Mobius wrote:

I thought Heresy was a Mortal Sin?

Hersey is a mortal sin, but mortal sin is not heresy.

All of these groups cannot be right, correct, and valid. Only one or actually, none.

True, there is only one truth.  But, when it comes to sedevacantism, it is not just about the truth, it is also about the status of the truth.

You do not need someone to declare your a Heretic if you fit the category.

True, a declaration is not necessary to determine if someone is a heretic.  The heresy met be clearly provable and you must have moral certainty that the person is guilty.

Without a declaration, however, no one is bound to agree with your conclusions.  Like it or not, you, I, and every other lay Catholic or even priest has absolutely no authority to bind the conscience of Catholics.  (I am not here talking about the sacrament of Penance)

So I guess if you can go to people you think are "not" heretics (e.g. Francis, CMRI, SSPX, etc.), then you might as well stay home or go to a Greek Schismatic rite and participate...what's the difference? Heresy is Heresy. No matter where it comes from.

No, you have not understood what I said.  You are strictly forbidden to remain in communion with heretics.  The Greek schismatics are both heretics and schismatics.  It would be a mortal sin to participate in their liturgy.

What heresy do you believe the SSPX clergy are guilty of?

All groups "cannot" be Catholics and in the "same" Church. Is Christ divided Mark 3:25 ?

There really is no true canonical groups, but for the sake of argument, yes, there can be different groups that are united in the essentials but divided in the non essentials.

No, if I said sedevacantism is a dogma I would be guilty of misrepresenting and corrupting the doctrine of the Church.  

Only a pope can declare these men heretics in a binding manner.  I can plainly see that they are heretics, but I have no authority to bind you to what I see very clearly.  I have no authority, and I am well aware of that.  If I told you that you must believe Francis is a pope on my authority, then I would be a usurper.

Sedevacstism is a judgment of the public evidence which leads Catholics to conclude, prior to the judgment of the Church that the antipopes are heretics and therefore not popes.  This judgment remains non-authoritative and binds only those who have formed it in their own well informed conscience, as the Church has not yet spoken.

Very well and clearly stated!

Gerry Matatics....

...that's all I need to know :sad:

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: mobius

So you're saying that to go to the New Mass is 1.) ok ; 2.) SSPX, ok ; 3.) CMRI, ok ; 4.) Stay Home, ok ; why? Because "no one" can declare Pope Francis a "heretic"? And we are all in communion with each other as Bishop Pivarunas says?

Does some have to declare to a person guilty of mortal sin when they commit a mortal sin, for it to be a mortal sin?

I never said it was "ok" to go to the Novus Ordo.  There is no sin, however, if the Catholic remains unaware or unconvinced of its true status.  

Catholics have the right to partake of the sacraments and may approach clergy to receive them, even vagus clergy.  Catholics are not bound to receive sacraments from clergy that have not received approved training and approval for ordination, and a mission to be their priest from the lawful authority of the Church.  

Only the pope can declare Francis a heretic. Until then, we as individuals may see this fact, but no one is bound to this fact, unless he is morally certain of it.

All Catholics remain in communion with each other.  To withdraw communion from other Catholics is schism.

Mortal sin does not effect your membership in the Church, heresy does.

I find it rather queer that someone who alludes to principles such
as this can suddenly collapse into apoplexy over one imaginative
theological speculation because he insists on it's 'doctrinal' content.  

If you were consistent, you'd admit that sedevacantism is a 'dogma
of the faith'.  But then you'd be inconsistent because that would
not be the same thing as saying that no one but a true pope can
judge the pope, as you've said right here, above.  Maybe what
you need is a good dose of the hermeneutic of continuity, then
it would all work out for you just as it is!  Sound pretty good yet?  

No, if I said sedevacantism is a dogma I would be guilty of misrepresenting and corrupting the doctrine of the Church.  

Rather, it seems you mean to say that if you were to have said
that sedevacantism is a dogma, then you would have been guilty
of misrepresenting and corrupting the doctrine of the Church.

