Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Prodinoscopus on June 29, 2009, 06:24:45 PM
-
1. I refuse to give my assent to any theological error or evident heresy, even if it is taught by the Pope himself.
Therefore, I refuse to say that Muslims worship the same God as Catholics, or that the Mosaic Covenant is still valid and salvific for Judaics.
2. I refuse to usurp any declaratory judgment that is reserved by divine right to the public authority of the Church.
Therefore, I refuse to declare that Pope Benedict XVI has evicted himself from office by reason of his apparent adherence to theological error or evident heresy.
For what it's worth.
-
But Prodino, the Church is now the traditional bishops and priests.
What you call the "Church" -- VII -- is not going to make a declaratory judgment on itself. That would be like asking a burglar to slap handcuffs on himself.
It's all well and good that you don't want to reject the Pope, but by doing so you are saying that the Church can teach error. So you have kept the "Pope" -- who isn't a Pope -- while rejecting the Church.
This is a form of Papalotry that goes well beyond the dogma of papal infallibility. It is almost Jesuit -- "If the Pope says black is white, and white is black, we will go along with it," as St. Ignatius of Loyola said. But what if the Pope says, "God is not God, and not-God is God." What would St. Ignatius do then?
-
But Prodino, the Church is now the traditional bishops and priests.
That's schism, plain and simple.
What you call the "Church" -- VII -- is not going to make a declaratory judgment on itself. That would be like asking a burglar to slap handcuffs on himself.
And you reason from this that its okay to usurp judgment?
It's all well and good that you don't want to reject the Pope, but by doing so you are saying that the Church can teach error. So you have kept the "Pope" -- who isn't a Pope -- while rejecting the Church.
No, he's not saying that the "Church can teach error." Prelates can, even Popes, even Council's that do not utilize any safeguards, but not the Church itself in its authoritative exercise of the magisterium.
This is a form of Papalotry that goes well beyond the dogma of papal infallibility. It is almost Jesuit -- "If the Pope says black is white, and white is black, we will go along with it," as St. Ignatius of Loyola said. But what if the Pope says, "God is not God, and not-God is God." What would St. Ignatius do then?
No it's not. Refusing to usurp judgment is not "Popalotry." You fail at even the most basic of distinctions. Nor is he saying that in his refusal to render a judgment, that "we will go along with it." He just said precisely the opposite. Can you not read? All the hypotheticals aside, your position regarding concrete facts is quite untenable.
-
Prodinoscopus, if you refuse to give assent to any heresy, then what you must do is refuse to assent to the proposition, which states that a manifest heretic is a Catholic, especially one who should darnwell know better.
Florence, Sess 11: "all those outside the Church... [including] heretics and schismatics..." It's a dogma that heretics are outside the Church.
Is your 'pope', who helped develop and now continues to push Vatican II, a Catholic?
You are forced to judge whether you like it or not. You have to make one of the follwing judgments:
1) that a manifestly heretical and apostate man is still somehow Catholic and a pope
2) that a manifestly heretical and apostate man is not Catholic but still somehow a pope
3) that a manifestly heretical and apostate man is neither Catholic nor a pope
Whatever you choose to do, you are still judging. Have the courage to judge rightly.
-
2. I refuse to usurp any declaratory judgment that is reserved by divine right to the public authority of the Church.
Therefore, I refuse to declare that Pope Benedict XVI has evicted himself from office by reason of his apparent adherence to theological error or evident heresy.
Even in stating that I believe it is a fact that BXVI is a non-Catholic (and, a fortiori, a non-Pope), this is not the same as an ecclesiastical declaration - nor is it meant to be taken as such. All talk to the contrary is a red herring, meant to frighten others away from dealing with reality as it is (which is not always reflected all that quickly, and sometimes not at all, in the order of law).
-
Gladius Veritatis, very well said.
-
But only a council or another (future) pope can declare him as such. He may be an antipope before God; but before the church, he is the still a pope untill those who have the authority declare him an antipope.
-
Even though there is a serious probability that the conciliar Popes can have fallen into heresy and, as such, stop being Catholics before God, they continue to be recognized as Popes before the visible Church. For them to cease to be recognized as Popes, one of two conditions must be met: either the due authority must declare them heretics, or their heresy must become known throughout all the Catholic Church.
