in to the teacher's union who run the Catholic school system.  He tried to clean up the sɛҳuąƖ abuse mess left to him by the his predecessor by exposing and having arrested as many men as he could prove.  The people in this diocese HATED the man.

Bishop Bambera was chosen by Pope Benedict last year.  He was recommended by Cardinal Regali.  Bambera is a native to the Diocese.  His legacy is one of allowing pro-aborts to speak at the universities, allowing drug-addicted priests to continue their "work" of embezzling money from the parish, removing faculties of priests who are preaching about and preparing themselves for the Chastisement, and reducing the amount of Masses offered by the FSSP.


Edited to add:  I am NOT a NO Catholic.  I do not support them in anyway, shape, form or fashion.  I am only posting this as information as to what NO Catholic lay-people, many of whom are simply ignorant to the crisis, have to contend with in this dioces.[/color]
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: SJB on April 13, 2011, 03:44:34 PM
Quote
There are so many misconceptions about the Diocese of Scranton.  I live here.  I know what is happening around this diocese.  They are liars and pretenders.


Yet according to Caminus, they still "profess the Faith" and must be considered Catholics until they are judged in an ecclesiastical trial.
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: Caminus on April 13, 2011, 04:55:41 PM
Can a murderer still be a member of the catholic church?  Are you not aware that the Church contains both the good and the wicked?  Until they slide off into formal heresy and schism, they are still members, though wicked, dead pretenders and liars.  St. Augustine listed quite a few more criminals as within the Church.  A list that would surely scandalize.  If you conceive of the Church as an external, public society, as is defined Catholic doctrine, this will be more easily realized.  The Church as the Kingdom of God is as tangible as the Kingdom of France as Bellarmine would say.  At any rate, I see their heresy and schism being consumated in the near future.  
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: SJB on April 13, 2011, 08:51:21 PM
Quote from: Caminus
Can a murderer still be a member of the catholic church?  Are you not aware that the Church contains both the good and the wicked?  Until they slide off into formal heresy and schism, they are still members, though wicked, dead pretenders and liars.  St. Augustine listed quite a few more criminals as within the Church.  A list that would surely scandalize.  If you conceive of the Church as an external, public society, as is defined Catholic doctrine, this will be more easily realized.  The Church as the Kingdom of God is as tangible as the Kingdom of France as Bellarmine would say.  At any rate, I see their heresy and schism being consumated in the near future.  


Schism, Heresy, and Apostasy separate a man from the Church. Other sins, however grave, do not. This has been quoted many times as follows:

Quote from: Pius XII, Mystici Corporis
22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jєωs or Gentiles, whether bond or free." [17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. [18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered -- so the Lord commands -- as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

23. Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness. it is owing to the Savior's infinite mercy that place is allowed in His Mystical Body here below for those whom, of old, He did not exclude from the banquet. [20] For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins.


I absolutely despise what you are doing here, Caminus.
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: ServusSpiritusSancti on April 13, 2011, 09:03:38 PM
SJB, all he's doing is stating his opinion that Benedict is a valid Pope. How is what he's doing wrong when you are doing the same thing by stating your opinion? That's a double-standard.
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: SJB on April 13, 2011, 09:06:38 PM
Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
SJB, all he's doing is stating his opinion that Benedict is a valid Pope. How is what he's doing wrong when you are doing the same thing by stating your opinion? That's a double-standard.


No, he goes much further. There is no double-standard here.
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: ServusSpiritusSancti on April 13, 2011, 09:09:43 PM
The only thing I've seen him do that goes father than that is get a little nasty about it, but that was long ago during his fight with Raoul. And he's also right about heresy and schism coming to an end soon. There will be none for a while after the three days of darkness.
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: Caminus on April 13, 2011, 09:34:51 PM
SJB, are you making a blanket statement about the entire diocese or individuals?  I'm not sure what your problem is with Catholic ecclesiology, it is what it is.  The statement from M.C. refers to the public manifestation of heresy vis-a-vis the association with heretical sects.  As I've said before, the entire canonical process would be irrelevant if your conception were valid.  Obviously, the Church's law isn't superfluous.  You're really just begging the question again.  You're upset because these deviants are still considered members of the Church.  So am I.  But that doesn't change the basic minimum required for membership.  Wicked men, yes even heretics, at least occult, Liberals, all kinds of modernists and other doctrinal and moreal deviants and criminals are still to be considered members of the Church.            
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: Caminus on April 13, 2011, 09:58:04 PM
Please explain to me how it is that you think a man could have no love of God in his heart (the virtue of charity) and yet still be considered a "member" of the Church, but a man that has no faith in his intellect (the virtue of faith) cannot be considered a member.  Upon what basis are you making this distinction?    
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: SJB on April 14, 2011, 08:03:21 AM
Quote from: Caminus
Please explain to me how it is that you think a man could have no love of God in his heart (the virtue of charity) and yet still be considered a "member" of the Church, but a man that has no faith in his intellect (the virtue of faith) cannot be considered a member.  Upon what basis are you making this distinction?    