Only a pope can declare these men heretics in a binding manner.  I can plainly see that they are heretics, but I have no authority to bind you to what I see very clearly.  I have no authority, and I am well aware of that.  

I appreciate this clarification.  Thank you.  You might consider
adding these words in the future, for more specificity:  Only a
true pope can declare these men to have been heretics, in a
binding manner.

If I told you that you must believe Francis is a pope on my authority, then I would be a usurper.

Sedevacstism is a judgment of the public evidence which leads Catholics to conclude prior to the judgment of the Church, that the antipopes are heretics and therefore not popes.  This judgment remains non-authoritative and binds only those who have formed it in their own well-informed conscience, as the Church has not yet spoken.

If only you, and others like you, could be more consistent in
your principles.  You're fond of making sweeping statements
like this and then suddenly, on another topic, you jump out of
your principle and revert to its contradiction.  Very curious.  


But in regards to the Church speaking, have you considered
under what conditions you might accept the authenticity of
the Church speaking?  What will it take for you to give full
assent of mind and will to the Church speaking?  

Take for example, the Orthodox in the east.  They were broken
away in A.D. 1054, and they've been broken away ever since.  
Under what conditions would they return?  It would seem there
are no conditions under which they would return, outside of
the Western Church admitting it has been wrong all this time,
for almost a thousand years now, and essentially therefore
'converting' and becoming Orthodox!!

But to you and me (as impossible as that sounds, yet a lot of
erstwhile impossible things are happening lately) if somehow
Pope Francis were to do that, you and I would not say that
this is a valid act of the Church.  For it would be saying that
all the ex cathedra definitions of the past millennium would be
null and void.  And we know that cannot happen.  


So, what would it take for you to believe that the Church is
speaking today?  


I have some examples but this post is already long enough for
certain members to cry in their coffee over its excessive length.

Quote from: Hermenegild

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Hermenegild

Quote from: Ambrose

No, if I said sedevacantism is a dogma I would be guilty of misrepresenting and corrupting the doctrine of the Church.  

Only a pope can declare these men heretics in a binding manner.  I can plainly see that they are heretics, but I have no authority to bind you to what I see very clearly.  I have no authority, and I am well aware of that.  If I told you that you must believe Francis is a pope on my authority, then I would be a usurper.

Sedevacstism is a judgment of the public evidence which leads Catholics to conclude, prior to the judgment of the Church that the antipopes are heretics and therefore not popes.  This judgment remains non-authoritative and binds only those who have formed it in their own well informed conscience, as the Church has not yet spoken.

So you could be wrong then?  

No.

That doesn't make sense.

You are saying - I have no authority but I can't be wrong.  :confused1:

Hermenegild,

I do have no authority, but that does not mean that I am wrong.  Let me give you an analogy to demonstrate my point to bring further clarity to this:

One day at mass, Fr. Smith, pastor of my church clearly and explicitly states from the pulpit during his sermon that there is no original sin, that all men are righteous already, and do not need Baptism.

I sit in my pew, and cannot believe my ears, and begin looking around to see if there is any reaction, but there is none.  

I then accuse Fr. Smith of heresy, saying, "I heard you, you were clear, you denied original sin."  Fr. Smith did not deny my charge, he refused to address it.  Fr. Smith then tells me that I need to learn the new way, that my thinking is outdated.  He offers to give me a class in the new theology which explains his sermon.  Most of the parish then said to me and about me, "You are judgmental, what right do you have to accuse our beloved pastor!"  

I then report the matter to the bishop with a detailed explanation of what occurred and what I heard.  We are living in a town far from the chancery and it will take months for the bishop to receive my letter, let alone investigate the matter.

In the meantime, prior to the bishop's judgment on the matter, do you agree that I may have moral certitude based on the public evidence that I have, (his own words), that I have not only a right, but a duty to cut off communion with this public heretic.  I have moral certitude, as I understood his words, and he made no effort to clarify the matter in favor of his orthodoxy, but rather further confirmed his guilt that he is a public heretic and has defected from the Faith.

