Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: CM on September 25, 2009, 02:17:36 AM
-
-
Joseph Ratzinger who has no title as Pope:
In other words, the claim of truth ought not to be raised where there is not a compelling and indisputable reason for doing so.
Orwellian doublespeak pales in comparison. I am flabbergasted that he actually set this sentence down in print. This is so bold that my tongue has just dried up in my mouth -- I'm almost speechless. I can't find the right way to even express the significance of this statement in bold enough terms. Ratzinger is attacking truth itself in the abstract. He is actually trying to make it seem like an act of Christian charity to withhold the truth.
As usual with him, "love" means having the kindness to not bother anyone with pesky proselytizing and to allow them to perish in their delusions. Not that it would help much if they were converted to his poor imitation of the Catholic Church.
-
Joseph Ratzinger who has no title as Pope:
In other words, the claim of truth ought not to be raised where there is not a compelling and indisputable reason for doing so.
Orwellian doublespeak pales in comparison. I am flabbergasted that he actually set this sentence down in print. This is so bold that my tongue has just dried up in my mouth -- I'm almost speechless. I can't find the right way to even express the significance of this statement in bold enough terms. Ratzinger is attacking truth itself in the abstract. He is actually trying to make it seem like an act of Christian charity to withhold the truth.
As usual with him, "love" means having the kindness to not bother anyone with pesky proselytizing and to allow them to perish in their delusions. Not that it would help much if they were converted to his poor imitation of the Catholic Church.
The SSPX is in "talks" with Rome about these and other heresies. Any word from them about this? They are almost certainly aware of it.
-
This article is by Mario Derksen. He reveals Ratzinger's heretical belief (or rather Ratzinger revealed it himself) that the Eastern 'Orthodox' do not need to convert or recognize the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff.
what do you really care, if you ar right, we all are wrong? WHy does this idol of Sedevacantism obssess you so? Do you lie awake at night and focus all day on ever jot of words, writings, etc...?also, whatever happened to Sedes gettign their own site and kicking the dust off their feet and moving on......do you not follow that scriptural mandate.?
-
another thought, does he hold this view now? Has he repented (like certain former guitar playing metal heads claim they have of their sins)?
-
Have you ever heard Ratzinger repent of anything, Belloc?
The VII encyclicals have not been rescinded and the Novus Ordo Mass has not been abolished. Those are just two of the things Ratzinger would have to do to repent. But guess what? Even then he would not be Pope, despite what the sedeprivationists say, because his election is invalid, as the cardinal-bishops who elected him were consecrated in the New Rite.
The VII Church is now a perfect ghost. There is no life in it. It has been gutted, stuffed, and mounted.
-
CM, I believe the "talks" of the SSPX are a diversionary manoeuvre and a red herring. SSPX-watchers constantly fret about whether Bp. Fellay will be sucked back into the VII sect. What they do not or cannot fathom is that because of the una cuм mass they are ALREADY IN THE SECT.
It's sort of like how conspiracy theorists worry and obsess over the "Amero" and the end of American sovereignity, when the dollar bill is already riddled with Freemasonic symbols and this nation has been Freemasonic since the Constitution was drafted.
ARGGGHH! I just got jury duty!
-
Ratzinger:
Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.
What a good deal! The Orthodox of today only have to "cease to oppose" Catholicism -- not embrace it -- and then not only they but their ancestors can be saved WITHIN THEIR SCHISM, according to the fly-by-night, throw-it-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks theology of one Joseph Ratzinger. So again we are right back to the primal heresy, that you can be saved outside the Catholic Church. The cherry on top is that not only the living but that even the dead can now be saved outside the Catholic Church.
Ratzinger is truly a generous man, except that his promises have about as much validity as those of the Mad Hatter.
-
In other words, the claim of truth ought not to be raised where there is not a compelling and indisputable reason for doing so. We may not interpret as truth that which is, in reality, a historical development with a more or less close relationship to truth. Whenever, then, the weight of truth and its incontrovertibility are involved, they must be met by a corresponding sincerity that avoids laying claim to truth prematurely and is ready to search for the inner fullness of truth with the eyes of love.
You're misunderstanding what he is trying to say, which is not surprising since you have no charity within you.
In summary, his point is that we cannot demand the conversion of the Orthodox on the grounds of an historical development of the Papacy which is accidental to the essence of the office and doctrine itself. He doesn't specify what he thinks might comprise these non-essential historical developments, rather he is laying the groundwork for the necessary truth upon which one must convert to.
No heresy here, other things maybe, but not heresy for he implicitly asserts that there is indeed unchangeable truth to which one must adhere.
-
Have you ever heard Ratzinger repent of anything, Belloc?.
Publicly, he has made mvoes in the right direction, from his V2 days, but no....have not been in confessional with him either........
-
It's sort of like how conspiracy theorists worry and obsess over the "Amero" and the end of American sovereignity,
USA on bad foundations to start with, does not mean I want to merge with Socialist Canada or anarchic Mexico either.Canada is way ahead, thought we are closing gap, on socialism.....MExico, last 100+ yrs of rulers were Freemasons and/or tied in some way to Freemasons! Study the nation since independance from SPain, afterward ,study other S.AMerican leaders from same period, almost all Masonic to a tee.Bolivar be the worst in many ways....the rebellion against Spain largely to break from Church/State......Remember teh Christeros.....
-
CM, I believe the "talks" of the SSPX are a diversionary manoeuvre and a red herring. SSPX-watchers constantly fret about whether Bp. Fellay will be sucked back into the VII sect. What they do not or cannot fathom is that because of the una cuм mass they are ALREADY IN THE SECT.
Do you realize how mortally sinful it is to wrongly impute false motives to someone else especially when the contrary is publicly manifested and there is no evidence to the contrary? And for the last time, the ravings of your imagination and superficial "intuitions" do not constitute evidence.
The evil in your eye is palpable. It literally makes me shudder.
-
They do not care because they consider the Pope no more than a Prot or pagan........they excommunicated the Church, they could care less.
-
What they do not or cannot fathom is that because of the una cuм mass they are ALREADY IN THE SECT.
Something that the "brightest lights" of Traddieland have been unable to demonstrate. Yes, they have speculated, at times brilliantly. Next...
-
Do you realize how mortally sinful it is to wrongly impute false motives to someone else especially when the contrary is publicly manifested and there is no evidence to the contrary? And for the last time, the ravings of your imagination and superficial "intuitions" do not constitute evidence.
Was St. Catherine of Siena "mortally sinful" when she said that the cardinals who elected the Avignon Popes were "flowers that shed no perfume, but stench that makes the whole world reek," or was she telling the truth?
Was Christ "mortally sinful" when He called the Pharisees "children of the devil"?
It seems to me that SSPX is keeping the VII sect alive and hopping, and that they go out of their way to justify the enemy, even going so far as to say the New Rite of Consecration is valid and to allow priests to enter their society DIRECT from Novus Ordo without being re-ordained. Abp. Lefebvre when he was alive kicked sedevacantists out of the seminary without any pay, against the rules of the Church, enforced the 1962 Missal, and enforced the una cuм with an iron rod.
How is the contrary of my "intuition" publicly manifested, Caminus? Please explain, I'm listening. My intuition is based on the facts I just presented, the concrete ACTIONS of the SSPX, just as the Cardinals of the Great Western Schism showed their bad faith through the action of electing two Popes because they didn't like the first one.
You want to turn me into the intolerant and uncharitable one because of my mere words, when Abp. Lefebvre's ACTIONS showed he was the one who truly lacked charity, and it is his actions that have led to my harsh words. If Abp. Lefebvre just wanted to maintain tradition why did he not allow SSPX to be an umbrella covering both sedevacantists and those who said the una cuм until we had further information about which side was right? For someone who was honestly confused and troubled that would be the obvious solution.
Like Malachi Martin, Abp. Lefebvre seems to be a sacred monster for some traditionalists. They can create all kinds of havoc and then be forgiven anything because they were "confused." What many don't understand is that this does not excuse him even if it's true. A leader's job is to lead -- if he is confused, he is a bad leader, and God has not called him. It's pretty simple. But Abp. Lefebvre not only positioned himself as a leader, but tried to squelch and squash the voices of those who would have made better leaders, because they possessed more truth.
Again, this was an action, that had results, that had consequences, that had FRUITS that REEKED, upon which I base my provisional judgment.
-
Raoul makes things up as he goes along in order to make the problem nice, neat and tidy in his mind. His offense is worse than that of the modernists for he claims to adhere to traditional catholicism.
I'll say it again, to unite and come together under the banner of anything other than the traditional catholic faith is a very grave error.
When confronted with reality, he runs and hides taking cover under the false pretext of his rash conclusions drawn from a mass of hazy notions.
I'm going to play doctor of souls for a moment and recommend that he needs to drop this rabid conjure that has taken the place of a spiritual life and attend an Ignatian retreat administered by a traditional order of priests along with a heavy dose of devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
-
Was St. Catherine of Siena "mortally sinful" when she said that the cardinals who elected the Avignon Popes were "flowers that shed no perfume, but stench that makes the whole world reek," or was she telling the truth?
This is a false comparison as you cannot point to any moral corruption among the priests of this little society other than that they have contravened your dogmatic orders.
Was Christ "mortally sinful" when He called the Pharisees "children of the devil"?
No, but you are when you engage in unjust accusations.
It seems to me that SSPX is keeping the VII sect alive and hopping, and that they go out of their way to justify the enemy, even going so far as to say the New Rite of Consecration is valid and to allow priests to enter their society DIRECT from Novus Ordo without being re-ordained.
There are several false assumptions that fuel your hatred. The first being that we are dealing with a "sect" much less a condemned sect. Secondly, they are not "hoping to justify the enemy." This is a morally sinful accusation for they have stated precisely the opposite. Thirdly, you presume that the new rite of ordination is invalid, taking your cue from a presumptuous priest who has no grounds for what he says. Then you pretend as if it's a foregone conclusion, that there is no room for debate. This is an utterly false attitude to have morally, legally and theologically. I'll say it yet again, your rash, unfounded conclusory allegations do not amount to reality. If anything, they reveal a deep fear and intellectual dishonesty. Fourthly, you take a delicate and complex question, that is handled on a case by case basis and take your wrecking ball mentality and destroy everything in sight. I've called you out on this "sensationalism" before to which you did not reply. You're relying on a thousand little distortions, exaggerations and lies in order to fuel your hysteria.
Abp. Lefebvre when he was alive kicked sedevacantists out of the seminary without any pay, against the rules of the Church, enforced the 1962 Missal, and enforced the una cuм with an iron rod.
This is yet another gross mischaracterization. You are ignorant of basic historical fact. Why do you insist on demonizing good priests much like the communists do?
How is the contrary of my "intuition" publicly manifested, Caminus? Please explain, I'm listening. My intuition is based on the facts I just presented, the concrete ACTIONS of the SSPX, just as the Cardinals of the Great Western Schism showed their bad faith through the action of electing two Popes because they didn't like the first one.
Precisely because they have stated their intentions. If you don't like them, fine, but don't just lie about it. Their "actions" are to engage in an actual debate about doctrine with men who have a juridical claim to their office, your thievery notwithstanding. Your opinions amount to nothing really, I wish you would realize that once and for all.
You want to turn me into the intolerant and uncharitable one because of my mere words, when Abp. Lefebvre's ACTIONS showed he was the one who truly lacked charity, and it is his actions that have led to my harsh words. If Abp. Lefebvre just wanted to maintain tradition why did he not allow SSPX to be an umbrella covering both sedevacantists and those who said the una cuм until we had further information about which side was right? For someone who was honestly confused and troubled that would be the obvious solution.
And what uncharitable action is that? It was the sedevacantists who left him my friend and stole property on top of it. Even if a man made a slight prudential error in those turbulent times, which I do not at all concede, that doesn't amount to a "lack of charity." But the utterly astounding lack of charity on your part is obvious on several different levels.