Membership is determined by the externals. Mystici corporis is based upon Bellarmine's visible Church. MC was written in opposition to the idea of an invisible membership.

Here is Bellarmine:

Quote from: De Romano Pontifice
"The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union. For even bad Catholics [i.e. who are not heretics] are united and are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner, as we have already proved."
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: SJB on April 14, 2011, 08:26:04 AM
Quote from: Caminus
SJB, are you making a blanket statement about the entire diocese or individuals?  I'm not sure what your problem is with Catholic ecclesiology, it is what it is.  The statement from M.C. refers to the public manifestation of heresy vis-a-vis the association with heretical sects.


Proof?

Quote from: Caminus
As I've said before, the entire canonical process would be irrelevant if your conception were valid.  Obviously, the Church's law isn't superfluous.  You're really just begging the question again.  You're upset because these deviants are still considered members of the Church.  So am I.  But that doesn't change the basic minimum required for membership. Wicked men, yes even heretics, at least occult, Liberals, all kinds of modernists and other doctrinal and moreal deviants and criminals are still to be considered members of the Church.


You KNOW Mystici Corporis defines membership to EXCLUDE schismatics, heretics, and apostates AND also those who are excommunicated by legitimate authority. You're hedging here with your comment about "at least occult". Nobody is talking about "occult heretics", who retain membership through external bonds only simply because their heresy is unknown to others.
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: SJB on April 14, 2011, 09:56:45 AM
Quote from: Caminus
Please explain to me how it is that you think a man could have no love of God in his heart (the virtue of charity) and yet still be considered a "member" of the Church, but a man that has no faith in his intellect (the virtue of faith) cannot be considered a member.  Upon what basis are you making this distinction?    


If I read you correctly, I don't disagree. Except you are speaking of an occult heretic lacking internal bonds yet retaining the external bond. Nobody else is speaking of occult heretics. A "bad Catholic" is not a heretic of any sort. They are both members according to MC.
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: Caminus on April 14, 2011, 11:25:42 AM
Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Caminus
Please explain to me how it is that you think a man could have no love of God in his heart (the virtue of charity) and yet still be considered a "member" of the Church, but a man that has no faith in his intellect (the virtue of faith) cannot be considered a member.  Upon what basis are you making this distinction?    


If I read you correctly, I don't disagree. Except you are speaking of an occult heretic lacking internal bonds yet retaining the external bond. Nobody else is speaking of occult heretics. A "bad Catholic" is not a heretic of any sort. They are both members according to MC.


Okay, fair enough.  I press the external bond requirement because it is absolutely necessary to maintain in catholic ecclesiology.  This is a juridical, external union.  That is why many catholic theologians hold that occult heretics, true heretics, but not publicly manifested in opposition to authority, retain membership.  Too many traditional catholics tend towards "spiritualizing" the Church because they do not firmly grasp the external bond requirement.  It's a bare minimum, a net that catches both the good and the bad, morally and intellectually.  
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: SJB on April 14, 2011, 11:38:14 AM
Caminus, Where do you get "in opposition to authority?"
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: Caminus on April 14, 2011, 12:14:11 PM
From canon law and the very nature of the Church as a visible society that is governed by authority.  
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: SJB on April 14, 2011, 12:20:40 PM
Quote from: Caminus
From canon law and the very nature of the Church as a visible society that is governed by authority.  


Okay, you made it up then.

