Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: MyrnaM on July 04, 2011, 01:15:49 PM
-
Will this be enough to wake anyone up!
http://tinyurl.com/3d89txj
-
Sadly, the answer to your question is, "No."
There are numerous people on this very forum who would tell us that, while its not a good idea, we haven't the authority to question the conciliar church on the matter. There will even be people who call themselves traditional Catholics who will, because it's the only one available, assist at a traditional "Mass" in the designated diocesan parish by a priestess (and there will be priestesses saying the traditional Mass). They will declare that the service was just as wonderful as it would have been if it had been a priest saying Mass...if not better.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that most people who have already blinded themselves to the reality of the Crisis in the Church will not be blinded by yet another travesty.
I used to think there were various things that would bring people to their senses, only to see lines drawn and crossed and have the very same people tell me that I'm the one who is being unreasonable and schismatic and refusing to accept Benedict as the true pope.
No, I'm afraid it won't matter. What's more, while I highly doubt that the SSPX will start accepting women into their ranks, I really don't know what they will say about the acceptance of priestesses in the conciliar church. One thing is for certain: When the conciliar church begins ordaining women, there will be women bishops very soon after and the Vatican will simply not be able to resist appointing women as cardinals (the first will probably be in charge of the Congregation for the Clergy) and I am absolutely confident that the first conclave that includes women cardinals will elect one of them as pope; probably on the first ballot. They will simply not be able to resist that act to "prove" they are not sexist just as so many Americans elected self-evident a communist to the presidency so as to "prove" they were not racists.
And, in case you're asking, the very same people who defend the women priests will demand that we accept a woman pope, or would that be a "popess"?
-
Sadly, the answer to your question is, "No."
There are numerous people on this very forum who would tell us that, while its not a good idea, we haven't the authority to question the conciliar church on the matter. There will even be people who call themselves traditional Catholics who will, because it's the only one available, assist at a traditional "Mass" in the designated diocesan parish by a priestess (and there will be priestesses saying the traditional Mass). They will declare that the service was just as wonderful as it would have been if it had been a priest saying Mass...if not better.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that most people who have already blinded themselves to the reality of the Crisis in the Church will not be blinded by yet another travesty.
I used to think there were various things that would bring people to their senses, only to see lines drawn and crossed and have the very same people tell me that I'm the one who is being unreasonable and schismatic and refusing to accept Benedict as the true pope.
No, I'm afraid it won't matter. What's more, while I highly doubt that the SSPX will start accepting women into their ranks, I really don't know what they will say about the acceptance of priestesses in the conciliar church. One thing is for certain: When the conciliar church begins ordaining women, there will be women bishops very soon after and the Vatican will simply not be able to resist appointing women as cardinals (the first will probably be in charge of the Congregation for the Clergy) and I am absolutely confident that the first conclave that includes women cardinals will elect one of them as pope; probably on the first ballot. They will simply not be able to resist that act to "prove" they are not sexist just as so many Americans elected self-evident a communist to the presidency so as to "prove" they were not racists.
And, in case you're asking, the very same people who defend the women priests will demand that we accept a woman pope, or would that be a "popess"?
I believe that Benedict XVI once said something about his "conservatism" strictly being a "provisional" position, but I can't find the source for it. Does anyone remember reading something like that?
-
Sadly, the answer to your question is, "No."
There are numerous people on this very forum who would tell us that, while its not a good idea, we haven't the authority to question the conciliar church on the matter. There will even be people who call themselves traditional Catholics who will, because it's the only one available, assist at a traditional "Mass" in the designated diocesan parish by a priestess (and there will be priestesses saying the traditional Mass). They will declare that the service was just as wonderful as it would have been if it had been a priest saying Mass...if not better.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that most people who have already blinded themselves to the reality of the Crisis in the Church will not be blinded by yet another travesty.
I used to think there were various things that would bring people to their senses, only to see lines drawn and crossed and have the very same people tell me that I'm the one who is being unreasonable and schismatic and refusing to accept Benedict as the true pope.
