I currently attend a Cont. Anglican Church (one of the alphabet soup Anglican churches) I would like to convert to the Catholic Church but my husband has made it clear divorce is in the future if that is what occurs. I've been married for 9 years and have 4 children 9, 3, 2, and 9 mo. I've talked to a couple priests one of which was the head of the local Dominican Priory and he told me to preserve my marriage and my children's homelife I might have to wait till they are grown till I convert (so dealing with the divorce will be easier for them).
When is the Pope speaking infallibly?
Is VII a "pastoral council"-(proof please) or a binding infallible council-(again proof please) I just don't see how one can reconcile the CCC teaching/current teaching by Pope Benedict XVI and all with the pre-VII encyclicals etc. by past Popes.
What about attending a TLM by those that were ordained under the new revised Paul VI rite? Are they validly ordained?
You're out of your depth to give advice like that SS.
I just don't see how one can reconcile the CCC teaching/current teaching by Pope Benedict XVI and all with the pre-VII encyclicals etc. by past Popes.
When is the Pope speaking infallibly? (encyclicals, CCC, Councils, Papal Bulls??) Is VII a "pastoral council"-(proof please) or a binding infallible council-(again proof please) I just don't see how one can reconcile the CCC teaching/current teaching by Pope Benedict XVI and all with the pre-VII encyclicals etc. by past Popes. On subjects like the Jews, Islam, heretics/schismatics etc. The pre-Vatican II pronouncements seem pretty cut and dried, black and white but since VII they seem not "gray" or "unclear" but quite frankly the opposite of pre-VII Popes. Now I can understand the sedevacantist view, I don't quite get the SSPX view. He's the Pope, he's infallible, but he's been making seemingly heretical comments that don't jive with previous Popes.
Whatever you do, please avoid the Dimond Brothers as you would a poisonous snake.
Best wishes and prayers.
Quote from: Traditionalmom
When is the Pope speaking infallibly? (encyclicals, CCC, Councils, Papal Bulls??) Is VII a "pastoral council"-(proof please) or a binding infallible council-(again proof please) I just don't see how one can reconcile the CCC teaching/current teaching by Pope Benedict XVI and all with the pre-VII encyclicals etc. by past Popes. On subjects like the Jews, Islam, heretics/schismatics etc. The pre-Vatican II pronouncements seem pretty cut and dried, black and white but since VII they seem not "gray" or "unclear" but quite frankly the opposite of pre-VII Popes. Now I can understand the sedevacantist view, I don't quite get the SSPX view. He's the Pope, he's infallible, but he's been making seemingly heretical comments that don't jive with previous Popes.
These are some excellent questions you bring up, thanks for that.
"The pope speaks infallibly" actually means that when the pope is defining or teaching some doctrine of faith which all Catholics are bound to believe under pain of mortal sin, the Holy Ghost safeguards this teaching from error.
The pope himself is a mere human capable of all the infirmities, afflictions and corruptions we all are capable of - the only difference between you and him is his position of authority as supreme ruler and Christ's Vicar on earth. You can sin, he can sin. You can make mistakes, he can make mistakes. You can go out drinking and partying with friends, he can do the same - and on and on. He is perfectly capable of lying as you are unless he is defining doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.
As supreme ruler, he is also the supreme law maker and is perfectly capable of making both good and bad laws -which if they are bad, we are not bound to follow.
As supreme ruler, he is in charge of defending the faith from the "gates of hell", whose relentless efforts to penetrate undetected into the Church will continue non-stop till the end of time. But he is perfectly capable of dropping all defenses, perfectly capable of choosing to not do his job if he so chooses. Before he is pope, he is human.
For example aka Man for All Seasons, if the pope were to declare the world is flat, would that make the world flat? Same goes for speaking ex cathedra (infallibly). He can only define and repeat those things which had already been revealed to the Apostles at Pentecost for the good of the faith - this very brief and incomplete definition is what is called "the deposit of faith".