The problem is your confusion about occult heretics. An occult heretic is a hidden heretic, either kept in his heart or kept hidden by hypocrisy. It is NOT an open heretic who has yet to be brought to trial by ecclesiastical authority.
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: Caminus on April 14, 2011, 12:33:01 PM
Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Caminus
From canon law and the very nature of the Church as a visible society that is governed by authority.  


Okay, you made it up then.

The problem is your confusion about occult heretics. An occult heretic is a hidden heretic, either kept in his heart or kept hidden by hypocrisy. It is NOT an open heretic who has yet to be brought to trial by ecclesiastical authority.


What is the rationale of admonishment from authority?  Is it not only to correct the errant, but to manifest obstinancy in public as well?  In in reality, you just made up the last part of your post.  How do you know that a heretic isn't "occult"?  Where is your line of demarcation?  Public knowledge is only half of the equation.  Opposition to authority is as necessary to the equation than anything else.  In fact, even if no other Catholic knew of the presence of a heretic and nevertheless was obstinate against authority, that man would then be considered a formal heretic and excommunicated as such.  Thus the primary consideration is the relation to public authority.  You are nullifying that to your own confusion.  Besides, who exactly are you refering to?  We were making general statements about a diocese.  Are you implying that we ought to sever the entire thing?  Upon what grounds?  The fact that you are disgusted that these criminals are still considered members of the Church.  And round and round we go.    
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: SJB on April 14, 2011, 12:54:32 PM
Quote from: Caminus
How do you know that a heretic isn't "occult"?


Because you can only know what is external. You can "know" about a specific occult heretic, because his heresy is hidden.

Maybe somebody else can help you understand this.
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: Caminus on April 14, 2011, 01:03:29 PM
Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Caminus
How do you know that a heretic isn't "occult"?


Because you can only know what is external. You can "know" about a specific occult heretic, because his heresy is hidden.

Maybe somebody else can help you understand this.


Spare me the condescension.  You evaded the entire point and just made this last point up on your own.  The fact of the matter is that you haven't a leg to stand on by restricting occult to mean absolutely secret.  Check any canonist you wish, they will contradict you at every turn.  
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: Caminus on April 14, 2011, 01:06:46 PM
Furthermore, you have an entirely protestant concept of authority.  
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: TKGS on April 14, 2011, 01:55:42 PM
Quote from: Caminus
Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Caminus
How do you know that a heretic isn't "occult"?


Because you can only know what is external. You can "know" about a specific occult heretic, because his heresy is hidden.

Maybe somebody else can help you understand this.


Spare me the condescension.  You evaded the entire point and just made this last point up on your own.  The fact of the matter is that you haven't a leg to stand on by restricting occult to mean absolutely secret.  Check any canonist you wish, they will contradict you at every turn.  


What?   :confused1:  The definition of "occult" as used here is "hidden".  You're saying that "You haven't a leg to stand on by restricting words to their definitions."  Occult heresy is, by definition, hidden.
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: SJB on April 14, 2011, 02:07:29 PM
Quote from: Bouscaren and Ellis
Not every sin is a crime. The Church, as a visible society, punishes by sanctions only certain external transgressions which disturb the social order. We leave aside the question whether the Church can punish a merely internal act. In fact, she does not.

The publicity of crimes is therefore one of the crucial qualifications according to which they are dealt with by Holy Mother Church.  Canon 2197 defines the various degrees of publicity.

"Classification as to Publicity. A crime is:

"1. Public, if it is already commonly known or the circuмstances are such as to lead to the conclusion that it can and will easily become so;

"2. Notorious in law, after judgment by a competent judge which has become res iudicata (cf. c. 1902), or after confession by the culprit in open court according to canon 1750;

"3. Notorious in fact, if it is publicly known and was committed under such circuмstances that no maneuver can conceal nor any legal defense excuse it;

"4. Occult, if not public; materially occult if the crime itself is hidden, formally occult if its imputability is hidden.

Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: Caminus on April 14, 2011, 02:27:51 PM
Thanks for supporting my case.
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: Caminus on April 14, 2011, 02:32:05 PM
Quote from: TKGS
Quote from: Caminus
Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Caminus
How do you know that a heretic isn't "occult"?


Because you can only know what is external. You can "know" about a specific occult heretic, because his heresy is hidden.

Maybe somebody else can help you understand this.