Like Malachi Martin, Abp. Lefebvre seems to be a sacred monster for some traditionalists. They can create all kinds of havoc and then be forgiven anything because they were "confused." What many don't understand is that this does not excuse him even if it's true. A leader's job is to lead -- if he is confused, he is a bad leader, and God has not called him. It's pretty simple. But Abp. Lefebvre not only positioned himself as a leader, but tried to squelch and squash the voices of those who would have made better leaders, because they possessed more truth.
There you go again, making utterly false, rash, presumptuous and unjust conclusory accusations. What is wrong with you man?
Again, this was an action, that had results, that had consequences, that had FRUITS that REEKED, upon which I base my provisional judgment.
Ah yes, by their fruits. Evil is the man who calls good evil and evil good. That little priestly society which you so despise because they do not follow your orders has born abundant good fruit. Leave it to your evil eye to twist what is good into what is evil.
-
I also notice that you didn't even respond to the explanation of what Benedict was talking about. Par for the course.
I tell you what, why don't we formally debate something? Anything you'd like. Keep it simple, direct and on point. No rambling aloud. That way, you won't be able to ignore any criticism. Shall we?
-
This is a false comparison as you cannot point to any moral corruption among the priests of this little society other than that they have contravened your dogmatic orders
There was no moral corruption apparent among the Avignon Popes either but they divided Christendom. SSPX does worse than that -- they keep people in league with a formal heretic and apostate who pretends to be the head of the Catholic Church.
No, but you are when you engage in unjust accusations.
I don't accuse, I point out the facts. By your logic someone can go out and do all the wrong things and still be justified by good intentions. It is you who are being presumptuous by imputing good intentions to everybody in a time of conspiracy and crisis. Of course that is the technique of the conspirators themselves.
No wonder you later call me a "communist." When we call others' names they generally tend to describe ourselves because they reflect our own way of thinking.
Secondly, they are not "hoping to justify the enemy."
I said they keep "the VII sect alive and hopping." I did not saying "hoping." But what you are "hoping" to do is catch me judging internal intentions even though I am very careful about no longer doing so. I will admit that I did shortly after being baptized but the Holy Ghost led me to higher ground.
Thirdly, you presume that the new rite of ordination is invalid, taking your cue from a presumptuous priest who has no grounds for what he says.
Not the New Rite of Ordination but the New Rite of CONSECRATION. The theologians are numerous who have said that this is invalid. And if the bishops are invalid, then the priests they ordain are likewise invalid.
Precisely because they have stated their intentions. If you don't like them, fine, but don't just lie about it.
Now who is the one judging internal intentions? While some people who have read my posts may think I'm a bit rash, my sincerity is one thing that is not in question. Yet you say I "lie."
It was the sedevacantists who left him my friend and stole property on top of it.
I'm not talking about the Nine, but about the sedevacantists in the SSPX before that time. As far as the Nine goes, I have not studied the court case and don't know who took what from whom, but if it was "stolen" why aren't they in jail, why weren't they fined? Obviously the Nine knew they'd be out in the cold without a dime to their names if they let Abp. Lebvre have his way, because that was his modus operandi. So whether rightly or wrongly, they protected themselves.
This behavior continues. The sedevacantist priest Abbe Xavier Grossin, who used to be with the FSSPX, was viciously handled by Bp. Fellay because he refused to celebrate JPII's Jubilee. This is a pattern with them, abusing those who do not worship the false Popes -- who are public and formal heretics -- which easily demonstrates whose side they are really on.
There are several false assumptions that fuel your hatred. The first being that we are dealing with a "sect" much less a condemned sect.
No formal heretic can be the Pope unless you believe the Church can fail. There is no point to have discussions with someone who has always been a dogged enemy of Christ and is one of the greatest murderers of souls who ever lived, and it is disingenuous at the very least to pretend otherwise.
Ah yes, by their fruits. Evil is the man who calls good evil and evil good. That little priestly society which you so despise because they do not follow your orders has born abundant good fruit.
Time will tell and the truth will out.
I tell you what, why don't we formally debate something? Anything you'd like. Keep it simple, direct and on point. No rambling aloud. That way, you won't be able to ignore any criticism. Shall we?
I have responded to every criticism of my position but I will continue to ignore criticisms of my person because they are cheap and irrelevant. Perhaps you hope I will become emotional and lose my cool, thus discrediting myself? I see this a lot among people of your ilk. Get a new technique.
-
Raoul76 being myself said:
But what you are "hoping" to do is catch me judging internal intentions even though I am very careful about no longer doing so.
Okay, ha ha, I walked into your trap here and judged internal intentions, in this case, what comes across as your internal intention to catch me judging internal intentions. Spare your breath and refrain from correcting me. I just corrected myself and I'm sorry for the assumption.
I try not to do that, but sometimes I falter. I do not deny that I'm suspicious of many, many people, and I have always painted our time as a time of conspiracy. It is the pinnacle of conspiracy, in fact. But I try to dig up facts about those I suspect and not just make blanket statements.
-
Raoul makes things up as he goes along in order to make the problem nice, neat and tidy in his mind. His offense is worse than that of the modernists for he claims to adhere to traditional catholicism.
I'll say it again, to unite and come together under the banner of anything other than the traditional catholic faith is a very grave error.
When confronted with reality, he runs and hides taking cover under the false pretext of his rash conclusions drawn from a mass of hazy notions.
I'm going to play doctor of souls for a moment and recommend that he needs to drop this rabid conjure that has taken the place of a spiritual life and attend an Ignatian retreat administered by a traditional order of priests along with a heavy dose of devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
And you do the same thing, Caminus. You challanged me to quote Billot and then discuss it...then you ran away. Do you ever reread what you say to people here? Where are your manners?
-
In other words, the claim of truth ought not to be raised where there is not a compelling and indisputable reason for doing so. We may not interpret as truth that which is, in reality, a historical development with a more or less close relationship to truth. Whenever, then, the weight of truth and its incontrovertibility are involved, they must be met by a corresponding sincerity that avoids laying claim to truth prematurely and is ready to search for the inner fullness of truth with the eyes of love.
You're misunderstanding what he is trying to say, which is not surprising since you have no charity within you.
I thought you we're going to play nice?
In summary, his point is that we cannot demand the conversion of the Orthodox on the grounds of an historical development of the Papacy which is accidental to the essence of the office and doctrine itself. He doesn't specify what he thinks might comprise these non-essential historical developments, rather he is laying the groundwork for the necessary truth upon which one must convert to.
You cannot DEMAND anyone's conversion. This has always been the teaching of the Church AND it follows from the definitions of Faith and Heresy. The Faith must be freely accepted and it can only be freely rejected. I don't think you really understand this.
No heresy here, other things maybe, but not heresy for he implicitly asserts that there is indeed unchangeable truth to which one must adhere.
It's a grave error being taught by a pope (according to you, at least). How do you explain this?
-
SJB said:
"You cannot DEMAND anyone's conversion. This has always been the teaching of the Church AND it follows from the definitions of Faith and Heresy. The Faith must be freely accepted and it can only be freely rejected. I don't think you really understand this."
That is quibbling with words. I know that the Catholic Church has usually been against forced conversions ( though Jews were forcibly baptized in Spain and elsewhere ), preferring free consent. But it still teaches firmly and unequivocally that all who are outside of her bosom are not in the way of salvation.
It certainly never taught, as Ratzinger does here, that schismatics can be justified as long as they "cease to oppose" the Catholics, without even converting.
-
SJB said:
"You cannot DEMAND anyone's conversion. This has always been the teaching of the Church AND it follows from the definitions of Faith and Heresy. The Faith must be freely accepted and it can only be freely rejected. I don't think you really understand this."
That is quibbling with words. I know that the Catholic Church has usually been against forced conversions ( though Jews were forcibly baptized in Spain and elsewhere ), preferring free consent. But it still teaches firmly and unequivocally that all who are outside of her bosom are not in the way of salvation.
It certainly never taught, as Ratzinger does here, that schismatics can be justified as long as they "cease to oppose" the Catholics, without even converting.
I think you misunderstand me. It should be obvious that one cannot be forced to accept the Faith any more than one can be forced to abandon it.
-
Caminus said:
In summary, his point is that we cannot demand the conversion of the Orthodox on the grounds of an historical development of the Papacy which is accidental to the essence of the office and doctrine itself. He doesn't specify what he thinks might comprise these non-essential historical developments, rather he is laying the groundwork for the necessary truth upon which one must convert to.
You would make a fine successor to Ratzinger. You have the gobbeldygook down pat.
What is this "historical development of the Papacy which is accidental to the essence of the office and doctrine itself"? You say that "He doesn't specify." That's because there is no such historical development. The Church does not develop; it has always taught the same thing. All revelation was finished with the Apostles, and your idea of development has been condemned by St. Pius X.
The Oath Against Modernism:
"Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously."
Then you say that Ratzinger "is laying the groundwork for the necessary truth upon which one must convert to." The Catholic Church does not "lay the groundwork for truth." The Catholic Church IS truth, the Divine Deposit of truth.
The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.
Yet according to you and Ratzinger we are still holding our breath interminably waiting for a "development" that of course never comes, because there can be no development.
Again you stand condemned by St. Pius X.
-
SJB, yes you're right, there can be no forced conversion because such a person has not been born again of the Holy Ghost. I do not misunderstand this in the least.
My choice of words was poor. All I meant was that the Catholic Church URGES conversion by firmly teaching, as did Pope Innocent III, that "One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved."
Ratzinger is not doing that but is instead saying that merely "ceasing to oppose" Catholicism can, for the Orthodox, lead to some sort of reconciliation that exists only in his own mind. Since he doesn't represent Catholics and is not the Pope, his attempts at reconciliation or of retroactively justifying the Orthodox make absolutely no difference. He is no more in the Catholic Church than they are and what you have are the Mad Hatter and the March Hare playing make-believe at a big tea party.
-
Ratzinger always speaks as if Protestants and Catholics, or Orthodox and Catholics, must find a shared ground, a middle ground, the opposite of the true Catholic approach which is to insist that only we have the true faith. He speaks like a politician trying to bridge two warring parties by accepting the differences of the other, instead of like the head of the Universal Church which alone can lead a man to the Beatific Vision, and does not recognize nor admire the mistakes of others but instead urgently seeks to correct them.
Either the Indians wipe off the face-paint and live like civilized men, or they get slaughtered. Either all men convert to the Catholic Church or they will likewise be rejected by God on the Day of Judgment. THAT is the approach of the Catholic Church.
It is not only his blatant heresies that lead Ratzinger out of the Church, but his entire manner of speech, his approach, his erroneous conception of what it is to be a "peacemaker," which is always to diminish the Church's power -- or so he pretends, though in reality it can never be diminished -- and to appease those in the devil's religions. He and his predescessors have so thoroughly killed the missionary spirit that he has made being a Catholic a matter of almost total indifference, and it is well-known that VII priests often turn away those from other "faiths" who want to convert.
It doesn't matter if he occasionally sounds orthodox either, or if he says the name of Christ a lot either.
Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Pope St. Pius X:
The Methods of Modernists
18. This becomes still clearer to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In the writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate now one doctrine now another so that one would be disposed to regard them as vague and doubtful. But there is a reason for this, and it is to be found in their ideas as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Hence in their books you find some things which might well be expressed by a Catholic, but in the next page you find other things which might have been dictated by a rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they write history they pay no heed to the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechise the people, they cite them respectfully. In the same way they draw their distinctions between theological and pastoral exegesis and scientific and historical exegesis.
Allow me to ask you, Caminus, why do you defend Ratzinger far beyond your masters at the SSPX, who often point out these very same ecuмenical quagmires that Catholic Martyr and Derksen pointed out?
-
SJB, yes you're right, there can be no forced conversion because such a person has not been born again of the Holy Ghost. I do not misunderstand this in the least.