Most Catholics believe that everything the pope does is infallible because of his authority, but in reality, he can do very little infallibly because it is usually (not always) limited to repeating that which has already been taught or previously defined. I say "not always" because God can directly reveal (Divine Revelation) something not previously defined, such was the case with the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
The First Vatican Council was infallible and it was about papal infallibility - reading it might help to clear up some things for you: Vatican I (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecuм20.htm) declares:
For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter
not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine,
but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
I don't want to derail this thread so will only reply in regards to the position of the SSPX with what is often called "recognize and resist". IOW, recognize that the pope is the pope but disobey him when his laws are not good. I am no spokesman for the SSPX but can say they are following Church teaching in that regards as per cuм ex Apostolatus Officio (http://sedevacantist.com/encyclicals/Paul04/cuмex.html) This Constitution teaches: the Roman Pontiff,who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith...........
This teaches that the pope can indeed deviate from the faith. It teaches if and when this occurs that we are not to follow him, it teaches us that we are to contradict him in his error. I think this is a perfect reference that supports the "recognize and resist" position that the SSPX have held since it's beginning.
Additionally, they must have known that the pope can completely deviate from the faith as they continue on:
..........Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted
I think this is enough support for the SSPX's recognize and resist stance. I know others will disagree, but for me, this is enough to entirely and accurately explain why the SSPX remain loyal subjects of the pope yet condemn ("counteract") his NO.
The modernists behind the council insisted that it was "pastoral", but you don't start a Church council, then turn around and say "Oh, but you're not required to believe it". So, we should simply reject Vatican II and say that it was not a true council of the Church.
Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
The modernists behind the council insisted that it was "pastoral", but you don't start a Church council, then turn around and say "Oh, but you're not required to believe it". So, we should simply reject Vatican II and say that it was not a true council of the Church.
I hate to break it to you, but you do realise that if you do accept Pope Paul VI as having been a true Pope, rejecting Vatican Council II as "not a true council" puts you in objective schism with the Church?
I'm posting this here (and not on fisheaters-but I'm sure the local snitch over there may take me to task publically for it) I admit I tried to take the "can't we all just get along" place at fisheaters. I admit I publically castigated several SSPX'er folks for their views calling them "elitist and arrogant"-for that I am sorry please forgive me. I've been reading up on the SSPX and I was buying into the NO has to be OK because the Pope said so stuff but after reading several articles on SSPX.org I have to say I'd be pretty ticked off too to look at things the way they used to be and then after VII voila! it's all different.
Some of you Cathinfo people may know me from fisheaters I've also been to CAF as under a different user name. I don't like to go there anymore because I'm "abusive" for lovingly discipling my children with spanking and I think sodomy/sodomites-(currently a word that is pretty much off limits on fisheaters for fear of the RSS feed) is disgusting and vile.-I don't see those that are into sodomy as "victims".
Anyway a little background first then the questions/issues.
I currently attend a Cont. Anglican Church (one of the alphabet soup Anglican churches) I would like to convert to the Catholic Church but my husband has made it clear divorce is in the future if that is what occurs. I've been married for 9 years and have 4 children 9, 3, 2, and 9 mo. I've talked to a couple priests one of which was the head of the local Dominican Priory and he told me to preserve my marriage and my children's homelife I might have to wait till they are grown till I convert (so dealing with the divorce will be easier for them). I've watched basically all of the Dimonds vids. I think that some of what they say is logical but it seems hopeless to me if they are right. I prefer to have hope.
Now for the questions/concerns/issues...
When is the Pope speaking infallibly? (encyclicals, CCC, Councils, Papal Bulls??) Is VII a "pastoral council"-(proof please) or a binding infallible council-(again proof please) I just don't see how one can reconcile the CCC teaching/current teaching by Pope Benedict XVI and all with the pre-VII encyclicals etc. by past Popes. On subjects like the Jews, Islam, heretics/schismatics etc. The pre-Vatican II pronouncements seem pretty cut and dried, black and white but since VII they seem not "gray" or "unclear" but quite frankly the opposite of pre-VII Popes. Now I can understand the sedevacantist view, I don't quite get the SSPX view. He's the Pope, he's infallible, but he's been making seemingly heretical comments that don't jive with previous Popes.
I know I sound like a stupid female idiot and I am. I would like someone to explain these things to me in layman's terms not with a bunch of .50 cent words. Feel free to post proof with Papal docuмents and I'll try to understand them with help of a dictionary in some points. :scratchchin:
After seeing what I've personally seen in the NO and watched online other NO Masses I can definately say I won't attend one of those. What about attending a TLM by those that were ordained under the new revised Paul VI rite? Are they validly ordained?