Until this happens, they are still Popes before the visible Church. Consequently their sacramental and juridical acts are valid. In these points they should be obeyed. They should be resisted insofar as they attack, deny, or boycott the previous Catholic Magisterium and Tradition.
To serve the Catholic cause well in this sad situation, one should spread as much as possible the progressivist errors to which the conciliar Popes adhere. Doing this, we call them to convert and, at the same time, enlighten the faithful not to follow the same errors. Thus, the exposition of their errors is done for the glory of God and His Church, and also it helps to show the whole Church that they fell into error.
To leave the Church and found parallel institutions such as the sede-vacantists do only adds more confusion to the present chaotic situation, even though it is understandable as a reaction of insecurity and self-defense to avoid the progressivist errors. This is a simplistic solution based on an extremely simplistic reasoning: because the Popes fell into heresy they completly lost the papacy, and the entire Church who follows them is no longer Catholic. Like many simplistic solutions, this one is wrong, it cuts the living flesh of the Church, and the new institutions that adopt it run a grave risk of falling into Protestantism.
http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/E033_Sedevantism01.htm
-
Annas and Caiphas were confirmed by The Holy Ghost because of their authority, though they wanted to kill The Son of God:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f025ht_Sedevacantim.htm
Is Sede-Vacantism an Ally of Progressivism?
http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B277_SedeProgres.html
-
But only a council or another (future) pope can declare him as such.
This is true where a legal, binding declaration is concerned. Likewise, if I witness a man commit murder, he may not ever be declared so in the order of law - but I will always hold him to be a murderer in the order of fact.
-
Btw, the REAL issue is NOT this or that man who claims to be Pontiff. The REAL issue is that there is an obviously-COUNTERFEIT Church that has usurped the name and buildings of the Catholic Church. This counterfeit has done NOTHING, for over 40 years, but destroy the Faith in the minds and hearts of hundreds of millions. The rotten fruit is how it is known to be an impostor.
-
"Even in stating that I believe it is a fact that BXVI is a non-Catholic (and, a fortiori, a non-Pope)..."
This is a crucial part of the armory against those who say we're judging the "Pope." He is not a non-Pope before being a non-Catholic. It's the other way around. He is not a Catholic and that means he can't be Pope.
However, unless we are near the Second Coming, someone WILL have to do the unthinkable and judge these "Popes," deposing them legally so there can be a true Pope, with the Council of Constance as our model.
Some sedevacantists say "We have no legal right to depose anyone" but actually they do. The true bishops and priests who rejected VII can very well start calling themselves the true Catholic Church because that's what they are.
It's just that if we elected a Pope now, it would make us look like homegrown eccentrics like David Bawden. There has to be a substantial turnaround in the Catholic ranks before we can name a Pope. Many will have to wake up that the VII Church is an anti-Church.
This is why I say that the SSPX is harmful, because it's keeping traditionalists allied, however tenuously, with the "robber Church" as Patrick Henry Omlor calls it. This keeps the sedevacantists as a fringe minority, relegated to the shadows, and allows the Godzilla monster of VII to rampage unchecked.
-
We need an army of Catholics who hold the whole Faith whole and inviolate (and reject the BoD heresy, among other things) to march on the Vatican and demand Benedict XVI and his cronies surrender or eat lead.
May God grant it.
-
We need an army of Catholics who hold the whole Faith whole and inviolate (and reject the BoD heresy, among other things) to march on the Vatican and demand Benedict XVI and his cronies surrender or eat lead.
I am SHOCKED you worked BoD into this thread, CM - truly. :wink:
-
We need an army of Catholics who hold the whole Faith whole and inviolate (and reject the BoD heresy, among other things) to march on the Vatican and demand Benedict XVI and his cronies surrender or eat lead.
May God grant it.
Haha...well, four people is a start.
-
We need an army of Catholics who hold the whole Faith whole and inviolate (and reject the BoD heresy, among other things) to march on the Vatican and demand Benedict XVI and his cronies surrender or eat lead.
May God grant it.
:roll-laugh1:
That would be epic.
-
I'm glad you're amused. Okay not, really.
-
Its actually what must happen eventually. I find nothing humorous about it. I'd raze Rome to the ground as well.