I wasn't suggesting you misunderstood that...I was saying you misunderstood my post. :) There are those who confuse the fact that conversion cannot be forced with a liberty to error. There are surely some orthodox who are invincibly ignorant of the authority of the Church and chose a different rule of Faith. But that possibility does not say anything about the schismatic and heretical sect that HOLDS THEM IN THEIR ERROR concerning the Authority of the Church. If they break free and freely embrace the Catholic rule of Faith...they will then accept all the truths (thanks Gladius :)) required for their salvation because they accept and believe because of the authority of the Catholic Church.
Schismatic and heretical sects ARE NOT a means of salvation.
My choice of words was poor. All I meant was that the Catholic Church URGES conversion by firmly teaching, as did Pope Innocent III, that "One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved."
Correct. The Catholic Church is a necessary means of salvation. No one is saved outside Her.
Ratzinger is not doing that but is instead saying that merely "ceasing to oppose" Catholicism can, for the Orthodox, lead to some sort of reconciliation that exists only in his own mind.
The Orthodox need to become Catholic. Period. There is no other way.
-
Raoul76 being myself said:
But what you are "hoping" to do is catch me judging internal intentions even though I am very careful about no longer doing so.
Okay, ha ha, I walked into your trap here and judged internal intentions, in this case, what comes across as your internal intention to catch me judging internal intentions. Spare your breath and refrain from correcting me. I just corrected myself and I'm sorry for the assumption.
I try not to do that, but sometimes I falter. I do not deny that I'm suspicious of many, many people, and I have always painted our time as a time of conspiracy. It is the pinnacle of conspiracy, in fact. But I try to dig up facts about those I suspect and not just make blanket statements.
Who Baptised you? Because adults need to take Catholic instruction for the Sacraments. Which chatecism did you use?
For all of your condemnations of various people to have any credibility, why not begin by showing us YOUR credentials?
-
I was baptized at CMRI by Father Gerard McKee, complete with exorcism. I studied a Pius XII catechism. But I have since fallen out somewhat with CMRI -- despite my affection for my priest, who I went to lunch with almost every week -- because they allow people to go to the una cuм Mass, which suddenly struck me as a contradiction and negation of the entire sedevacantist position. I'm praying that Bishop Pivarunas changes his mind.
My only credentials besides that are that I was plucked out of paganism by God Himself, in the midst of the worst apostasy in history, so I'd say that the Holy Ghost is on my side. Or else this is all kind of pointless but I don't think the Holy Ghost operates pointlessly. But I don't go around touting my "remarkable life story," I just try to bring people to the same peace that I have found through the truth.
Where do you get the idea that I'm condemning people? My one goal is to try to bring people to the sedevacantist position which I believe to be the Catholic Church whole and inviolate. I'm trying to help them, not condemn them. I just don't pretend that we're all on the same side because we're not.
Why is it okay for the SSPX to constantly bash sedevacantists, but they can't handle it when the favor is returned? They make their case and we make ours. It's nothing personal. It only seems that way because we have the truth and they don't and so they have to resort to emotion, slander and distortion.
The SSPX never answers these questions:
( 1 ) How does their position not deny papal infallibility?
( 2 ) How can a relentless formal heretic be Pope?
( 3 ) How can you Pope-sift and choose what you want to follow and what you don't want to follow?
They cannot answer these questions so instead they launch a full-frontal attack against sedes, who they usually call immoderate or intolerant or uncharitable. They smear us as fanatics because their main argument is that they have taken a "reasonable" approach to the crisis while we are just emotionally-driven maniacs. What they seem to forget is that we don't get photographed and put in the papers like Bps. Fellay and Williamson. We have very little to gain by being pushed as deeply underground as we are. Ask yourself, what do I have to gain from all this, if it's not my eternal salvation?
My vocation is to be a priest. I am driven and fervent beyond belief. I have no idea what to do otherwise and sit around twiddling my thumbs. If I were a priest and even had a flock of four people I would serve them day and night; I'd get up at three o'clock to help them or answer any question. I would never forget the misery I have been through of trying to find just one person I could trust. I would devote myself to the flock like a slave, so they would never have to experience this awful desolation.
I'm trying to express my deep, deep desire to be a priest, which burns through my heart. If I thought that there was ANY WAY I could keep my soul and be an SSPX priest, I'd have been in seminary months ago. But I don't. So how can I recommend others attend the una cuм Mass? Why would I tell them to do what I wouldn't do myself?
I honestly believe that it is sacrilege. Ask yourself this, Elizabeth: If you honestly believed it was sacrilege, would you tell people to go? At least give me credit that I am speaking my true convictions, even if you disagree. I'm not going to boast, but if there is one thing I'm not, it's a liar.
That doesn't mean I'm not wrong, however... If I am and someone convinces me, I will admit it.
-
At least I'm not a liar when it comes to what matters. Sometimes I find myself lying about little things, something I've been working hard to correct. Hence this added post.
-
another thought, does he hold this view now? Has he repented (like certain former guitar playing metal heads claim they have of their sins)?
Implying I'm a liar? Does knowing my previous sins give you a valid reason to reject my positions? Have you comitted zero mortal sins in your life?
:plant:
What they do not or cannot fathom is that because of the una cuм mass they are ALREADY IN THE SECT.
Something that the "brightest lights" of Traddieland have been unable to demonstrate. Yes, they have speculated, at times brilliantly. Next...
You don't believe that recognition of Benedict XVI as your 'pope' places you in the same religion as him?
What happened to "one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism"?
-
We just have no true saints in our day to tell if the present
lot of Bishops, and Cardinals , and the pope stink because of
their sins.
This is what the spirit of vatican 2 has done to the whole
church.
If it is a devine punishment for the sins of the church, that it is
now a spiritual waste land. :incense:
-
There was no moral corruption apparent among the Avignon Popes either but they divided Christendom. SSPX does worse than that -- they keep people in league with a formal heretic and apostate who pretends to be the head of the Catholic Church.
Your like a slippery serpent. First you refer to bishops, then you refer to popes. You're going to have to detail what precisely you are referring to in order for me to respond appropriately. You are also going to have to honestly present Catherine's comments and more importantly what precisely she was referring to with regard to said comments. Then you're going to have to explain the actions of the SSPX that are objectively immoral in order to draw a legitimate comparison. I refuse to allow your rash historical analysis and comparison to go without further comment as the greater part of your assertions rely upon faulty historical comparisons and intangible assumptions. You like to "fill in the gaps" with all sorts of ridiculous and unjust connections.
No, but you are when you engage in unjust accusations.
I don't accuse, I point out the facts. By your logic someone can go out and do all the wrong things and still be justified by good intentions. It is you who are being presumptuous by imputing good intentions to everybody in a time of conspiracy and crisis. Of course that is the technique of the conspirators themselves.
You apparently have no idea what an "accusation" means or you are lying again. I don't object to pointing out and denouncing evil, my only prerequisite is to determine if there is actually an evil to denounce and what kind of evil it is. You're short on both counts.
No wonder you later call me a "communist." When we call others' names they generally tend to describe ourselves because they reflect our own way of thinking.
Right. Your cheap little jabs do not produce their desired effect.
Secondly, they are not "hoping to justify the enemy."
I said they keep "the VII sect alive and hopping." I did not saying "hoping." But what you are "hoping" to do is catch me judging internal intentions even though I am very careful about no longer doing so. I will admit that I did shortly after being baptized but the Holy Ghost led me to higher ground.
You asserted that "they go out of their way to justify the enemy" which is manifestly a wicked thing to say. You fail again to distinguish what resides in your mind and what actually constitutes reality. Some say insane people do the same thing.
Thirdly, you presume that the new rite of ordination is invalid, taking your cue from a presumptuous priest who has no grounds for what he says.
Not the New Rite of Ordination but the New Rite of CONSECRATION. The theologians are numerous who have said that this is invalid. And if the bishops are invalid, then the priests they ordain are likewise invalid.
A distinction without a difference for the purposes of our present discussion. You picked up on his shallow essay and hold it up as dogma, not because it is true, but because it fuels your personal opinions.
Precisely because they have stated their intentions. If you don't like them, fine, but don't just lie about it.
Now who is the one judging internal intentions? While some people who have read my posts may think I'm a bit rash, my sincerity is one thing that is not in question. Yet you say I "lie."
You utter objective lies. Or as God judged St. Jerome on the brink of his death in response to his protestation that he was a Christian, He simply said, "Thou liest."
It was the sedevacantists who left him my friend and stole property on top of it.
I'm not talking about the Nine, but about the sedevacantists in the SSPX before that time. As far as the Nine goes, I have not studied the court case and don't know who took what from whom, but if it was "stolen" why aren't they in jail, why weren't they fined? Obviously the Nine knew they'd be out in the cold without a dime to their names if they let Abp. Lebvre have his way, because that was his modus operandi. So whether rightly or wrongly, they protected themselves.
Then you better get to studying my friend. You better get to studying a whole lot more before you open that foul trap again for Archbishop Lefebfre didn't expel men who held as a private opinion that John Paul was a formal heretic. This is different than asserting the rash and unfounded hollywood theme of the run-of-the-mill dogmatic sedevacantist who without warrant asserts that John XXIII and Paul VI were formal heretics, that the entire hierarchy "apostasized" and so on. These reckless madmen favor their little theories rather than divine unity of faith.
This behavior continues. The sedevacantist priest Abbe Xavier Grossin, who used to be with the FSSPX, was viciously handled by Bp. Fellay because he refused to celebrate JPII's Jubilee. This is a pattern with them, abusing those who do not worship the false Popes -- who are public and formal heretics -- which easily demonstrates whose side they are really on.
You'll forgive me if I distrust your accounting of events due to extreme bias.
There are several false assumptions that fuel your hatred. The first being that we are dealing with a "sect" much less a condemned sect.
No formal heretic can be the Pope unless you believe the Church can fail. There is no point to have discussions with someone who has always been a dogged enemy of Christ and is one of the greatest murderers of souls who ever lived, and it is disingenuous at the very least to pretend otherwise.
On the contrary, if you had any sense, you'd understand that you don't get to declare who is a formal heretic, much less men you've never met. On the contary again, I don't see how the Church hasn't "failed" under your conception of things for the fundamental tenant of your religion is based upon the assertion that a man is a formal heretic. In point of fact, you yourself have become what you despise so unjustly for you collect the "true faithful" under the banner of something other than the catholic faith. This is the classic modus of the schismatic. It is a modus that bears a striking resemblance to the fools who think that the non-dogmatic opinions of Vatican II constitute our "communion."
Ah yes, by their fruits. Evil is the man who calls good evil and evil good. That little priestly society which you so despise because they do not follow your orders has born abundant good fruit.
I have responded to every criticism of my position but I will continue to ignore criticisms of my person because they are cheap and irrelevant. Perhaps you hope I will become emotional and lose my cool, thus discrediting myself? I see this a lot among people of your ilk. Get a new technique.
Not even close. It appears then that you must skim opposition posts because you've missed a great deal of criticism. The fact that you dismiss substantial arguments as "cheap and irrelevant" speak to your own intellectual dishonesty. And if you haven't figured out why I handle you in a rougher manner than others, it is soley because of your obstinancy in holding what I see as objectively evil opinions that are injurious to the unity of the Church.
But here's your chance to expose all of my "cheap" arguments. Pick a topic and let us debate it. I'll even let you enlist the help of the brightest members of your sect. Start a new thread, I'll be waiting.
-
And you do the same thing, Caminus. You challanged me to quote Billot and then discuss it...then you ran away. Do you ever reread what you say to people here? Where are your manners?
"Ran away"? LOL. I responded to you at the top of page 10. I can understand why you don't like the way I engage Raoul (and CM), but I have my reasons.
-
Allow me to ask you, Caminus, why do you defend Ratzinger far beyond your masters at the SSPX, who often point out these very same ecuмenical quagmires that Catholic Martyr and Derksen pointed out?
Raoul, if you want to venture out and criticize certain problems, it is imperative that you deal honestly with them. You need to present the problem precisely as it is, not as you wish it to be. There are plenty of problems in the Church today, making up more isn't helpful. There is no room for mischaracterization.