Please help. (no joke I came here for answers) I've noticed the progression. If you go on CAF you get modernist liberal answers, example: "when the ccc says muslims have the same God they mean that there really is only one God and he's monotheistic" c'mon I wasn't born yesterday how do you reconcile that with fact they deny the Trinity and their "holy book" says God has no Son? If you go on fisheaters you get the same but just a slight difference.
Not to completely burn FE I've had some good conversations on there but yeah to question anything deeply is to be treated like a traitor and yeah the priest over there is one of them.
I'm posting this here (and not on fisheaters-but I'm sure the local snitch over there may take me to task publically for it) I admit I tried to take the "can't we all just get along" place at fisheaters. I admit I publically castigated several SSPX'er folks for their views calling them "elitist and arrogant"-for that I am sorry please forgive me. I've been reading up on the SSPX and I was buying into the NO has to be OK because the Pope said so stuff but after reading several articles on SSPX.org I have to say I'd be pretty ticked off too to look at things the way they used to be and then after VII voila! it's all different.
Some of you Cathinfo people may know me from fisheaters I've also been to CAF as under a different user name. I don't like to go there anymore because I'm "abusive" for lovingly discipling my children with spanking and I think sodomy/sodomites-(currently a word that is pretty much off limits on fisheaters for fear of the RSS feed) is disgusting and vile.-I don't see those that are into sodomy as "victims".
Anyway a little background first then the questions/issues.
I currently attend a Cont. Anglican Church (one of the alphabet soup Anglican churches) I would like to convert to the Catholic Church but my husband has made it clear divorce is in the future if that is what occurs. I've been married for 9 years and have 4 children 9, 3, 2, and 9 mo. I've talked to a couple priests one of which was the head of the local Dominican Priory and he told me to preserve my marriage and my children's homelife I might have to wait till they are grown till I convert (so dealing with the divorce will be easier for them). I've watched basically all of the Dimonds vids. I think that some of what they say is logical but it seems hopeless to me if they are right. I prefer to have hope.
Now for the questions/concerns/issues...
When is the Pope speaking infallibly? (encyclicals, CCC, Councils, Papal Bulls??) Is VII a "pastoral council"-(proof please) or a binding infallible council-(again proof please) I just don't see how one can reconcile the CCC teaching/current teaching by Pope Benedict XVI and all with the pre-VII encyclicals etc. by past Popes. On subjects like the Jews, Islam, heretics/schismatics etc. The pre-Vatican II pronouncements seem pretty cut and dried, black and white but since VII they seem not "gray" or "unclear" but quite frankly the opposite of pre-VII Popes. Now I can understand the sedevacantist view, I don't quite get the SSPX view. He's the Pope, he's infallible, but he's been making seemingly heretical comments that don't jive with previous Popes.
I know I sound like a stupid female idiot and I am. I would like someone to explain these things to me in layman's terms not with a bunch of .50 cent words. Feel free to post proof with Papal docuмents and I'll try to understand them with help of a dictionary in some points. :scratchchin:
After seeing what I've personally seen in the NO and watched online other NO Masses I can definately say I won't attend one of those. What about attending a TLM by those that were ordained under the new revised Paul VI rite? Are they validly ordained?
Please help. (no joke I came here for answers) I've noticed the progression. If you go on CAF you get modernist liberal answers, example: "when the ccc says muslims have the same God they mean that there really is only one God and he's monotheistic" c'mon I wasn't born yesterday how do you reconcile that with fact they deny the Trinity and their "holy book" says God has no Son? If you go on fisheaters you get the same but just a slight difference.
Not to completely burn FE I've had some good conversations on there but yeah to question anything deeply is to be treated like a traitor and yeah the priest over there is one of them.
Quote from: TelesphorusYou're out of your depth to give advice like that SS.
Ok, that wasn't correct. I should have said that if her husband is indeed serious about divorcing her if she converts, go ahead and let him divorce her. THAT is what I should have said, my apologies.
what's with the avoid the Dimonds like the plague nonsense, I have yet to hear 1 good reason to "avoid" the Dimonds....I'd like to know are ther e many priests in the SSPX that have not been traditionally ordained? I was under the impression they were
Quote from: TraditionalistThomasQuote from: SpiritusSanctus
The modernists behind the council insisted that it was "pastoral", but you don't start a Church council, then turn around and say "Oh, but you're not required to believe it". So, we should simply reject Vatican II and say that it was not a true council of the Church.