-
What I mean is, the people are so apathetic because of so many factors (hugely medicated, desensitized, et cetera) that I can't see this happening for a good long time, but if someone wanted to do it tomorrow with a large angry mob, I would be in that large angry mob.
:smile:
-
Although I can respect the idea of marching on the Vatican to restore Catholic truth, I would suggest some caution.
The Jews also believed that a power would come so they could overthrow Rome and be returned to their place as God's chosen. They expected a military revolution to return them to their former place.
Yet our Lord gave us the Son who was humble, born among shepherds and raised as a carpenter, to institute her. If in any way we are to restore the church, I would expect it to be humbly, not with force but with gentle words and strength of soul.
God will protect his Church, let us stand by to respond when the time comes.
Oh...
And hello CathInfo.
-
Let me try to rephrase...
When we look back at early Christianity, what is striking about it? Perhaps most obvious is the fact that, despite their prosecution, they did not start a war, did not respond in violence. They were murdered, enslaved, imprisoned, exiled, yet they did not 'rally the troops' and march on the governing powers, so to speak. It was their witness and our Lord (through Constantine Divine intervention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Milvian_Bridge#Vision_of_Constantine),) that eventually freed them from roman tyranny.
If we contrast the success of those early witnesses to the crusades, we can see that, although some may label the crusades as successful on certain points, they did not achieve the goals they had originally intended. The military approach was not so blatantly successful.
I won't say that armed revolt and defense will never be necessary, but I doubt the Fathers of our Faith would applaud such action, and we should model them in our attempt to defeat the errors creeping into the Lord's Church.
After all...
"Then Jesus saith to him: Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword."
Matthew 26:25
-
http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=295
http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=295
You do not have to be a saint not have God speak to you to see that things are wrong and need to be stopped. So, your idea is to not react or prevent an evil from hapening...no revolt of armed conflict against evils in our world??? So, if you happen to go outside one fine day, with a gun in hand, and see a grown man raping your younger sister, or even friends child, then kills her, turns to another child, to do harm, you would not shoot??? Or would you waite till God told you?
God gave us a brain and free will...if used more often then world would not been in the mess it is now?
I wasn't aware opinions would be debated so forcefully!
Your example doesn't really reflect the situation. The individuals being affected in your example have no choice in accepting or rejecting.
Where as the current Church is no communist group, shooting and imprisoning people who want to leave. They have that option. You can not force a man to accept God, per St. Augustine.
A more accurate example would be 'If you happen to go outside one fine day, and saw a Muslim in front of your house speaking to your younger sister, or even a friends child, tells her Catholics are wrong, and turns to tell someone else the same, would you shoot?'
Perhaps you would speak with the Muslim and offer him the explanation on why he is wrong. Perhaps you would just shoot him. Ultimately, it would be your decision. But you would be the one, on judgment day, giving your account to God saying you shot this man, rather than attempting to show him the Truth.
So, before we...
..march on the Vatican and demand Benedict XVI and his cronies surrender or eat lead
...we may want to march on the Vatican as Catholics, and show them their errors, like the apostles who went to Corinth, Rome, Ephesus, and elsewhere, and show the Vatican why they are wrong.
I'll be the first to buy a ticket for that.
-
I have to agree with Spouse of Jesus; there was a reason that Christ said, "Judge not, so that you may not be judged." Back in the times of Christ, the Medieval ages, etc, information was not as accessible as it is today; people could be told one thing and go on for years before someone comes along to correct them. I am sure this is how kings were overthrown; all it takes is a rumor to make a just king a tyrant; a good-willed government a menace. The number of factors that come into play with any amount of judgement involved is nearly infinite; a thousand possible motives, a thousand possible situations, a thousand possible questions. Today, we have the internet, which is a tool that can reach the entire world; entire peoples can be subject to the information that they see, whehter it is true or not. This is incredible power. It's actually not much different from what we have today; instead of being misled through ignorance, as we were thousands of years ago, we are now being misled with information that is either biased, misleading, or outright false. All these factors come into play; everything we read on the internet was written by someone else, whose motive it is impossible to realize. What one writes about another is not neccessarily true. At times, it is even impossible to know what your own true motives are, this is why paul (I believe it's him) said he judged no man, not even himself. This is why I cannot take the Sedevecante argument; it leads one into a world of infinite possibilities, if you really think about it.