No, I'm afraid it won't matter. What's more, while I highly doubt that the SSPX will start accepting women into their ranks, I really don't know what they will say about the acceptance of priestesses in the conciliar church. One thing is for certain: When the conciliar church begins ordaining women, there will be women bishops very soon after and the Vatican will simply not be able to resist appointing women as cardinals (the first will probably be in charge of the Congregation for the Clergy) and I am absolutely confident that the first conclave that includes women cardinals will elect one of them as pope; probably on the first ballot. They will simply not be able to resist that act to "prove" they are not sexist just as so many Americans elected self-evident a communist to the presidency so as to "prove" they were not racists.
And, in case you're asking, the very same people who defend the women priests will demand that we accept a woman pope, or would that be a "popess"?
This is interesting. You are using alleged future events surely coming to pass to help justify your current opinion on the Pope? TKGS, this opinion may be satisfactory for you right now, but you haven't answered the serious difficulties it implies and I see from the above that you have shifted into a frame of mind that seeks anything that may even remotely support it in your mind -- extending even to remote hypothetical events. The above heretical opinion of a Cardinal (one among many probably) is contradictory to even what JPII stated. Rome will not be allowing women priests in the future so you can stop worrying about it and especially about what the SSPX will say on this imaginary event.
-
Women priests won't be allowed any time soon, if ever. A woman "pope" would definitely be an anti-pope (or would that be an anti-popess?).
-
This is interesting. You are using alleged future events surely coming to pass to help justify your current opinion on the Pope? TKGS, this opinion may be satisfactory for you right now, but you haven't answered the serious difficulties it implies and I see from the above that you have shifted into a frame of mind that seeks anything that may even remotely support it in your mind -- extending even to remote hypothetical events. The above heretical opinion of a Cardinal (one among many probably) is contradictory to even what JPII stated. Rome will not be allowing women priests in the future so you can stop worrying about it and especially about what the SSPX will say on this imaginary event.
Perhaps you should re-read my post. I have, in no way, justified my current opinion on anything on the basis of what may or may not happen in the future. Further, I have answered, or have had answered, the "serious difficulties" my opinions imply to the point that I believe they are the only answers that make sense given the situation as it is rather than as many wish it to be. As for my "concerns" about the SSPX, I only say that I don't know what their response would be if such an event occurred.
I also find it interesting that you are so bold as to declare the cardinal's theological position heretical even though he remains--and will remain--a cardinal in good standing with the conciliar church. He will never be made to recant this opinion in the same public manner in which he made the opinion known. The cardinal's opinion on this matter is not isolated. It is a very wide-spread opinion in conciliar environs. It may not happen in the near term, but I do believe you will likely see it in your lifetime.
-
This is interesting. You are using alleged future events surely coming to pass to help justify your current opinion on the Pope? TKGS, this opinion may be satisfactory for you right now, but you haven't answered the serious difficulties it implies and I see from the above that you have shifted into a frame of mind that seeks anything that may even remotely support it in your mind -- extending even to remote hypothetical events. The above heretical opinion of a Cardinal (one among many probably) is contradictory to even what JPII stated. Rome will not be allowing women priests in the future so you can stop worrying about it and especially about what the SSPX will say on this imaginary event.
Perhaps you should re-read my post. I have, in no way, justified my current opinion on anything on the basis of what may or may not happen in the future. Further, I have answered, or have had answered, the "serious difficulties" my opinions imply to the point that I believe they are the only answers that make sense given the situation as it is rather than as many wish it to be. As for my "concerns" about the SSPX, I only say that I don't know what their response would be if such an event occurred.
I also find it interesting that you are so bold as to declare the cardinal's theological position heretical even though he remains--and will remain--a cardinal in good standing with the conciliar church. He will never be made to recant this opinion in the same public manner in which he made the opinion known. The cardinal's opinion on this matter is not isolated. It is a very wide-spread opinion in conciliar environs. It may not happen in the near term, but I do believe you will likely see it in your lifetime.
It only makes "sense" if you restrict it to the question of the Pope alone. But in reality, the same standard that you apply to the Pope (though you have cited no specific heresy by which he casts himself out of the Church) would also apply a fortiori to all Cardinals, Bishops and priests of the conciliar Church. I have never seen any sedevacantist deal seriously with this question during all my years involved in this controversy.