In short, I'm not "defending" anything, rather I am pointing out your own shortcomings. Remember, you are responsible for everything you say, even when opposing real or apparent enemies. So crucial is this attitude and method that if you refuse to do so, and even claim that those who point out your mistakes are "defending heretics," that I would suggest you entirely abandon such efforts as it will only produce the foulest effects in your own soul.
-
I think you mean POPE Benedict XVI.
-
And you do the same thing, Caminus. You challanged me to quote Billot and then discuss it...then you ran away. Do you ever reread what you say to people here? Where are your manners?
"Ran away"? LOL. I responded to you at the top of page 10. I can understand why you don't like the way I engage Raoul (and CM), but I have my reasons.
Yes, LOL.
Let's discuss the external and internal forum then. Do you know what they are? And do you know why they are irrelevant in this discussion. Billot doesn't mention them for a reason.
-
I think you mean POPE Benedict XVI.
Good grief!
-
And you do the same thing, Caminus. You challanged me to quote Billot and then discuss it...then you ran away. Do you ever reread what you say to people here? Where are your manners?
"Ran away"? LOL. I responded to you at the top of page 10. I can understand why you don't like the way I engage Raoul (and CM), but I have my reasons.
Yes, LOL.
Let's discuss the external and internal forum then. Do you know what they are? And do you know why they are irrelevant in this discussion. Billot doesn't mention them for a reason.
Okay, let's discuss it then. Yes, I know what they are, though they are explained differently depending on whether one is referring to the law or to moral theology.
Catholic's aren't considered material heretics because of the external bond of the profession of faith. That's not in dispute. Tell me the difference, morally speaking, not juridically, between an "erring catholic" and a catholic who entertains false opinions about the faith. Does it lie in the rule of faith? That is exterior. When you consider the material fact of heresy residing in the mind, they are no different, interiorly speaking, according to that which is before God, than a material heretic in good faith outside of the Church. They both retain the habit of faith, but the difference is found in what is external to them. One is presumed to have faith, while the other is not. It is reduced to an error of fact. I don't see why you want to press this minor point when we have so much more important things to discuss.
-
Just for the record, from now on, if I post anything here, I'm going to act like Caminus doesn't exist.
Caminus is a liar and that is not being judgmental. He simply lies. I'm trying to be polite by not calling him what he so transparently is but I'm hoping people can see that for themselves. Maybe I'm giving humanity too much credit, since they think Joseph Ratzinger can be the Pope.
The latest is that he doesn't defend Ratzinger but only points out my own shortcomings.
Let me try this novel approach to debate. "Sally Field is an underrated actress who deserved the Best Oscar for Norma Rae." There, by defending Sally Field's acting skills I just pointed out your own shortcomings, Caminus, because Norma Rae has communist overtones, so I have to defend communism to show that you are wrong in your sweeping generalizations about communism.
Do you make a habit of defending anti-Christs to get back at those who you feel come down too strongly on anti-Christs? What are you talking about? What does YOUR DEFENSE of the Judaizer named Ratzinger have to do with my so-called shortcomings? You mean you only defend him to antagonize me, or get back at me? That would show an unhealthy obsession! Luckily I have seen you doing the same in front of others like Catholic Martyr and SJB.
Maybe you're trying to stop me from scaring people away from SSPX, so you're entangling me in discussions of Novus Ordo that we all know is bad. That is why I write essays instead of responding to people who only want to draw me into futile debates over subjects that have already been resolved.
-
I've noticed a tendency among non-sedevacantists to write 'catholic' instead of Catholic. Particularly Caminus, C.M.M.M. and an unfortunate heretic I used to work with.
I emailed this guy the Mario Derksen article, and asked him if he denies even the POSSIBILITY that Ratzinger is knowingly opposing the ancient Faith.
His one word response: "Yes."
-
St. Robert Bellarmine would have said the same thing.
-
Robert Bellarmine, who wrote an entire treatise on the prospect of a heretical pope?
Here is a little something from his work De Romano Pontifice, but most importantly for our discussion is that he quotes Pope St. Celestine:
Pope St. Celestine I (epist. ad Jo. Antioch., which appears in Conc. Ephes., tom. I, cap. 19) wrote: "It is evident that he [excommunicated by Nestorius] has remained and remains in communion with us, and that we do not consider destituted [i.e. deprived of his office by of Nestorius] anyone who has been excommunicated or deprived of his charge, either episcopal or clerical, by Bishop Nestorius or by the others who followed him, after they commenced preaching heresy. For he who had already shown himself as deserving to be excommunicated, could not excommunicate anyone by his sentence."
And in a letter to the clergy of Constantinople, Pope St. Celestine I says: "The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever."
Now, Caminus, please refresh my memory: What exactly did Nestorius say that was heretical?
Let me help you out: "Mary is not the mother of God." Now was this proposition directly heretical? Was it a Divinely Revealed dogma that Mary was the mother of God? Or did following this teaching logically lead to the conclusion that Jesus Christ was only a man?
Yet, Pope St. Celestine insists that this doctrine was heresy, and that any clergy who continued to follow him after this point LOST ALL JURISDICTION.
When did they lose it? After a juridical pronouncement of excommunication? No. After they begun to to teach heresy, an act, by which the holy pope says that had "defected from the faith".
-
I apologize for calling you a liar, Caminus, even though saying that you don't defend Ratzinger was a lie.
I try so hard to emulate Jesus and Mary but I always fall so short. Mary when she was in school was taunted and just said "I'm sorry to have offended you."
Just let it be known, Caminus, that when you throw insults at me I'm not offended. They're actually funny because they're so over-the-top. You could do a thousand times worse and I'd still forgive you.
The only time you get under my skin is when others on this board take your position. That is depressing, because I believe you are leading them away from the faith. But if they choose to listen to you, or to their "Pope" who you defend, that is their choice. God gave them free will. It's not helping anyone for me to call you names.
Good quote CM. As always you are a source of strength and joy when not preaching water-baptism only.
-
And you do the same thing, Caminus. You challanged me to quote Billot and then discuss it...then you ran away. Do you ever reread what you say to people here? Where are your manners?
"Ran away"? LOL. I responded to you at the top of page 10. I can understand why you don't like the way I engage Raoul (and CM), but I have my reasons.
Yes, LOL.
Let's discuss the external and internal forum then. Do you know what they are? And do you know why they are irrelevant in this discussion. Billot doesn't mention them for a reason.
Okay, let's discuss it then. Yes, I know what they are, though they are explained differently depending on whether one is referring to the law or to moral theology.
Can you quote some authority that explains this?
Catholic's aren't considered material heretics because of the external bond of the profession of faith. That's not in dispute.
Correct. They ARE NOT any kind of HERETIC. They merely hold a material HERESY without pertinacity. That does not cause a loss of membership.
Tell me the difference, morally speaking, not juridically, between an "erring catholic" and a catholic who entertains false opinions about the faith. Does it lie in the rule of faith? That is exterior. When you consider the material fact of heresy residing in the mind, they are no different, interiorly speaking, according to that which is before God, than a material heretic in good faith outside of the Church. They both retain the habit of faith, but the difference is found in what is external to them. One is presumed to have faith, while the other is not. It is reduced to an error of fact. I don't see why you want to press this minor point when we have so much more important things to discuss.
I think what you are saying here is that a Catholic must be judged in the internal forum to be a HERETIC...to lose membership in the Church. This is wrong because all judgments are made in the external forum. Even a judgment by the Church is made in the external forum. The internal forum is irrelevant.
I'll quote some sources for this.
-
Good quote CM. As always you are a source of strength and joy when not preaching water-baptism only.
I cannot but tell the truth.
-
Catholic's aren't considered material heretics because of the external bond of the profession of faith. That's not in dispute.
Correct. They ARE NOT any kind of HERETIC. They merely hold a material HERESY without pertinacity. That does not cause a loss of membership.
There are certain beliefs that a person can hold without pertinacity whereby they DO lose membership in the Catholic Church, whereby they do lose the Faith, whereby they ARE out of the way of salvation.
Believing wrongly concerning any of the following points:
Trinity, Incarnation, Judgment (cf. dogmatic Athanasian Creed)
I think what you are saying here is that a Catholic must be judged in the internal forum to be a HERETIC...to lose membership in the Church. This is wrong because all judgments are made in the external forum. Even a judgment by the Church is made in the external forum. The internal forum is irrelevant.
I'll quote some sources for this.
Professing a false religion or adhering to a false sect makes one schismatic in the external forum. It constitutes a public defection of the faith.
-
Catholic's aren't considered material heretics because of the external bond of the profession of faith. That's not in dispute.
Correct. They ARE NOT any kind of HERETIC. They merely hold a material HERESY without pertinacity. That does not cause a loss of membership.
There are certain beliefs that a person can hold without pertinacity whereby they DO lose membership in the Catholic Church, whereby they do lose the Faith, whereby they ARE out of the way of salvation.
Believing wrongly concerning any of the following points:
Trinity, Incarnation, Judgment (cf. dogmatic Athanasian Creed)
I think what you are saying here is that a Catholic must be judged in the internal forum to be a HERETIC...to lose membership in the Church. This is wrong because all judgments are made in the external forum. Even a judgment by the Church is made in the external forum. The internal forum is irrelevant.
I'll quote some sources for this.
Professing a false religion or adhering to a false sect makes one schismatic in the external forum. It constitutes a public defection of the faith.
You are lost.
There are certain beliefs that a person can hold without pertinacity whereby they DO lose membership in the Catholic Church
Where did you learn this?
-
Professing a false religion or adhering to a false sect makes one schismatic in the external forum. It constitutes a public defection of the faith.
You are lost.
Excuse me, but what I have said is true. Do you want to argue that adherence to a false sect is not objectively schismatic? Hmmm... I guess that is the basis for holding that one may attend an una cuм Benedicto Mass, after all.
Where did you learn this?
What part of (cf. Athanasian Creed) do you have trouble with?
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...
Then he enumerates the articles of the creed before concluding with:
This is the catholic faith. Unless a person believes it faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.
So answer me this: Do you believe that a person can believe wrongly concerning those mysteries which are necessary for salvation, and still be said to hold the Faith, or to be in the way of salvation? Or that one who holds a corrupt rule of Faith can still be said to be Catholic?
Is a person Catholic if he believes Jesus Christ was man only and not God in the flesh?
Is a person Catholic if he believes that God is one God AND one person?
Is a person Catholic if he believes that there are three gods?
-
Can you quote some authority that explains this?
Not off hand. But I do know that there is a slight difference in the term between its juridical and moral use.
Catholic's aren't considered material heretics because of the external bond of the profession of faith. That's not in dispute.
Correct. They ARE NOT any kind of HERETIC. They merely hold a material HERESY without pertinacity. That does not cause a loss of membership.
Correct, that's not in dispute.
I think what you are saying here is that a Catholic must be judged in the internal forum to be a HERETIC...to lose membership in the Church. This is wrong because all judgments are made in the external forum. Even a judgment by the Church is made in the external forum. The internal forum is irrelevant.
I'm considering the matter in an objective, abstract manner. The internal forum is relevant when considering the matter as an interior reality. That's half of what moral theology does, consider the inner workings within the soul and the operations of the intellect and will. This is the work of moral theology and rational psychology. But I do quibble a little insofar as judgments are made in the external forum, but formally true judgments are formed when the internal dispostion is manifested externally in some way.
-
(http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Benedict_XVI_with_schismatics/B16_praying_with_schismatic.jpg)
(http://www.novusordowatch.org/b16_in_mosque.jpg)
-
Robert Bellarmine, who wrote an entire treatise on the prospect of a heretical pope?
Yes.
Here is a little something from his work De Romano Pontifice...
And it is irrelevant. You need to prove that we're dealing with a set of facts that exactly match the historical narrative. Drawing such comparisons is rather tricky sometimes. Especially when you use them to try to relieve the burden of proof.