As there will be a long interval before the bishop will hear my complaint, I am sure you agree that in charity to my fellow Catholics, I must warn them that their pastor is a heretic before he infects them, even prior to the judgment of the bishop.

I must also acknowledge that I have no authority, the most I can do is state the case.  Other Catholics of good Faith may tell me, "I did not hear him say it, I am not convicted," or "I was at mass that day and I don't think you understood him right," or "I am not convinced, let me hear what the bishop says on the matter."  All of these reactions are lawful, as the authority, the bishop, has not yet made a judgment.  

These Catholics do not have to take my word for it, I have no authority to bind them, and they have no obligation to believe me.

But, I heard what I heard and I cannot deny that, and I have moral certitude that the man is a heretic.  Just because others do not agree, does not remove my moral certitude of this man's status as a public heretic.

About a year later, after a thorough investigation of the matter by the bishop, the pastor is excommunicated as a heretic.  From that point forward, the authority has spoken and all Catholics must accept the judgment of the Church.  It is no longer my judgment, as the Church, through a successor of the Apostles, has spoken and publicly judged the heretic.

Hermenegild wrote:

Thanks for that Ambrose.

But you could be wrong - there's nothing telling you that you are but there may be something that you have missed.

All it comes down to is - that's the way I see it.

You seem to be arguing that we cannot have certainty outside of things we learn from authority.  

Let me ask you, if you returned home and noticed a broken window and suddenly you see a man dressed in black climbing out with a crowbar in one hand and a bag full of your money and other possessions in the other, who then tries to flee, would you have certainty that he was a burglar?  Do you need the Church to tell you he is a thief or a judgment from a court, or is the evidence strong enough from what you saw with your own eyes to know what this man is guilty of?

Some cases of forming certainty are more complex than this, I will agree, but it remains possible to form judgments about others when there is a necessity for doing so.  Catholic parents know this first hand as they must make judgments about who they will allow their children to spend time with to protect their morals.

We develop certainty based on evidence, and carefully form a thought out conclusion based on that evidence.  I would urge you to read this excellent explanation of how to form certainty from Msgr. Glenn:  http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/certainty.html

Whenever we are in the unfortunate situation that requires us by necessity to form a judgment against another man, we must always attempt to excuse him of what he appears to be doing as far as is reasonably possible.  We are strictly forbidden from making rash judgments.  In order to accuse another man of something so horrible as heresy, we must have certainty that the person is indeed guilty, and secondly that the point he is denying through words or actions or both is actually a heresy.  On this point, I would urge you to read this excellent explanation from John Daly:  http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/judgeheresy.html

The next point to consider in addition to forming a judgment against these men for heresy, is that there is also a judgment that we can make on whether the official teaching and laws of these papal claimants could have come from a pope.  It is impossible for the Church to give evil laws or sacramental rites that are incentives to impiety.  Yet, these men claiming to be popes have done such things.  

Secondly, the pope, even in his non-infallible universal teachings on Faith and morals cannot teach heresy or grave error to the Church.  The Popes teaching in this area is always safe, so much so, that Catholics are bound under pain or mortal sin to believe him.

When you put both categories together, a judgment of the evidence of words and acts from their persons, along with a judgment made about the impossibility of a "pope" being able to do things which are impossible for a true pope to do, then you have grounds to form a certain view that these men were and are most certainly not popes.

If these men were popes, then the Church is no longer what it once was for its entire history.  The Church would be a giver of evil and a promoter of impiety,  In short, it would have failed.  Such a thought is heretical, which only further gives us certainty, prior to the judgment of the Church, that these men were most certainly not popes.

Once moral certainty is reached, Catholics are safe to form the judgment that these men were not popes.   Despite reaching this high level of certainty, we still lack the authority to impose this judgment on other Catholics.  We must use the weapons that God has given us to prove our case, evidence applied to Catholic principles.