Spare me the condescension.  You evaded the entire point and just made this last point up on your own.  The fact of the matter is that you haven't a leg to stand on by restricting occult to mean absolutely secret.  Check any canonist you wish, they will contradict you at every turn.  


What?   :confused1:  The definition of "occult" as used here is "hidden".  You're saying that "You haven't a leg to stand on by restricting words to their definitions."  Occult heresy is, by definition, hidden.


"Hidden" or "occult" in the context of the public jurisprudence of the Church carries with it an entirely different connation.  The text cited proves the fact by asserting that purely internal acts cannot by definition be punished.  SJB has failed to properly understand both the import of the term "occult" as well as the intervention of authority.  On the one hand, the crime must be public, on the other hand, in the case of determing pertinacity which is a key ingredient of formality, the public manifestation of this comes by way of opposition to authority.  Thus, the heresy is perfected so to speak and the criminal is entirely cut off from the society of the Church.  
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: Caminus on April 14, 2011, 02:35:11 PM
Consequently, when a good Pope begins to reign and exercise authority and condemning false doctrine, we will see either of two things, those who hold positions of authority will either formalize their heresy and publicly oppose authority or they will submit restoring peace to the Church.  I suspect that after that time, the Catholic Church, complete with its juridical structure, will be much smaller after the pruning.
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: SJB on April 14, 2011, 03:31:18 PM
Quote from: Caminus
Quote from: TKGS
Quote from: Caminus
Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Caminus
How do you know that a heretic isn't "occult"?


Because you can only know what is external. You can "know" about a specific occult heretic, because his heresy is hidden.

Maybe somebody else can help you understand this.


Spare me the condescension.  You evaded the entire point and just made this last point up on your own.  The fact of the matter is that you haven't a leg to stand on by restricting occult to mean absolutely secret.  Check any canonist you wish, they will contradict you at every turn.  


What?   :confused1:  The definition of "occult" as used here is "hidden".  You're saying that "You haven't a leg to stand on by restricting words to their definitions."  Occult heresy is, by definition, hidden.


"Hidden" or "occult" in the context of the public jurisprudence of the Church carries with it an entirely different connation.  The text cited proves the fact by asserting that purely internal acts cannot by definition be punished.  SJB has failed to properly understand both the import of the term "occult" as well as the intervention of authority.  On the one hand, the crime must be public, on the other hand, in the case of determing pertinacity which is a key ingredient of formality, the public manifestation of this comes by way of opposition to authority.  Thus, the heresy is perfected so to speak and the criminal is entirely cut off from the society of the Church.  


Why don't you quote something then? What do you think "the context" of Bouscaren and Ellis is??? Shall I quote Woywod as well?
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: Caminus on April 14, 2011, 03:34:13 PM
Indeed, please do.  He will also demonstrate the absurdity of defining "occult" as absolutely secret.  Please also cite their commentaries on how the Church deals with those who begin to profess heretical doctrines.  
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: SJB on April 14, 2011, 04:01:13 PM
Quote from: Caminus
Indeed, please do.  He will also demonstrate the absurdity of defining "occult" as absolutely secret.  Please also cite their commentaries on how the Church deals with those who begin to profess heretical doctrines.  


Quote from: Canon 2197
Occult, if not public; materially occult if the crime itself is hidden, formally occult if its imputability is hidden.


I never said "absolutely secret". Hidden, NOT public.





Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: SJB on April 14, 2011, 04:25:38 PM
Quote from: Woywod
The Code calls an offense public when knowledge of it has been spread among the people (divulgatum), or when it was committed under circuмstances which make it practically impossible to keep the offense secret.


Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: Caminus on April 14, 2011, 04:56:40 PM
That is public in an informal sense.  The pertinent point is in relation to what constitutes a "public act."  The mere knowledge of people doesn't suffice and thus technically the offender is still considered "occult."    

And now quote the section of the Code dealing with public manifestation of heresy, strictly so-called, not propositions proximate to heresy, not doctrinal or theological error or some lesser offense.  This is in relation to pertinacity.  The Code envisions two differing cases, though who begin to profess heresy within the Church and those who are publicly associated with heretical sects in the external forum.  You are not appreciating this distinction either.  Again, you're only proposing half of the equation.  
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: SJB on April 14, 2011, 08:09:21 PM
Quote from: Caminus
That is public in an informal sense. The pertinent point is in relation to what constitutes a "public act." The mere knowledge of people doesn't suffice and thus technically the offender is still considered "occult."