Now, Caminus, please refresh my memory: What exactly did Nestorius say that was heretical?
Let me help you out: "Mary is not the mother of God." Now was this proposition directly heretical? Was it a Divinely Revealed dogma that Mary was the mother of God? Or did following this teaching logically lead to the conclusion that Jesus Christ was only a man?
The proposition is equivalent to "The Son of Mary was not God" which is heretical. The denial is direct and unmistakable.
Yet, Pope St. Celestine insists that this doctrine was heresy, and that any clergy who continued to follow him after this point LOST ALL JURISDICTION.
It's just too bad that you're not the Pope.
When did they lose it? After a juridical pronouncement of excommunication? No. After they begun to to teach heresy, an act, by which the holy pope says that had "defected from the faith".
This again begs the question, but to satiate your will, I say that it was authority itself that determined the matter ex post facto.
-
WRT to the pictures, don't confuse scandal with heresy. Also, I suggest you take a good, hard look at the doctrine concerning communicatio in sacris and the distinction between public and private worship.
-
I apologize for calling you a liar, Caminus, even though saying that you don't defend Ratzinger was a lie.
I try so hard to emulate Jesus and Mary but I always fall so short. Mary when she was in school was taunted and just said "I'm sorry to have offended you."
Just let it be known, Caminus, that when you throw insults at me I'm not offended. They're actually funny because they're so over-the-top. You could do a thousand times worse and I'd still forgive you.
The only time you get under my skin is when others on this board take your position. That is depressing, because I believe you are leading them away from the faith. But if they choose to listen to you, or to their "Pope" who you defend, that is their choice. God gave them free will. It's not helping anyone for me to call you names.
Good quote CM. As always you are a source of strength and joy when not preaching water-baptism only.
Don't worry about offending me, worry about offending the divine unity of the Church and the heart of Jesus which you have done in almost every post.
I find the hypocritical doublestandard extremely distasteful in that you express the warmest of feelings for CM whilst he sins against the faith and the unity of the Church with impugnity, but you claim that I "lead others from the faith" simply because I demand your integrity.
-
The proposition is equivalent to "The Son of Mary was not God" which is heretical. The denial is direct and unmistakable.
THANK YOU!
"Muslims together with us worship the one merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day"
Is equivalent to "Jesus Christ is not the one merciful God, mankind's judge"
But you deny this because it first involves the knowledge first that Christ is the judge (which all must know in order to be saved) and second that Muslims reject His Divinity.
You assert that the denial is not direct, even though it is the logical conclusion, requiring one step of reasoning, and only one. This step of reasoning does not make the proposition any less heretical, because the conclusion is in contradiction to a dogma.
So the proposition needs to be censured in some way, and the only way is heresy. The next step down from this is proximate to heresy, that is the denial of a truth that is proximate to the Faith, but the proposition from Lumen Gentium simply does not qualify for this censure, since the nature of Christ as Judge is already proposed as Divinely revealed.
-
Again, for the reasons stated above, it cannot be censured as heretical. You again admit as much considering that you posit a deduction.
-
Do you know what I mean when I say we can consider the same object either materially or formally?
-
Also, you've already conceded that objectively speaking it cannot be heretical.
-
You're the one whose position it is that a heresy must be a blatant, unambiguous and immediately obvious denial of a dogma.
I recognize that a statement is heretical, which when brought to it's only possible conclusion denies a dogma.
-
You've just conceded the point again.
-
Come off it man! It is an objectively heretical proposition! There is no way around it!
It's a heretical proposition Caminus, and it is being propagated by your 'church'. Who cares if it takes one step of reasoning to see that it denies dogma, it's still a heretical proposition that denies dogma, and a blatant one at that. The step of reasoning does not remove the objectivity of the heresy.
It is equally as heretical as denying that a decree, which was promulgated solemnly, meeting all the requirements for infallibility as per the Vatican Council, is in fact a matter of Divinely revealed truth, which Ratzinger does deny.
I don't know what it takes, in your opinion, for something to be objectively heretical if these two examples are not.
The first involves a proposition which directly denies a dogma when brought to it's only logical conclusion, and the second involves undermining the very teaching on what pertains to Divine revelation.
WRT to the pictures, don't confuse scandal with heresy. Also, I suggest you take a good, hard look at the doctrine concerning communicatio in sacris and the distinction between public and private worship.
Actually, it is heretical to believe that one may participate in any way in sacred or profane matters with those who are cut off from the body of Christ (Pope Eugene IV). So in the pictures I presented, either Ratzinger is aware he is disobeying dogma and Divine Law, breaking the first commandment, or he isn't aware. In either case we must judge him by his external actions, and his lack of repentance. So whether he believes he is right or wrong for doing this, is irrelevant, since he is objectively wrong, manifestly heretical, and almost certainly formally heretical.
-
Come off it man! It is an objectively heretical proposition! There is no way around it!
You've just contradicted yourself. If you're going to convince anyone of your opinions, you need to make up your mind.
It's a heretical proposition Caminus, and it is being propagated by your 'church'. Who cares if it takes one step of reasoning to see that it denies dogma, it's still a heretical proposition that denies dogma, and a blatant one at that. The step of reasoning does not remove the objectivity of the heresy.
"Who cares"? Well, I'm glad to see your attentive to the rules of thought here. Basically, you're saying that these distinctions are too inconvenient for you to consider because you've already made up your mind and to hell with everything else.
It is equally as heretical as denying that a decree, which was promulgated solemnly, meeting all the requirements for infallibility as per the Vatican Council, is in fact a matter of Divinely revealed truth, which Ratzinger does deny.
I'm not sure what you are referring to here, but it is a common doctrine that the scope of infallibility even includes truths that are not divinely revealed. Are you denying this?
I don't know what it takes, in your opinion, for something to be objectively heretical if these two examples are not.
I assure you it is more than your say so.
The first involves a proposition which directly denies a dogma when brought to it's only logical conclusion, and the second involves undermining the very teaching on what pertains to Divine revelation.
When you say "logical conclusion" you imply that there is no direct denial.
Actually, it is heretical to believe that one may participate in any way in sacred or profane matters with those who are cut off from the body of Christ (Pope Eugene IV). So in the pictures I presented, either Ratzinger is aware he is disobeying dogma and Divine Law, breaking the first commandment, or he isn't aware. In either case we must judge him by his external actions, and his lack of repentance. So whether he believes he is right or wrong for doing this, is irrelevant, since he is objectively wrong, manifestly heretical, and almost certainly formally heretical.
You are sorely ignorant of all that is involved in this question. There is a distinction between private and public in this regard, a distinction between a rite that is not offensive to catholic doctrine and one that is. There is also the question of intention and the circuмstances as is obvious from the fact that catholics can approach heretical/schismatic clergy for the sacraments in grave necessity under certain conditions. Especially is your assertion patently ridiculous with regard to profane matters as the result would be catastrophic for the temporal welfare of the faithful.
-
Actually, it is heretical to believe that one may participate in any way in sacred or profane matters with those who are cut off from the body of Christ (Pope Eugene IV). So in the pictures I presented, either Ratzinger is aware he is disobeying dogma and Divine Law, breaking the first commandment, or he isn't aware. In either case we must judge him by his external actions, and his lack of repentance. So whether he believes he is right or wrong for doing this, is irrelevant, since he is objectively wrong, manifestly heretical, and almost certainly formally heretical.
are you sure Eugene the IV was a real Pope, he might have kinda sort of talked to someone heretical :roll-laugh2:......yes we can judge peoples actions, but again, you do not know what wa said/done in confessional.................it is not irrelevant one's state of mind, go back to 3 requirements for a mortal sin.......all 3 have to be met...maybe you might have manifest, but if all 3 requirements not met, no formal heresy...also, we can judge externals, but God judges both, internal and external........
CM, you would make a great Pharisee...
-
"Eugene IV signed an agreement with the Armenians on November 22, 1439, and with a part of the Jacobites in 1443, and in 1445 he received the Nestorians and the Maronites"
see, he is speaking to heretics and signing agreements...that proves it.......seat has been vacant far, far longer..... :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh2: :dancing-banana:
-
I notice that he and Raoul rely on exaggeration, distortions and over-statements to make their cases.
-
Actually, it is heretical to believe that one may participate in any way in sacred or profane matters with those who are cut off from the body of Christ (Pope Eugene IV). So in the pictures I presented, either Ratzinger is aware he is disobeying dogma and Divine Law, breaking the first commandment, or he isn't aware. In either case we must judge him by his external actions, and his lack of repentance. So whether he believes he is right or wrong for doing this, is irrelevant, since he is objectively wrong, manifestly heretical, and almost certainly formally heretical.
Um...I think you misunderstood at some point.
Sacred OR PROFANE matters?
I'd like to know who provides your food, electricity, housing, financial services, etc.
I'd bet you dollars to donuts you're trucking with unbelievers in profane matters.
Matthew
-
I notice that he and Raoul rely on exaggeration, distortions and over-statements to make their cases.
True, Raoul tends to emote in phrases, often times not connecting anything.CM tends to at least attempt explanations and expanding on them.....
CM is a type of Moses, Raoul is type of Aaron......CM, if you will, the priest, Raoul the Acolyte......
-
Actually, it is heretical to believe that one may participate in any way in sacred or profane matters with those who are cut off from the body of Christ (Pope Eugene IV). So in the pictures I presented, either Ratzinger is aware he is disobeying dogma and Divine Law, breaking the first commandment, or he isn't aware. In either case we must judge him by his external actions, and his lack of repentance. So whether he believes he is right or wrong for doing this, is irrelevant, since he is objectively wrong, manifestly heretical, and almost certainly formally heretical.
Um...I think you misunderstood at some point.
Sacred OR PROFANE matters?
I'd like to know who provides your food, electricity, housing, financial services, etc.
I'd bet you dollars to donuts you're trucking with unbelievers in profane matters.
Matthew
Good points..........all too often Catholics complain about non-Catholics, but in the end, most of their hard earned moeny goes in some way to non-Catholics (electric company, food,clothing).....even if you are lucky to have neighborhood stores locally run, most supplies at some level are from non-Catholics (farmers, sweat shops in 3rd world)
-
If you wish to consider the word profane to mean secular, then I reply thus:
There is a big difference between communion and shopping, or communion and paying rent, or communion and working for someone. Necessities, by which we stay alive, are not communion. Going to a heretics house for dinner, meeting him for a game of chess or other such things ARE secular communion.
Profane in a religious context:
Heretics and non-Catholics do not have sacred-worship, their services are profanations and abominations of true worship, and it is forbidden to Catholics to have anything to do with these.
-
Caminus, I never contradicted myself at all. You are the one who said the proposition is not objectively heretical.
Again, for the reasons stated above, it cannot be censured as heretical. You again admit as much considering that you posit a deduction.
You are the one who thinks that the necessity of using your brain keeps a statement from being heretical. I never said anything of the sort, and yet you continually put words in my mouth.
You assert that the denial is not direct, even though it is the logical conclusion, requiring one step of reasoning, and only one. This step of reasoning does not make the proposition any less heretical, because the conclusion is in contradiction to a dogma.
So the proposition needs to be censured in some way, and the only way is heresy. The next step down from this is proximate to heresy, that is the denial of a truth that is proximate to the Faith, but the proposition from Lumen Gentium simply does not qualify for this censure, since the nature of Christ as Judge is already proposed as Divinely revealed.
I asked you how YOU would censure it and you said "theological error". But you cannot censure this proposition at all, according to the logic you posited earlier.
So the closest thing I could find described by Dr. Ott is this:
an Erroneous Proposition (prop erronea), i.e., opposed to a truth which is proposed by the Church as a truth intrinsically connected with a revealed truth (error in fide ecclesiastica) or opposed to the common teaching of theologians (error theologicus);
So Christ as the judge is no longer proposed as Divinely revealed, but is only intrinsically connected with revelation? Malarkey! It is proposed as Divinely revealed by Pope Eugene IV in the dogmatic Athanasian Creed.