What you have failed to grasp is that if the entire hierarchy has vanished into heresy, you would present to us an essential change within the Church itself; its divine constitution would be substantially altered. Indeed, the Pope and the Bishops form the principle part of the Church. If the entire body has defected, ordinary jurisdiction, i.e. the Church's divine authority would cease to exist. You implicitly admit that this has not happened in reality since no serious body of Catholics has dared to elect a new Pope. If the Church existed only amongst traditional Catholics, one would expect that this same Church would be able to elect Popes and appoint Bishops. The Church cannot by definition become impotent in preserving itself.
What you have stumbled accross is an easy but false solution to a real problem. You have not appreciated the extremely complex and multi-layered situation. Your opinion is far worse than the disease which afflicts the Church for it summarily destroys the Church to a far greater degree than Modernism has thus managed.
Regarding my boldness in asserting that such an opinion regarding women priests is heretical, I respond by saying that it is one thing to identify an objectively heretical proposition, i.e. a false opinion contrary to faith, and quite another to judge a man's status within the Church.
I have repeatedly requested for any Sedevacntist to demonstrate their thesis, but none has been forthcoming. I find this strange considering the certitude with which certain men make these declarations. If you do take the time to actually attempt to prove your thesis and also demonstrate how it does not involve heretical implications regarding the divine constitution of the Church while simultaneously forcing Catholics to presume upon obtaining miraculous knowledge in the future, I will not entertain any further discussion on the matter.
-
What you have stumbled accross is an easy but false solution to a real problem.
The Pope must be Catholic. Anyone who is content with a non-Catholic Pope whom he does not obey has certainly found a false solution.
You have not appreciated the extremely complex and multi-layered situation.
There are only two choices. Either the Pope is a Catholic or he is not the Pope.
That there is no clear authority established to elect a new Pope does not destroy the Church. What destroys the Faith is following non-Catholics.
Your opinion is far worse than the disease which afflicts the Church for it summarily destroys the Church to a far greater degree than Modernism has thus managed.
It does not destroy the Church. It is an egregious, flagrant error to say things such as "the Church has cancer." Which is what the people who defend modernist clerics are saying. Si Si No No said Cardinal Ratzinger had "no faith." If that's not being a manifest heretic, what is? To claim that someone manifestly has no Faith is to deny that they are members of the Church.
So was Cardinal Ratzinger Catholic or was Si Si Non Non making a terrible calumny about today's Holy Father?
There are only two choices. There is no "middle way"
-
The Pope must be Catholic. Anyone who is content with a non-Catholic Pope whom he does not obey has certainly found a false solution.
Here's my most scientific answer: Duh.
You have not appreciated the extremely complex and multi-layered situation.
There are only two choices. Either the Pope is a Catholic or he is not the Pope.
Or there's a third or fourth choice. And then there the choice as to whether one has the audacity to make a definitive judgment regarding the membership of another man.
That there is no clear authority established to elect a new Pope does not destroy the Church. What destroys the Faith is following non-Catholics.
Ambiguous, tentative, minimizing language. The fact is that there would be no authority at all. And this does in fact destroy the Church. Your last is a truism that a three year old could utter and merely begs the question.
Your opinion is far worse than the disease which afflicts the Church for it summarily destroys the Church to a far greater degree than Modernism has thus managed.
It does not destroy the Church. It is an egregious, flagrant error to say things such as "the Church has cancer." Which is what the people who defend modernist clerics are saying. Si Si No No said Cardinal Ratzinger had "no faith." If that's not being a manifest heretic, what is? To claim that someone manifestly has no Faith is to deny that they are members of the Church.
I see no substantial difference between saying that and what Pius X said affirming that there are enemies within the Church. What else would enemies do but harm and destroy the Church, causing great affliction and confusion, sowing seeds of doubt? You are confounding the divine and human element of the Church just as the Donatists of old did in Augustine's time. Regarding your citing Si Si No No as an authority, one could easily assert that such and such a man is faithless without commenting on his status in the Church. The term has a wide application as any reading of history would reveal. And being "faithless" doesn't amount to being a "manifest heretic." Such elementary blunders.
There are only two choices. There is no "middle way"
Supposing I understand what you're driving at, this is an invention of your own mind; a false dichotomy that settles well with superficial and rash minds. Indeed, being a most faithful Novus Ordo Catholic would make much more sense than being a "sedevacantist". If you wonder why, see my Chicken or Egg thread.
Beyond this, until you answer my challenge, I will speak no more on this topic.