-
Your understanding of this Scripture passage is incomplete, young man. You only quoted the first part of it (St. Matthew 7:1).
You ignored the fact that he is talking about people who judge others HYPOCRITICALLY (St. Matthew 7:2-4).
And you completely left out the part where Christ exhorts people to JUDGE THEMSELVES so that they will be fit to JUDGE OTHERS (Matthew 7:5).
So basically, you are using an incomplete and erroneous understanding of this teaching from the Gospel in a vain attempt to justify your false position.
-
I think that Lybus does not have a position, but that he is "sitting on the fence" so to speak, so it would be wise to refrain from condemning him until he has shown that he is of bad will. It does not do well to endear anyone to your cause if you "turn them off" so to speak with your harsh words.
-
There is nothing harsh in my words at all. I speak the truth. Would you have me tell it like it isn't?
Besides, Lybus had once embraced the sedevacantist position, however briefly, and has gone back on it. Why, I don't know.
-
And it's not 'my cause', it the THE cause.
-
I had not known that he was once a "sedevacantist"(the term is reminiscent of "Athanasianite, is it not?).
I am just saying that in the event that someone posts on this forum that is alien to the "sedevacantist" theory, it will not bid very well for their disposition towards it if we all chase them away condemning them and calling them heretics (most Novus Ordo-ites are not even aware that they are blatant heretics, unfortunately). Of course, this does not mean that we should not condemn a heretic that is of obvious bad-will.
-
Excuse me Vladimir, but are we talking about the same post?
Your understanding of this Scripture passage is incomplete, young man. You only quoted the first part of it (St. Matthew 7:1).
You ignored the fact that he is talking about people who judge others HYPOCRITICALLY (St. Matthew 7:2-4).
And you completely left out the part where Christ exhorts people to JUDGE THEMSELVES so that they will be fit to JUDGE OTHERS (Matthew 7:5).
So basically, you are using an incomplete and erroneous understanding of this teaching from the Gospel in a vain attempt to justify your false position.
Where in my post is the word "condemn" or "heretic"?
Am I right or wrong that to hold Benedict XVI as a pope is a false position?
Am I right or am I wrong that his understanding of St. Matthew 7 was limited to one verse, and thus ignored the context of the teaching?
Am I right or am I wrong that using an incorrect understanding of Scripture to justify any position is done in vain?
And if there is nothing false in my post, then why are you accusing me of harshness?
For ease of reference here is the entire teaching of Jesus Christ, which Lybus began to present:
Judge not, that you may not be judged, For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye? Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
-
Judge not, that you may not be judged, For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye? Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Lybus also brought up the following...
For it is written: As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. Therefore every one of us shall render account to God for himself. Let us not therefore judge one another any more. But judge this rather, that you put not a stumblingblock or a scandal in your brother's way. (Romans 13: 11-13)
and...
But to me it is a very small thing to be judged by you, or by man's day; but neither do I judge my own self. For I am not conscious to myself of any thing, yet am I not hereby justified; but he that judgeth me, is the Lord. (Corinthians 4: 3-4)
Just for clarification on Lybus behalf.
-
Okay. But obviously God allows and exhorts us to form judgments (appraisals of facts) concerning the people, places and things around us, by which we should know how to conduct ourselves.
-
Obviously, hence why we all have a conscience.
However, conducting ourselves can be done charitably, or uncharitably, both altogether different.
You did mildly misrepresent Lybus, and you do seem agitated by Vladimir, (I would agree, the way you posted does seem like a condemnation, but if you did not mean it as such, I apologize.)
I would say you were uncharitable at least, not attempting to admonish like a loving father, more like a bitter, lonely old man who thinks the world is out to get him. Lybus made a valid statement based on the scripture from the letters of Paul.
But, I mean that in the nicest, least accusatory way possible.
-
Sorry if I'm rough around the edges. I don't do it to be mean. I love you all as my own soul and I care about your salvation as my own. That's why I tell it straight. I can't think of anything more charitable than to tell the truth, in the hope of converting people to it.
At the same time, anyone who is not a Catholic and is promoting false positions and doctrines is evil, because they are leading souls away from heaven and into hell. They must be admonished firmly. Loving fathers must use the rod sometimes.
Proverbs 13:24: "He that spareth the rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him correcteth him betimes."
Regards,
David.