Also, you've already conceded that objectively speaking it cannot be heretical.
No Caminus. You only want to think that I have made such a concession, but you are way off base. The proposition is OBJECTIVELY heretical, because there is NO possible orthodox interpretation one can give it, without completely altering the words.
-
You are the one who thinks that the necessity of using your brain keeps a statement from being heretical. I never said anything of the sort, and yet you continually put words in my mouth.
To be quite blunt, I don't think you really know what you're talking about. As such, I fail to see how you are even remotely qualified to assess the nature of propositions and determine who is inside the Church.
You assert that the denial is not direct, even though it is the logical conclusion, requiring one step of reasoning, and only one. This step of reasoning does not make the proposition any less heretical, because the conclusion is in contradiction to a dogma.
You can't make up your own rules, CM. That's being dishonest.
So the proposition needs to be censured in some way, and the only way is heresy. The next step down from this is proximate to heresy, that is the denial of a truth that is proximate to the Faith, but the proposition from Lumen Gentium simply does not qualify for this censure, since the nature of Christ as Judge is already proposed as Divinely revealed.
The underlying philosophy needs to be censured, clarified or abandoned. The text doesn't deny that Christ is the Judge of mankind. What it asserts is that because Muslims think God is the judge of mankind, this is in agreement with our religion, we just know explicitly that Jesus Christ is the Judge. Like it or not, that is not heretical, no matter how many times you assert it.
I asked you how YOU would censure it and you said "theological error". But you cannot censure this proposition at all, according to the logic you posited earlier.
Oh yeah, why's that?
So the closest thing I could find described by Dr. Ott is this:
Ott the heretic? Why are you communicating with an heretic in sacred matters? Why are you reading the books of heretics? Are you in communion with him or something? Burn that book lest you become a partaker of his evil.
So Christ as the judge is no longer proposed as Divinely revealed, but is only intrinsically connected with revelation? Malarkey! It is proposed as Divinely revealed by Pope Eugene IV in the dogmatic Athanasian Creed.
You're turning the matter around again. The text is making no statements about the content of revealed religion. The text is referring to MUSLIMS or men outside the Church who supposedly worship the same God that we do. You've already conceded that the statement doesn't not affect our doctrine, you've already conceded that a man can render natural worship to the "same God" as Catholics and still be bereft of the supernatural virtue of faith. I don't know what your deal is, CM. You're barking up the wrong tree. Why don't you listen for a change instead of harping upon your own groundless opinions? I'm about done with you.
-
Sedevacantism has never appealed to me because I believe it to be untenable on its face. I'd probably sooner become an atheist than a sede.
I cannot believe that a God who is love would simply abandon His Church to invalid sacraments and priests and bishops, allow a universal sham church to be erected in Her place to lead, most likely, 99% of all souls to perdition. Christ's words "I will be with you always till the end of the age" would turn into nothing but a meaningless technicality (Yes, I was with you in the 1% of tabernacles with hosts consecrated by hidden valid priests..hope you found them!)
It is simply an absurd proposition and it leads all souls who ascribe to it into a self-imposed isolation, bitterness, and hopelessness that strangles all advancement in the spiritual life. Just as the devil laughs when he convinces souls he does not exist, he must also laugh when he convinces souls the Pope does not exist.
-
I'm not making up any rules. I am saying that a statement which results in the denial or contradiction of a dogma is heresy. Pretty simple.
The underlying philosophy needs to be censured, clarified or abandoned. The text doesn't deny that Christ is the Judge of mankind. What it asserts is that because Muslims think God is the judge of mankind
No. It asserts that Muslims DO worship the judge of mankind, and the only possible conclusion of this statement is denial of a dogma. Heretical statement.
I asked you how YOU would censure it and you said "theological error". But you cannot censure this proposition at all, according to the logic you posited earlier.
Oh yeah, why's that?
You said something along the lines that the nature of the Muslim religion is not a matter of Catholic faith (I don't remember where you said this). But I was wrong to say you couldn't censure it at all. According to your logic you could not censure the statement heresy, nor even as erroneous, but only as a Proposition badly expressed, and proposition exciting scandal or a Captious proposition, since it contains a reference to a religion other than Catholicism.
However, your logic does not add up, since the statement, being a so-called 'Catholic' teaching, certainly does not propose to affect Islamic doctrine, but Catholic doctrine.
As there is no concealing that Muslims reject Christ, a statement such as the one above, cannot be classified as anything less than a heretical statement, since the proposition itself is opposed to a formal dogma, that of Christ as judge.
So the closest thing I could find described by Dr. Ott is this:
Ott the heretic?
Yup.
Why are you communicating with an heretic in sacred matters?
I'm not claiming spiritual communion with him or uniting myself to him in any way whatsoever. I am taking something he wrote that I believe reflects the truth of the Catholic Faith, which he did not hold whole and inviolate on other points.
Epikeia posits that I may use his works, if it serves to common good.
So Christ as the judge is no longer proposed as Divinely revealed, but is only intrinsically connected with revelation? Malarkey! It is proposed as Divinely revealed by Pope Eugene IV in the dogmatic Athanasian Creed.
You're turning the matter around again. The text is making no statements about the content of revealed religion.
Heresy is often subtle. Though this one I would certainly call BLATANT.
The text is referring to MUSLIMS or men outside the Church who supposedly worship the same God that we do.
It states plainly that they do.
You've already conceded that the statement doesn't not affect our doctrine,
Hmmm... see argument above.
you've already conceded that a man can render natural worship to the "same God" as Catholics and still be bereft of the supernatural virtue of faith.
Not a Muslim. He rejects the true God explicitly by name.
I don't know what your deal is, CM.
I detest heresy.
You're barking up the wrong tree. Why don't you listen for a change instead of harping upon your own groundless opinions?
Listen to wily heretics? ...
-
Sedevacantism has never appealed to me because I believe it to be untenable on its face. I'd probably sooner become an atheist than a sede.
What a disgusting thing to say. What if the pope fell into heresy? What would you do then? :rolleyes:
I cannot believe that a God who is love would simply abandon His Church to invalid sacraments and priests and bishops, allow a universal sham church to be erected in Her place to lead, most likely, 99% of all souls to perdition.
Um... Okay. Can you believe that a God who is love destroyed almost the entire population of the world in a flood, sparing only eight souls?
Christ's words "I will be with you always till the end of the age" would turn into nothing but a meaningless technicality (Yes, I was with you in the 1% of tabernacles with hosts consecrated by hidden valid priests..hope you found them!)
Does "I will be with you mean only one thing (Eucharist)?"
Or perhaps are there other situations referenced by the Lord Himself in Scripture, whereby He affirms his presence among the faithful? (the answer is yes)
It is simply an absurd proposition and it leads all souls who ascribe to it into a self-imposed isolation, bitterness, and hopelessness that strangles all advancement in the spiritual life.
Are you speaking for yourself or for ALL sedevacantists? Just curious. (in other words how could you know that)
Just as the devil laughs when he convinces souls he does not exist, he must also laugh when he convinces souls the Pope does not exist.
The devil wouldn't laugh if he succeeded in getting all the nations of the earth drunk with the wine of fornication though, huh?
-
"Mohammed shared the same natures as Christ."
Heresy or not Caminus? Why or why not? Can a 'pope' teach this proposition publicly, in his fallible capacity, and remain pope? Why or why not?
I am very curious to see your answer.
-
Can you quote some authority that explains this?
Not off hand. But I do know that there is a slight difference in the term between its juridical and moral use.
Catholic's aren't considered material heretics because of the external bond of the profession of faith. That's not in dispute.
Correct. They ARE NOT any kind of HERETIC. They merely hold a material HERESY without pertinacity. That does not cause a loss of membership.
Correct, that's not in dispute.
I think what you are saying here is that a Catholic must be judged in the internal forum to be a HERETIC...to lose membership in the Church. This is wrong because all judgments are made in the external forum. Even a judgment by the Church is made in the external forum. The internal forum is irrelevant.
I'm considering the matter in an objective, abstract manner. The internal forum is relevant when considering the matter as an interior reality. That's half of what moral theology does, consider the inner workings within the soul and the operations of the intellect and will. This is the work of moral theology and rational psychology. But I do quibble a little insofar as judgments are made in the external forum, but formally true judgments are formed when the internal dispostion is manifested externally in some way.
Please provide a source that explains this. I haven't read anything that supports this view. I know you think you've explained it...but isn't there a theologian you can cite here?
-
No Pope has ever been a formal heretic. It is only a theoretical possibility. If this issue ever arose it would be judged by a competent ecclesiastical authority and not Joe-six-pack Trad in the pew who then makes his own church.
As for the flood, Noah was the earthly authority for God and those who stuck with him were saved. Who is the earthly authority in the Sede paradigm? Themselves?
In addition this was pre-Christ. Christ founded a Church that would not be secretly destroyed and replaced with a church of the anti-Christ while the "real" church disappeared into unrecognizable fragments who are their own authority.
The Sede "god" is a small, petty, sadistic, juvenile, game-playing, weak god who abandons his church to the devil and rewards eternal life only to those with secret knowledge and insights who somehow figure out his conspiracy puzzle. This is simply absurd. An eternity with a "god" of this type would be Hell indeed.
-
In addition this was pre-Christ. Christ founded a Church that would not be secretly destroyed and replaced with a church of the anti-Christ while the "real" church disappeared into unrecognizable fragments who are their own authority.
Stevus, I don't think you can say that what has happened isn't secret. I never advance the sede hypothesis but one is hard-pressed to reconcile the actions of the conciliar popes with the requirements of the Papacy.
Eschatology tells us there will be a remnant, and a reign of the Antichrist.
Will there be someone in Rome who supports the Antichrist who many people call Pope?
Is it inconceivable that could happen?
-
No Pope has ever been a formal heretic. It is only a theoretical possibility. If this issue ever arose it would be judged by a competent ecclesiastical authority and not Joe-six-pack Trad in the pew who then makes his own church.
As for the flood, Noah was the earthly authority for God and those who stuck with him were saved. Who is the earthly authority in the Sede paradigm? Themselves?
In addition this was pre-Christ. Christ founded a Church that would not be secretly destroyed and replaced with a church of the anti-Christ while the "real" church disappeared into unrecognizable fragments who are their own authority.
The Sede "god" is a small, petty, sadistic, juvenile, game-playing, weak god who abandons his church to the devil and rewards eternal life only to those with secret knowledge and insights who somehow figure out his conspiracy puzzle. This is simply absurd. An eternity with a "god" of this type would be Hell indeed.
Do you ever read what you write (referring to the non-bolded parts)? And how could the pope be judged when the First See is judged by no one?
-
correction:
*I don't think you can say that what has happened has been secret.
The Catholics in the pews who know the Faith can see how their priests have changed, how what is taught has changed. That's why there are Traditional chapels.
Those with access to the media can see the things the Popes have said and done, things that can't be reconciled with the Faith.
-
Eschatology tells us there will be a remnant, and a reign of the Antichrist.
Can you tell us how many times the word "Antichrist" appears in the Apocalypse? :reading:
(Hint: ZERO)
-
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01559a.htm
-
The word used in the Apocalypse is the Beast. He is given power for 42 months. Interestingly enough, V2 lasted just short of 43 months.
Karol Wojtyla influenced that council's most evil docuмents to an extraordinary degree. If you count the Pontiffs from St Pius X forward (starting with Benedict XV as the first), using the enumeration leading up to and pointing out the Beast (7th of eight, etc.), Wojtlya IS the Beast, and Ratzinger is the False Prophet. The lady who explained this to me gave a much more sensible explanation of things than most of the "learned" men I have known or read. Somewhat fittingly, she is blind, although she sees far more than most with functioning eyes. She is presently dying and I ask your prayers for her.
-
SJB,
Not sure I get your point regarding non-bolded parts. Please explain.