-
Indeed, being a most faithful Novus Ordo Catholic would make much more sense than being a "sedevacantist".
I completely disagree. Not to promote the sede thesis, but being a Traditional Catholic who accepts the TLM over a Novus Ordite who loves the NO and obeys the Pope no matter what is obviously better.
The Pope must be Catholic. Anyone who is content with a non-Catholic Pope whom he does not obey has certainly found a false solution.
Non-sedes don't think the Pope is non-Catholic.
-
Here's my most scientific answer: Duh.
Then what is the meaning of saying that Rome has lost the Catholic Faith? Of saying Ratzinger has no Faith? If the man reputed to be Pope were really Catholic there would be no problem.
Or there's a third or fourth choice
The Benedict XVI, whose writings contain "many heresies" is Catholic? Or he isn't Catholic?
And then there the choice as to whether one has the audacity to make a definitive judgment regarding the membership of another man.
Tell that to Si Si Non Non. "Prefect without Faith"
Ambiguous, tentative, minimizing language. The fact is that there would be no authority at all.
Nonsense. You can't say there is no authority. It's not for you to judge. It's for the bishops and theologians of the Church to judge.
And this does in fact destroy the Church. Your last is a truism that a three year old could utter and merely begs the question.
It's very very simple, not complicated at all. There is absolutely nothing complicated with the fact that people who do not have the Catholic Faith are destroying the Church, not sedevacantism. Claiming that sedevacantism destroys the Church is outrageous.
Your opinion is far worse than the disease which afflicts the Church for it summarily destroys the Church to a far greater degree than Modernism has thus managed.
That is patently absurd. Sedevacantism does not "destroy" the Church in any sense. What has caused the Church to be destroyed for 50 years has only been the result of people following non-Catholics who claim to be the leaders of the Church.
I see no substantial difference between saying that and what Pius X said affirming that there are enemies within the Church.
There is an enormous difference. You can't be a spotless bride and have cancer.
What else would enemies do but harm and destroy the Church, causing great affliction and confusion, sowing seeds of doubt? You are confounding the divine and human element of the Church just as the Donatists of old did in Augustine's time.
There's one Church. Not too. You can't say the Church "has cancer" and is the "spotless bride of Christ." It's an absurdity, and there is a huge difference between saying there are enemies within (not being true members) and saying that the Church is "rotten" or "has cancer"
Regarding your citing Si Si No No as an authority, one could easily assert that such and such a man is faithless without commenting on his status in the Church.
Someone who manifestly does not have the Catholic Faith because of the heretical views he espouses, it is impossible to say such a person is a member of the Church. The SSPX publishes si si non non.
The term has a wide application as any reading of history would reveal. And being "faithless" doesn't amount to being a "manifest heretic." Such elementary blunders.
Without Faith because of his "many heresies" There is no blunder at all, you purveryor of phony distinctions.
Supposing I understand what you're driving at, this is an invention of your own mind; a false dichotomy that settles well with superficial and rash minds.
You can't understand that there is either a Catholic Pope or there is no Pope? Because if Benedict XVI were really a Catholic there would not be a problem following his teachings.
"Superficial and rash minds" is hot air ad hominem. If the man manifestly doesn't have the Faith because of his heretical views he's not Catholic ergo he's not Pope. There is no escape.
Indeed, being a most faithful Novus Ordo Catholic would make much more sense than being a "sedevacantist". If you wonder why, see my Chicken or Egg thread.
More nonsense.
Beyond this, until you answer my challenge, I will speak no more on this topic.
Whatever "challenge" you offer has nothing to do with the fact that a non-Catholic cannot be Pope.
The See of Rome cannot leave the Faith and remain the authority over Catholics. It's an absurdity.
-
The Apostolic See was pure and will always remain pure of all doctrinal error which can condemn a soul to hell, because this See is the immutable rock on which the Church is built. The defection of this See (which is impossible) would mean the defection of the Church (which is also impossible). Never has a legitimately elected Pope uttered heresy, but there have been many counterpopes who have reigned in Rome.
Pope Agatho proved this when he wrote that none of his predecessors, even the most minim among them, have allowed the catholic faith to be perverted in the Roman See, and that this can never happen in the future. The Apostolic See remains unsullied.
Tolle papam, tolle missam, tolle ecclesiam.