Source for this please? To date, you've cited NO sources, and saying "occult" is "public" without an ecclesiastical trial.

"Public" including a trial judgment or public confession is "notorious by notoriety of the law."

You're just making things up as you go.


Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: Caminus on April 14, 2011, 09:40:08 PM
Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Caminus
How do you know that a heretic isn't "occult"?


Because you can only know what is external. You can "know" about a specific occult heretic, because his heresy is hidden.

Maybe somebody else can help you understand this.


The sources you've cited have contradicted this assertion.  Beyond that, until you address my other points, I see no reason to continue.
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: SJB on April 15, 2011, 06:50:15 AM
Quote from: Caminus
Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Caminus
How do you know that a heretic isn't "occult"?


Because you can only know what is external. You CAN'T "know" about a specific occult heretic, because his heresy is hidden. IT IS NOT PUBLIC BY DEFINITION.

Maybe somebody else can help you understand this.


The sources you've cited have contradicted this assertion.  Beyond that, until you address my other points, I see no reason to continue.


I assume you knew I meant to say "can't". You are arguing with a definition from Bouscaren (and that directly from the CIC) and providing nothing to support your own assertions.

 :fryingpan:
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: stevusmagnus on April 15, 2011, 01:02:32 PM
Rev. Garrigou-Lagrange - Treatise on Christ the Savior

http://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/christ1.htm

Quote
St. Robert Bellarmine's objection. The pope who becomes a secret heretic is still an actual member of the Church, for he is still the head of the Church, as Cajetan, Cano, Suarez, and others teach.

Reply. This condition is quite abnormal, hence no wonder that something abnormal results from it, namely, that the pope becoming secretly a heretic would no longer be an actual member of the Church, according to the teaching as explained in the body of the article, but would still retain his jurisdiction by which he would influence the Church in ruling it. Thus he would still be nominally the head of the Church, which he would still rule as head, though he would no longer be a member of Christ, because he would not receive that vital influx of faith from Christ, the invisible and primary head. Thus in quite an abnormal manner he would be in point of jurisdiction the head of the Church, though he would not be a member of it.

This condition could not apply to the natural head in its relation to the body, but such a condition is not repugnant in the case of the moral and secondary head. The reason is that, whereas the natural head must receive a vital influx from the soul before it can influence the members of its body, the moral head, such as the pope is, can exercise his jurisdiction over the Church, although he receives no influx of interior faith and charity from the soul of the Church. More briefly, as Billuart says, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, and his headship of the visible Church by jurisdiction and power is compatible with private heresy. The Church will always consist in the visible union of its members with its visible head, namely, the pope of Rome, although some, who externally seem to be members of the Church, may be private heretics. Thus the conclusion we must come to is, that occult heretics are only apparent members of the Church, which they externally and visibly profess to be the true Church.
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: Caminus on April 15, 2011, 01:10:47 PM
The texts you cited admit that people can know about a heresy (presuming it is heresy) without contradicting the notion that it still can remain occult.  You're too myopic on this.  First, you're equivocating on the term 'public' as it relates to a heretic among Catholics in contradistinction to a 'public' heretic as it relates to being associated to an heretical body.  Secondly, you're not taking into account the entirety of the Church legislation.  If you are correct, that upon the mere fact that a few people know about the heresy, they are absolutely cut off from membership, then there is absolutely no rational basis for authority to admonish an errant cleric.  Even St. Paul states that one ought to avoid a heretic after the second admonition.  That is a simple restatement of the legislative process of the Church.  Finally, you are confusing the Divine sentence with the Church's judgment.  In the abstract and in God's sight, the errant cleric may be entirely cut off from the Church, but the Church judges according to the external forum because it is an external society.  This is how all of her judgments must necessarily proceed.  And this in turn goes back to the notion of the basic requirements for membership in the Church.      
Title: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese....
Post by: SJB on April 15, 2011, 09:35:08 PM
Quote
...that the pope becoming secretly a heretic would no longer be an actual member of the Church, according to the teaching as explained in the body of the article...


This is NOT Bellarmine's teaching nor that of Mystici Corporis.