In the theoretical (perhaps impossible) event that the Pope becomes a formal heretic, I believe that theologians have stated he could be declared as such by a Council and deposed. Formal heresy would mean, best I can remember, that his heresy must be public and he must persist in it even when made to realize it is heretical. An ecclesiastical body would make this call, not Joe-Sede.
As, I said this is all speculative/ theoretical as this has never happened and some say it cannot happen.
Tele,
I meant "secret knowledge" that all Popes since Pius XII? have been anti-popes, all NO sacraments are invalid, etc etc. Yes it is obvious that there have been a lot of changes since VCII and the world (including a lot of Catholics) have become more secular since 1960. But this is a far cry from saying that the notion there is no Pope is somehow self-evident.
-
SJB,
Not sure I get your point regarding non-bolded parts. Please explain.
Read it. It is rude at best.
In the theoretical (perhaps impossible) event that the Pope becomes a formal heretic, I believe that theologians have stated he could be declared as such by a Council and deposed.
ONLY because he had already lost his office due to public heresy.
Formal heresy would mean, best I can remember, that his heresy must be public and he must persist in it even when made to realize it is heretical. An ecclesiastical body would make this call, not Joe-Sede.
No, that is the error of conciliarism. A pope can be deposed ONLY because he is no longer considered a catholic and has lost his office. The First See is judged by no one.
As, I said this is all speculative/ theoretical as this has never happened and some say it cannot happen.
Well, you have it all wrong anyway...so it's not really all that theoretical. Have you ever read Bellarmine on the heretical pope issue?
-
SJB,
Semantics.
First, as I've said this is all speculative/ theoretical.
Secondly, even if we speculate it is possible, until a competent Council declares that the Pope has "already" lost his office through public formal heresy, you can't do so and then go rogue.
What if some joe schmo believed it was obvious Pius XII was a heretic and doesn't recognize him as a true Pope? How do you prove him wrong? Argue about whether Pius XII spoke heresy ad infinitum? Beat him with a golf club until he agrees with you?
Saying it is "obvious" and that unfortunately the rest of the world is modernist and can't recognize obvious heresy anymore is ridiculous.
This is why Christ gave us an authority on earth and His Church to decide matters of this sort. Sedevacantism kept on running so far to the right that they wound up on the left with Luther, privately judging Popes and in the end, becoming their own Pope.
-
Saying it is "obvious" and that unfortunately the rest of the world is modernist and can't recognize obvious heresy anymore is ridiculous.
No it is not. The Church gave us an authority, which we must obey, and it is this very authority that has defined for us what is Catholic and what is not.
So it is obvious for those who have eyes to see, and as for the rest, they have been delivered up to permanent (or hopefully temporary) blindness.
-
So it is obvious for those who have eyes to see, and as for the rest, they have been delivered up to permanent (or hopefully temporary) blindness.
Ah, the Enlightened One speaks of his secret gnosis.
-
Caminus, did Christ bring a "secret Gnosis"? Is that what we are to believe? I mean he did, after all, refer to those who would deny him as having eyes, but not seeing, having ears but not hearing.
-
Begging your pardon
Caminus, did Christ bring a "secret Gnosis"? Is that what we are to believe? I mean He did, after all, refer to those who would deny Him as having eyes, but not seeing, having ears but not hearing.
-
SJB,
Semantics.
First, as I've said this is all speculative/ theoretical.
Secondly, even if we speculate it is possible, until a competent Council declares that the Pope has "already" lost his office through public formal heresy, you can't do so and then go rogue.
What if some joe schmo believed it was obvious Pius XII was a heretic and doesn't recognize him as a true Pope? How do you prove him wrong? Argue about whether Pius XII spoke heresy ad infinitum? Beat him with a golf club until he agrees with you?
Saying it is "obvious" and that unfortunately the rest of the world is modernist and can't recognize obvious heresy anymore is ridiculous.
This is why Christ gave us an authority on earth and His Church to decide matters of this sort. Sedevacantism kept on running so far to the right that they wound up on the left with Luther, privately judging Popes and in the end, becoming their own Pope.
The entire Church peacefully accepted Pius XII. That is proof enough.
I think you are a jackass ... is that semantics too? Come on, steveus.
-
SJB,
Semantics.
First, as I've said this is all speculative/ theoretical.
Secondly, even if we speculate it is possible, until a competent Council declares that the Pope has "already" lost his office through public formal heresy, you can't do so and then go rogue.
What if some joe schmo believed it was obvious Pius XII was a heretic and doesn't recognize him as a true Pope? How do you prove him wrong? Argue about whether Pius XII spoke heresy ad infinitum? Beat him with a golf club until he agrees with you?
Saying it is "obvious" and that unfortunately the rest of the world is modernist and can't recognize obvious heresy anymore is ridiculous.
This is why Christ gave us an authority on earth and His Church to decide matters of this sort. Sedevacantism kept on running so far to the right that they wound up on the left with Luther, privately judging Popes and in the end, becoming their own Pope.
The entire Church peacefully accepted Pius XII. That is proof enough.
I think you are a jackass ... is that semantics too? Come on, steveus.
Define "entire church", what % was that?? I mean, CM does nto accept Pius XII as valid, so....?
do we then conclude that 1-2% do not accept B16, etc as valid, he is not, or does it have to be 5%? 10%? and even if 100% accept someone, so what-we are not Prots, relying on our own "acceptance" of someone, nor is it our place to decide......
-
Christ founded a Church that would not be secretly destroyed and replaced with a church of the anti-Christ while the "real" church disappeared into unrecognizable fragments who are their own authority.
Stevus, nice to see you back, been awhile!....true,the Popes ahve warned about a visible anti-church, indeed, Pius X discussed it very well.....much of the New Church does aid/abet, but that is its fallen, human element..Sedes all too often are right to be angry and right to resist evil, but are wrong in mixing the 2.....
-
No Pope has ever been a formal heretic. It is only a theoretical possibility. If this issue ever arose it would be judged by a competent ecclesiastical authority and not Joe-six-pack Trad in the pew who then makes his own church.
As for the flood, Noah was the earthly authority for God and those who stuck with him were saved. Who is the earthly authority in the Sede paradigm? Themselves?
In addition this was pre-Christ. Christ founded a Church that would not be secretly destroyed and replaced with a church of the anti-Christ while the "real" church disappeared into unrecognizable fragments who are their own authority.
The Sede "god" is a small, petty, sadistic, juvenile, game-playing, weak god who abandons his church to the devil and rewards eternal life only to those with secret knowledge and insights who somehow figure out his conspiracy puzzle. This is simply absurd. An eternity with a "god" of this type would be Hell indeed.
Do you ever read what you write (referring to the non-bolded parts)? And how could the pope be judged when the First See is judged by no one?
Actually, Sedes judge the See all the time.....they take a writing or statement, never knowing if said person was taken out fo context, mis-translated or palin off kilter, never know if he has repented, and poof!!! This fellow is a heretic, he cannot assume Throne of Peter....yada yada,,,,,,,
-
"Mohammed shared the same natures as Christ."
Heresy or not Caminus? Why or why not? Can a 'pope' teach this proposition publicly, in his fallible capacity, and remain pope? Why or why not?
I am very curious to see your answer.
Said statement needs clarification-what exactly does it mean? is it mistranslated, or what?????
Could mean both breathed air, had skin, blood,etc.....but....what does the author/speaker exactly mean...??
-
The word used in the Apocalypse is the Beast. He is given power for 42 months. Interestingly enough, V2 lasted just short of 43 months.
Karol Wojtyla influenced that council's most evil docuмents to an extraordinary degree. If you count the Pontiffs from St Pius X forward (starting with Benedict XV as the first), using the enumeration leading up to and pointing out the Beast (7th of eight, etc.), Wojtlya IS the Beast, and Ratzinger is the False Prophet. The lady who explained this to me gave a much more sensible explanation of things than most of the "learned" men I have known or read. Somewhat fittingly, she is blind, although she sees far more than most with functioning eyes. She is presently dying and I ask your prayers for her.
Bishop Sheen states the 2 will be ecclesial and political.....Fathers state antichrist/man of sin will be a Jew born in Middle east......neither JP2 or B16 fit these criterias.....the false prophet will head the World Religion Pius X warned off, may be a Prot or Catholic (Rick Warren-like I am thinking).....first the Chastisement.....
-
So it is obvious for those who have eyes to see, and as for the rest, they have been delivered up to permanent (or hopefully temporary) blindness.
Ah, the Enlightened One speaks of his secret gnosis.
Begs the ? too, where is CM's acolyte, we have been missing Raoul in this talk....in meantime, wil lahve to watch Rin and Stimpy I guess...
-
I believe that theologians have stated he could be declared as such by a Council and deposed.
I recall reading the Savonarola tried to get this going, was knocked off before it could get traction..also, was in not Bellermine and others (Suarez?) that stated the same thing.......
also, with people living longer, what would we do if a Pope were to come down with Alzheimers,etc....has to be some mechanismto deal with it....the HG protects Church from error, would this include a senile Pope????
-
Heretics and non-Catholics do not have sacred-worship, their services are profanations and abominations of true worship, and it is forbidden to Catholics to have anything to do with these.
odd statement, since in other threads, you note the orthodox have valid orders/sacrements...they are not Catholic, but schismatics......sooo......????
-
I believe that theologians have stated he could be declared as such by a Council and deposed.
I recall reading the Savonarola tried to get this going, was knocked off before it could get traction..also, was in not Bellermine and others (Suarez?) that stated the same thing.......
also, with people living longer, what would we do if a Pope were to come down with Alzheimers,etc....has to be some mechanismto deal with it....the HG protects Church from error, would this include a senile Pope????
No. It was Cajetan, and he was wrong.
-
SJB,
Semantics.
First, as I've said this is all speculative/ theoretical.
Secondly, even if we speculate it is possible, until a competent Council declares that the Pope has "already" lost his office through public formal heresy, you can't do so and then go rogue.
What if some joe schmo believed it was obvious Pius XII was a heretic and doesn't recognize him as a true Pope? How do you prove him wrong? Argue about whether Pius XII spoke heresy ad infinitum? Beat him with a golf club until he agrees with you?
Saying it is "obvious" and that unfortunately the rest of the world is modernist and can't recognize obvious heresy anymore is ridiculous.
This is why Christ gave us an authority on earth and His Church to decide matters of this sort. Sedevacantism kept on running so far to the right that they wound up on the left with Luther, privately judging Popes and in the end, becoming their own Pope.
The entire Church peacefully accepted Pius XII. That is proof enough.
I think you are a jackass ... is that semantics too? Come on, steveus.
Define "entire church", what % was that?? I mean, CM does nto accept Pius XII as valid, so....?
do we then conclude that 1-2% do not accept B16, etc as valid, he is not, or does it have to be 5%? 10%? and even if 100% accept someone, so what-we are not Prots, relying on our own "acceptance" of someone, nor is it our place to decide......
It's called a moral unanimity. It's not a mathematical unanimity. It (peaceful acceptance) does not MAKE the pope a pope...it is merely a proof that he is a true pope. It makes the fact that Pius XII was a true pope a dogmatic fact.
-
Actually, Sedes judge the See all the time.....they take a writing or statement, never knowing if said person was taken out fo context, mis-translated or palin off kilter, never know if he has repented, and poof!!! This fellow is a heretic, he cannot assume Throne of Peter....yada yada,,,,,,,
Taken out of context? Look at all the false ecuмenism, the denial of the necessity to convert people, the prayer with false religions and constantly esteeming them! There is your context for the HERESIES in Vatican 2 and the writing of the 'popes'.
Have they repented, you say? PUBLIC offenses against the Faith of the one true Church demand PUBLIC repentance, or we are not to recognize them as members of the one true Church.
It's called a moral unanimity. It's not a mathematical unanimity. It (peaceful acceptance) does not MAKE the pope a pope...
Correct.
it is merely a proof that he is a true pope.
Correct.
It makes the fact that Pius XII was a true pope a dogmatic fact.
Public heresy, such as in the case of Pius XII destroys any claim such a person has to the papacy, regardless of any other proofs.