When one takes away the Pope, he takes away the Mass, and ultimately the Church.
But the Church does not cease to exist, and neither can her divine constitution (which necessarily means all her elements of apostolicity and her four marks) be impaired. The mark of visibility, however, means that the Church is a perfect society of tangible human beings who thus have the capacity to be seen with the carnal eye. It does not mean that they have to be seen on television to keep this mark intact.
So, simply because you and I do not know where the successors of the apostles are residing, does not mean that they do not exist. To keep the mark of visibility intact, it is merely required that the Church remains made up of visible human beings, and does not become a pneumatic 'bond' between all who claim to be christians, which is the protestant error to which this mark is directly opposed.
We are thus required to believe that legitimate papal electors have been provided and exist today, because the First Vatican Council has defined that Christ has willed there to be pastors until the consummation of time. There have been many counterpopes before the 20th century, so this situation knows precedent.
"This dismal fate of Rome is not contrary to the promises made to the Church and the Apostolic See to persevere in faith.... Church always remains visible, even if She would be forced to flee to the mountains and hiding mostly in caves and deserts. “
“The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts very new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the text of theologians of greatest repute. First Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Biegas, Suarrez, Bellarmine and Bosius that Rome shall apostatize from the Faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ and return to its ancient paganism. ...Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible; hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church.”
Certainly, Cardinal Manning did not mean to say that the Church would lose one of her marks (visibility). He makes a distinction between actual visibility and the mark of visibility. The first means that we do not see the Church on television or the newspapers. The latter means that the Church keeps her mark, which means the capacity to be seen.
Let us try not to make this a flame war. Discussions such as these have been heated in the past, and I admit that I have shared in the guilt. But let us avoid such things now. Charity is still the domain of Christendom, even though the masons have usurped the word and perverted it.
-
Regarding the actual subject of this thread, which is the pseudo-ordination of women. This obviously goes directly against apostolic tradition. Even the Blessed Virgin Mary was not elevated to the priesthood. That is because manhood is essentially a part of the catholic priesthood. It is not merely accidental, like the man in the article is alleging, but essential. Even if it would be attempted to 'ordain' a woman, it would not only be illicit, but also invalid. There would be no 'ordination' at all. She would remain a lay person, because no sacrament would have been confected.
In the Old Testament, also, there were no 'womenpriests' in the cultus of the Israëlites. It simply cannot be done.
It is satanic pride to deny these truths. The Immaculate Mother of God abhors such pride.
-
The 'deaconess' argument which they often use is based on a false understanding of what the word meant in apostolic times. A deaconess took care of the widows and female business in the early Church. It was not at all a liturgical function.
-
It only makes "sense" if you restrict it to the question of the Pope alone. But in reality, the same standard that you apply to the Pope (though you have cited no specific heresy by which he casts himself out of the Church) would also apply a fortiori to all Cardinals, Bishops and priests of the conciliar Church. I have never seen any sedevacantist deal seriously with this question during all my years involved in this controversy.
If you have not ever seen any sedevacantist deal seriously with this question, then you have not really studied the question.
I did not cite any specific heresy because this is a topic about women priests. I do not allege that the entire hierarchy has fallen into heresy, only that the vast majority have done so. There are still faithful Catholic priests and bishops within the Church. Many of them are associated with the SSPX. Others are associated with the CMRI. There are, doubtless, other faithful Catholic clergy throughout the world in various associations as well as acting independently. There may even be some within the conciliar church. Unlike you, I believe, ultimately, that the question must be answered on a case-by-case basis. Since I am not an adequate judge for the whole world, I will limit my judgments to the few locations where I attend Mass and to those notorious public statements as was made by the cardinal in question.
Regarding my boldness in asserting that such an opinion regarding women priests is heretical, I respond by saying that it is one thing to identify an objectively heretical proposition, i.e. a false opinion contrary to faith, and quite another to judge a man's status within the Church.
It is not my opinion that makes no sense, it is yours. For it appears that it is your opinion that the man who holds, declares, and defends heresy is not, by that reason alone, a heretic. I suppose this fits right in to the Vatican II declaration that the Church of Christ merey "subsits" in the Catholic Church and that even people outside the Church can really be inside the Church. The momeny one judges heresy in a man, one immediately judges his membership in the Catholic Church. The two simply cannot co-exist; but, because we are temporal creatures, we can only judge the latter when the former is made manifest and notorious. When, however, the former is judge, the latter judgment is already made.