I hate to break it to you, but you do realise that if you do accept Pope Paul VI as having been a true Pope, rejecting Vatican Council II as "not a true council" puts you in objective schism with the Church?
I hate to break it to you, but you don't seem to know what the definition of schism is. And what you wrote is off-topic, this thread isn't about whether or not Paul VI was a true Pope. No one said anything about that.
Quote from: SigismundWhatever you do, please avoid the Dimond Brothers as you would a poisonous snake.
Best wishes and prayers.
can you give me the biggest disagreement you have with the Dimond brohers, I read on another post that they disagreed with their stance thatMary is not co-redeemer..can you give me your biggest gripe with them.. are you implying they are of bad will?
Quote from: goochwhat's with the avoid the Dimonds like the plague nonsense, I have yet to hear 1 good reason to "avoid" the Dimonds....I'd like to know are ther e many priests in the SSPX that have not been traditionally ordained? I was under the impression they were
Actually, Thomas is correct, the Dimonds should be avoided like the plague. They are your tpyical armchair theologians who condemn practically everyone (and for pretty ridiculous reasons), and they also spout heresy about the Blessed Virgin Mary. They are right about some things (most notably Fatima and the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr), but overall, they are extremists and liars.
As far as the ordinations of priests in the SSPX, a vast majority of them have been ordained in the Old Rite, NOT the New. There is a lot of falsehood going around about the validity of SSPX priests - even the validity of Archbishop Lefebvre's Ordination - but none of it is true. There have reportedly been a very small number of priests in the Society ordained in the New Rite, but assuming this is even true, it is very rare. It may become less rare, however, as the liberalization of the SSPX continues.
Quote from: goochQuote from: SigismundWhatever you do, please avoid the Dimond Brothers as you would a poisonous snake.
Best wishes and prayers.
can you give me the biggest disagreement you have with the Dimond brohers, I read on another post that they disagreed with their stance thatMary is not co-redeemer..can you give me your biggest gripe with them.. are you implying they are of bad will?
asked and answered many, many times........stop a new thread on the Demons....er Deimonds if you want, lets not confuse "newbie"
Hobble,
The text you posted on page 4 (thank you for doing so) refers to a possibility of refusing the bad acts of a pope. This seems to be the SSPX position. But it only does so in one small line. Of course, prayer is necessary also. However the article seems to stress prayer as the only remedy. I wish he would have elaborated on practical suggestions in the meantime.
There is no "complete" published sedevacantist theory except the Guerardian one (and even that has not been published in any language than French, and even in French it was not put into a systematic form and published in a volume, but rather it appeared scattered throughout issues of a journal). Yet non-sedevacantists are attacked for failing to adopt "sedevacantism". This only needs to be stated for its absurdity to be immediately apparent. Can any reasonable and just man condemn another for refusing to accept a theory which, as far as he can see, involves the denial that the Church has a hierarchy? Can anybody really be condemned for not adopting a theory which nobody has even bothered to present in a professional and complete form?
The Church of the Word Incarnate: An Essay of Speculative Theology[/i] (trans. A.H.C. Downes; London: Sheed and Ward, 1954), pg. 411n]During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, says Cajetan, the universal Church is in an imperfect state; she is like an amputated body, not an integral body. "The Church is acephalous, deprived of her highest part and power. Whoever contests that falls into the error of John Hus―who denied the need of a visible ruler for the Church―condemned in advance by St. Thomas, then by Martin V at the Council of Constance. And to say that the Church in this state holds her power immediately from Christ and that the General Council represents her, is to err intolerably" (De Comparatione etc., cap. vi., 74). Here are the seventh and the twenty-seventh propositions of John Hus condemned at the Council of Constance: "Peter neither is nor ever was the head of the Holy Catholic Church"; "There is nothing whatsoever to show that the spiritual order demands a head who shall continue to live and endure with the Church Militant" (Denz. 633 and 653).
the universal Church is in an imperfect state; she is like an amputated body, not an integral body. "The Church is acephalous, deprived of her highest part and power.
Even if one says BXVI is the pope it seems as if the current Church is functioning as if it had no head.