Heretics and non-Catholics do not have sacred-worship, their services are profanations and abominations of true worship, and it is forbidden to Catholics to have anything to do with these.
odd statement, since in other threads, you note the orthodox have valid orders/sacrements...they are not Catholic, but schismatics......sooo......????
I'm not sure what part of this you have a problem with. Valid orders/sacraments does not make religion pleasing to God. Obedience and Divine faith do. Schismatics (such as the "EO") and heretics do not possess obedience or Divine faith, even if they possess valid orders/sacraments.
-
"Mohammed shared the same natures as Christ."
Heresy or not Caminus? Why or why not? Can a 'pope' teach this proposition publicly, in his fallible capacity, and remain pope? Why or why not?
I am very curious to see your answer.
Said statement needs clarification-what exactly does it mean? is it mistranslated, or what?????
Could mean both breathed air, had skin, blood,etc.....but....what does the author/speaker exactly mean...??
Christ came to earth to establish firmly His kingdom and reign over man, who had prostituted himself to darkness. Being Divine and taking on a human nature, the person of Christ also assumed the role of prophet, foretelling the coming of the kingdom, until His prophecies were at length fulfilled in His very flesh...
...and as the Church teaches, "the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.(LG 16.)...But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you (Jn 14:26)...
...great religion, Islam's treasure is contained in the Qur'an, which parallels many of the great truths of Christianity. This being so, it is not absurd at all to assert that Mohammed shared the same natures as Christ...
Alright Belloc. What say you now?
I would like to know if this is heresy or not, and then I will reveal to you the source after some discussion. Perhaps you may be surprised at it, perhaps not.
-
It's called a moral unanimity. It's not a mathematical unanimity. It (peaceful acceptance) does not MAKE the pope a pope...it is merely a proof that he is a true pope. It makes the fact that Pius XII was a true pope a dogmatic fact.
So whether a Pope exists depends upon a moral unanimity of Catholics? If enough Catholics protest the Pope is not the Pope? So we are a democratic Church ala VCII?
-
It's called a moral unanimity. It's not a mathematical unanimity. It (peaceful acceptance) does not MAKE the pope a pope...it is merely a proof that he is a true pope. It makes the fact that Pius XII was a true pope a dogmatic fact.
So whether a Pope exists depends upon a moral unanimity of Catholics? If enough Catholics protest the Pope is not the Pope? So we are a democratic Church ala VCII?
Are you always this way? IT'S A PROOF...a single individual proof is not NECESSARY by definition.
-
The opinions or acceptance of Catholics has no bearing on whether a Pope is a true Pope. You could have widespread non-acceptance, which I believe has happened in the past, and the Pope was still the Pope.
-
The opinions or acceptance of Catholics has no bearing on whether a Pope is a true Pope. You could have widespread non-acceptance, which I believe has happened in the past, and the Pope was still the Pope.
It CAN be a proof...if it is there. That's all I have said.
-
The opinions or acceptance of Catholics has no bearing on whether a Pope is a true Pope. You could have widespread non-acceptance, which I believe has happened in the past, and the Pope was still the Pope.
It CAN be a proof...if it is there. That's all I have said.
It can be used as persuasive evidence I suppose, but it proves nothing.
-
The opinions or acceptance of Catholics has no bearing on whether a Pope is a true Pope. You could have widespread non-acceptance, which I believe has happened in the past, and the Pope was still the Pope.
It CAN be a proof...if it is there. That's all I have said.
It can be used as persuasive evidence I suppose, but it proves nothing.
So you admit you didn't really understand what I was talking about at first. :)
It is a real proof however...because the entire Church cannot peacefully accept a false pope. And that is a morally unanimous acceptance... not a mathematical unanimity.
-
And this proof serves as yet another example of why the sedevacantist thesis only exists in the imagination of a few men.
-
Is there not a morally unanimous acceptance of BXVI as Pope? There are only a few thousand Sedes in the world. In addition a much larger % of Catholics believed certain Popes were not Popes in the time of the anti-Popes.
-
And this proof serves as yet another example of why the sedevacantist thesis only exists in the imagination of a few men.
Yes, of course.
-
Is there not a morally unanimous acceptance of BXVI as Pope? There are only a few thousand Sedes in the world. In addition a much larger % of Catholics believed certain Popes were not Popes in the time of the anti-Popes.
No, I don't think so. There is a huge resistance (you're part of it)...the situation is anything but peaceful acceptance.
-
Resistance to liberalism, yes. But there is no sizeable # of Catholics (or non Catholics) who think BXVI is not Pope of the Roman Catholic Church.
-
Resistance to liberalism, yes. But there is no sizeable # of Catholics (or non Catholics) who think BXVI is not Pope of the Roman Catholic Church.
Non-Catholics do not matter. Look all one can say is that there is no universal and peaceful acceptance. That doesn't prove B16 is not the pope...it just doesn't prove that he is. That proof (that he is) is just missing here.
It is erroneous beliefs about the nature of the papacy and heresy that cause otherwise strong resistors to say he is a true pope. They simply ignore him and then claim this is a possibility...for a body to avoid it's own head.
-
Non-Catholics do not matter.
This is an assumption and a rather unfair one I'd say.
Look all one can say is that there is no universal and peaceful acceptance.
Translation: Please, just let me assert my opinion in peace and don't bother me with any inconvenient details.
But if you are dealing with a bunch of non-catholics, then you can safely say that no valid proof could every be had again. Wait, unless you mean that we can witness a peaceful acceptance when the sedevacantists all consent to an election? Are you implying that you and those who share your opinion constitute the true Church? If so, why don't you simply elect your own Pope? Why not bring an end to this confusion? Have you no concern about the common good of the Church? Why do you profess to be a member of a body without a head? Would that not mean that you are a member of a corpse? Does this imply that sedevacantists are impotent in electing the true Pope? If so, how does that square with the implication that you and yours constitute the true Church? For the true Church is a perfect society that has within itself all that is needed to attain its perfection. This is most certainly not how true catholics would behave, you should be ashamed of yourselves.
That doesn't prove B16 is not the pope...it just doesn't prove that he is. That proof (that he is) is just missing here.
John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI were all peacefully recognized as legitimately elected Popes. If a moral unanimity suffices, then a few detractors couldn't really cast any doubt upon this proof.
It is erroneous beliefs about the nature of the papacy and heresy that cause otherwise strong resistors to say he is a true pope. They simply ignore him and then claim this is a possibility...for a body to avoid it's own head.
Please detail precisely these errors and heresies, give examples in the form of explicit propositions and the surrounding context which establishes intent and meaning.
-
Non-Catholics do not matter.
This is an assumption and a rather unfair one I'd say.
In connection with THIS question (the peaceful acceptance of a Pontiff by the Church), are you serious, Caminus?
-
You can't contort the meaning of the term and extend it beyond what it was meant to convey. 'Peaceful acceptance' constitutes simply a legal proof of a legal fact. This is a separate issue from the other problems in the Church and the crisis at large.
-
You can't contort the meaning of the term and extend it beyond what it was meant to convey. 'Peaceful acceptance' constitutes simply a legal proof of a legal fact. This is a separate issue from the other problems in the Church and the crisis at large.
It is not a LEGAL proof. You simply don't know what you are talking about.
-
-
You can't contort the meaning of the term and extend it beyond what it was meant to convey.
And this has to do with being "fair" (or what have you) to Protestants, HOW?
-
Non-Catholics do not matter.
This is an assumption and a rather unfair one I'd say.
In connection with THIS question (the peaceful acceptance of a Pontiff by the Church), are you serious, Caminus?
Speaking of responding to posts...
-
-
-
Non-Catholics do not matter.
This is an assumption and a rather unfair one I'd say.
In connection with THIS question (the peaceful acceptance of a Pontiff by the Church), are you serious, Caminus?
Speaking of responding to posts...
I responded to that post.
-
You've made my point, Caminus. You're too blind to see it though. :)
Right. You responded to my initial observation that such acceptance constitutes evidence of legitimacy which is another way of saying it is a legal proof by asserting that I "don't know what [I'm] talking about" without further comment. This is usually a way of disagreeing with someone but being unable to articulate why exactly. When pressed with further demonstration you say "you proved my point." Huh? You continue to be argumentative without saying way which is weird to say the least. And you ignored the rest of my post, I suppose because it cuts to the heart of your position.
THE ADHERENCE...which is EXACTLY what trads do NOT do. THEY RESIST HIM.
Now I feel like I'm talking to CM. Accepting the Pope's election as legal and valid is distinct from agreeing with him on everything he says and does. To resist is to imply the fact that he does in fact have standing. If he was a figment of imagination then we wouldn't really be resisting anything at all now would we? But I do not like the term "resist" for we simply adhere to the traditional catholic faith in all its external forms and doctrinal formulations and without compromise with all manner of novelty and falsehood. The fact that we are at odds with the Pope is accidental to our primary intention. In other words, this "friction" happens as an accidental effect.
-
-
-
Therefore, by this principle and the doctrine of the Perpetuity of the Papacy, John XXIII, Paul VI, John-Paul I, and John-Paul II, have been elected to the Chair of Peter, regardless of their supposed illegitimacy. Because they were accepted by the Visible Church as pontiffs, they became true popes.
The "visible" Church that also includes all sorts of public heretics?
The Catholics who are "holding fast"... the truly VISIBLE Catholics... are AT ODDS with these claimants in matters of Faith and Morals. The Tradition of the Church is a LIVING one...you cannot say you simply follow a hierarchy from the past...or the remote rule of faith is your only rule in this crisis.
-
You pinky is a member of your body, united to its head and sharing the same soul. Finally you, albeit obscurely, admit you're not Catholic. I, on the other hand, am.
-
-
Therefore, by this principle and the doctrine of the Perpetuity of the Papacy, John XXIII, Paul VI, John-Paul I, and John-Paul II, have been elected to the Chair of Peter, regardless of their supposed illegitimacy. Because they were accepted by the Visible Church as pontiffs, they became true popes.
The "visible" Church that also includes all sorts of public heretics?
The Catholics who are "holding fast"... the truly VISIBLE Catholics... are AT ODDS with these claimants in matters of Faith and Morals. The Tradition of the Church is a LIVING one...you cannot say you simply follow a hierarchy from the past...or the remote rule of faith is your only rule in this crisis.
According to the law, the external forum and for the good of the Church, action must be taken by authority in these matters. You can't just sit there in your living room and remove everyone from the Church with a wave of your hand. There are indeed "public heretics" that are still a part of the visible Church, but this doesn't pertain to the question at hand. And according to St. Vincent of Lerins our rule is tradition, especially when the bishops have gone astray. What you are essentially demanding is that we act in the way that you deem it suitable and nothing more. I'm sorry you cannot or refuse to comprehend my words. If you crawled out from under the self-enclosed closet that is sedevacantism we might be able to progress. Until you respond to all of the content of my posts, I see no point in continuing. There must be a reason why you avoid the tough questions.
-
And I should add that it is precisely because these public heretics still move and live ostensibly within the visible Church that Catholics are so afflicted; it is because the enemies are within the Church and the bishops do nothing, they let them remain to ravage the flock. If the enemies could never remain in the Church, then our battle would be easy. But per Pius X, enemies can and do exist in the Church and it is obvious that half of our problem is because of the negligence of bishops either with regard to themselves or the rebels that are still allowed the catholic name.
-
-
And I should add that it is precisely because these public heretics still move and live ostensibly within the visible Church that Catholics are so afflicted; it is because the enemies are within the Church and the bishops do nothing, they let them remain to ravage the flock. If the enemies could never remain in the Church, then our battle would be easy. But per Pius X, enemies can and do exist in the Church and it is obvious that half of our problem is because of the negligence of bishops either with regard to themselves or the rebels that are still allowed the catholic name.
Public heretics ARE NOT inside the Church BY DEFINITION.
You seem to exclude any bishops from this admission. Is that right? If so WHY?