In any event, when the first deaconesses (probably "permanent deaconesses" in the new religion) are ordained, I suspect the same sort of defenses I've seen here on this topic. To be sure, not your defenses of this matter, but others have defended the concept.
-
If you have not ever seen any sedevacantist deal seriously with this question, then you have not really studied the question.
On the contrary, the most astute have been reduced to making the weak assertion that there must be some bishop out there, somewhere with ordinary jurdisdiction. The question is not tangential. It is an essential problem that SV's simply ignore because their overriding opinion is so satisfying to their mind.
I did not cite any specific heresy because this is a topic about women priests. I do not allege that the entire hierarchy has fallen into heresy, only that the vast majority have done so.
This relates to my repeated requests for an SV to demonstrate their thesis. Even supposing that you could cite a certain heresy found within his writings, it doesn't follow that one can conclude he is a pertinacious heretic. This affects your minor premise and it seriously begs the question. Asserting that the "vast majority" have fallen from the faith and are formally outside the Church is another blanket statement that lacks sufficient proof. As you say, it ought to be a case by case basis, the presumption their legal authority (again no trifling matter) holds firm.
You're amazed at the destruction of the faith and the Church from within. So is any right thinking Catholic. But to conclude therefrom that all are heretics is simply a logical fallacy that doesn't take into account other manifold causes and subjective dispositions. You simply do not fully appreciate the Church considered as a visible society with external elements alone determining membership.
There are still faithful Catholic priests and bishops within the Church. Many of them are associated with the SSPX. Others are associated with the CMRI.
Yes, within the Church, but lacking jurisdiction. This is a fundamental problem and honest traditional Catholics recognize that they do not form the Church properly speaking. The question thus remains, where and in whom does divine authority reside? If you cannot answer this question, then you must rethink or refine your opinions, recognizing the importance of the notion of reserving judgment.
There are, doubtless, other faithful Catholic clergy throughout the world in various associations as well as acting independently.
Again, with no original jurisdiction.
There may even be some within the conciliar church.
Indeed, there are, otherwise, the Church would simply cease to exist as it would lack an essential element of its divine constitution.
Unlike you, I believe, ultimately, that the question must be answered on a case-by-case basis.
That's exactly correct, by those in authority. You may venture opinions, you may even be correct on some particular case, but it remains your opinion nevertheless. The inconsistency comes in where the SV claims that we have had no Pope for 50 years but refuses to extend this admission to the rest of the hierarchy, and as was said, a fortiori, for the determining factor is that they adhere to the errors of the conciliar Church, either explicitly or tacitly. Errors that you claim are heresies that eject one from the Church. So you must logically eject the rest on the same basis by which you eject the Pope.
And even supposing there is some wandering Bishop who possesses original jurisdiction, this fact doesn't save your case, for no one could identify the Church itself and such jurisidiction does not flow from him, but immediately from the Pope, the very one you claim we have not had for fifty years.
Since I am not an adequate judge for the whole world, I will limit my judgments to the few locations where I attend Mass and to those notorious public statements as was made by the cardinal in question.
And the Pope inclusive. But neither you nor I are competent in such matters. I make no judgments regarding persons, why do you? It is a question of fact that contains many elements of which you are simply ignorant. And your judgment as to what constitutes heresy is certainly inadequate. Granted, obvious statements against the faith are easily ascertained, that is not really what we are dealing with generally speaking, when we review the writings of recent Popes. In fact, I posit that one could detect no heresy strictly speaking in any official writings of the Popes, whereas individual Bishops issue certainly heretical statements.
It is not my opinion that makes no sense, it is yours. For it appears that it is your opinion that the man who holds, declares, and defends heresy is not, by that reason alone, a heretic.
First of all, you're begging the question. Second of all, you're assuming that we are dealing with a real heresy. One wonders if you've ever read theological treatises that report trained, expert theologians have disagreed as to what constitutes an heretical proposition. Thirdly, your language is imprecise and sufficiently vague that you violate your own principles in determining. But if you are speaking merely in theory, one could surmise that he is a faithless heretic, but until such a time that authority determines the nature of the case and refuses submission to authority, he retains the presumption of legal authority, unless by external action he indicates he no longer holds himself as a member of the external society of the Church.
What you've failed to grasp is that we are dealing not primarily with heresy, but with a kind of diabolical disorientation wherein these judges and teachers of the faith are blinded to that which injures our religion. There's a thousand errors of varying degree that infect the minds of Catholics. We are dealing with spiritual blindness pertaining to spiritual sins. We are dealing with new theories that, while not heretical in themselves, are destructive of the faith. Suppose a man adopted every condemned proposition in Humani Generis. He would certainly undermine Catholic doctrine, as Pope Pius XII's encyclical's title expresses, but would he thereby cease to be a Catholic? According to the Pope, he would not, though he would be a Catholic infected with grave errors. In Mortalium Animos, the Pope referred to certain Catholics who have fallen into those errors, errors which, in EFFECT, though not in INTENTION, destroy the supernatural foundations of our religion. Pius IX referred to Catholics who had adopted poisonous errors of liberalism. Pius X referred to enemies within the Church. Pope Honorius was determined to be an Instrument of the Devil. In your analysis of the situtation, you are not sufficiently taking into account these distinctions, you have not sufficiently and carefully studied the matter, the history of the Church and how She dealt with these matters, to make such judgments, but only narrowly focusing on the notion of heresy. And it is to your confusion and detriment, not only to yourself, but to the Church, for your theories lead directly to the destruction of the Church.
-
Nonsense. You can't say there is no authority. It's not for you to judge. It's for the bishops and theologians of the Church to judge.
So Caminus can't judge but sedes can judge whether or not there is a Pope? Isn't that a double standard?
And technically, there are two churches. One is the Catholic Church, the other is the counter-fit church.
-
So which one is B16 the pope of?
-
So Caminus can't judge but sedes can judge whether or not there is a Pope? Isn't that a double standard?
Learn to read. It's not for Caminus to say that there's no authority existing or that could exist to elect a new Pope in a sede vacante situation.
And technically, there are two churches. One is the Catholic Church, the other is the counter-fit church.
There's only on Church SS. You can't be Pope and the Heresiarch of a false religion at the same time.
-
It's not for Caminus to say that there's no authority existing or that could exist to elect a new Pope in a sede vacante situation.
Your theory necessarily implies such authority has ceased to exist, is nullified or cannot be ascertained. At very least, it implies that you have no certainty as to where it resides. This is the reasoning process at work and such "judgments" are perfectly legitimate.
For the SV, it is less about theology than it is about letting the imagination dictate one's thought process (e.g. imagining literally two distinct churches as a premise), begging the question, abusing or unnaturally restricting terms and meanings of words and generally the disposition of the mind. Two men looking at the same set of facts and circuмstances can come to two or more differing conclusions. But the dishonest (or simply ignorant) one refuses to admit that his conclusions involve a grave implication.
I think it would be helpful for certain Catholics to firmly grasp the basic requirements of Church membership under the aspect of an external society. Mgr. Fenton's writing would be a great help to them in understanding this basic premise. Too many are falling into or tending to the error of spiritualizing the Church or considering it as the Donatists once did, e.g. how could an Immaculate Spouse be "infected" with evil, blind or dangerous men, sickening and strangling its life.
-
There are still faithful Catholic priests and bishops within the Church. Many of them are associated with the SSPX. Others are associated with the CMRI.
Yes, within the Church, but lacking jurisdiction. This is a fundamental problem and honest traditional Catholics recognize that they do not form the Church properly speaking. The question thus remains, where and in whom does divine authority reside? If you cannot answer this question, then you must rethink or refine your opinions, recognizing the importance of the notion of reserving judgment.
How on earth can you judge every single bishop within the conciliar structure? I did not declare that no bishop within the conciliar structure had the Catholic faith. There are Eastern Churches as well as Western Churches which may very well possess jurisdiction, even passing jurisdiction on to a successor during the interregnum. But I do not believe myself so self-important that God would ensure that I, personally, know precisely in whom jurisdiction resides.
I am confident that God will provide and that the Church will continue to the end of time, even if it resides in only a handful.
-
Your theory necessarily implies such authority has ceased to exist, is nullified or cannot be ascertained. At very least, it implies that you have no certainty as to where it resides. This is the reasoning process at work and such "judgments" are perfectly legitimate.
Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition were reduced to a handful, they would be the true Church.
It's not for you to tell them what sources of authority that remnant can have.
For the SV, it is less about theology than it is about letting the imagination dictate one's thought process (e.g. imagining literally two distinct churches as a premise),
Sedes don't imagine that. The SSPX provided them with the premise of their being two churches. That's hardly the basis of sedevacantist arguments.
begging the question, abusing or unnaturally restricting terms and meanings of words and generally the disposition of the mind. Two men looking at the same set of facts and circuмstances can come to two or more differing conclusions. But the dishonest (or simply ignorant) one refuses to admit that his conclusions involve a grave implication.
You mean the SSPX refuses to admit the heretical implications of its position? Or simply pretends to be oblivious to them?
I think it would be helpful for certain Catholics to firmly grasp the basic requirements of Church membership under the aspect of an external society. Mgr. Fenton's writing would be a great help to them in understanding this basic premise.
I firmly grasp that the Pope cannot be a manifest heretic. It is evident that the SSPX does not grasp that. Since they say a man is a heretic, but then say he's Pope.
Too many are falling into or tending to the error of spiritualizing the Church or considering it as the Donatists once did, e.g. how could an Immaculate Spouse be "infected" with evil, blind or dangerous men, sickening and strangling its life.
The Church can't teach evil. If Vatican II and the New Mass are evil and they come from the Church then the Church is teaching evil.
-
I make no judgments regarding persons, why do you?
Of course, you do make judgments regarding persons. You have judged Benedict 16 to be pope. Simply agreeing with others who agree with you does not make you non-judgmental on the issue. As the old saying says, "Not to decide is to decide."
At one time, when there was no controversy, few people had to make any judgment on the issue. Now that there is a controversy, once one has been confronted with the question, one necessarily must answer it for himself. But one cannot claim that he has not made any judgment.
-
Such a private decision is not even derived from judging someone's status regarding the Church, but from the fact that a Pope cannot teach evil doctrines.
Making comparisons with the Donatists is not honest either. They refused to receive the repentant lapsi back into the fold. Their error sprung from a lack of mercy.
-
I make no judgments regarding persons, why do you?
Of course, you do make judgments regarding persons. You have judged Benedict 16 to be pope. Simply agreeing with others who agree with you does not make you non-judgmental on the issue. As the old saying says, "Not to decide is to decide."
At one time, when there was no controversy, few people had to make any judgment on the issue. Now that there is a controversy, once one has been confronted with the question, one necessarily must answer it for himself. But one cannot claim that he has not made any judgment.
Now you're equivocating on the term judgment. I judged the Catholic faith to be true, yet once I received it, I make no judgment regarding its contents. When you accept the judgment of someone else, you either submit or you do not submit to said judgment. To claim that it is an indifferent matter as to whether one judges a dogmatic fact is to confound two entirely different categories of thought; it is to essentially nullify the function of authority. As a matter of fact, you are not presented with the question, rather you present yourself with the question and attempt to make a judgment, acting as if whether the Pope has fallen from office, as if you have the competence to make such a judgment. And as I have pointed out, you simply cannot restrict the question to the Pope alone, your denials notwithstanding. You have entered into a dangerous territory based upon specious reasoning. I do not think that you have sufficiently thought it through regarding its implications and how one might test it against Catholic dogma. For example, by what mechanism, or based upon what coherent reason will you accept a future claimant to the See of Peter? Since you, in principle, recognize no authority where it legally exists, from whence will this body arise that will elect a new Pope? By what criteria will you judge them to assert this juridical decision? If no one can do it now, when will it come about? If not now, why not? Has something essential been taken away from the Church that it cannot properly function? Will you require other Catholics to make the same judgment? Accept your own peculiar criteria? Or are you presuming upon a future miracle that will infuse necessary knowledge of such things? How can a Catholic simply be a Catholic while it is expected of him to rely upon such uncertain foundations, when the knowledge he possesses is mere opinion, when he will be required to receive the same miraculous knowledge as other Catholics at the same time and in the same respect?
No my friend, you have erred in your judgment, you have not taken all things sufficiently into account in making your determination. It makes "sense" to you based on your very limited knowledge and that pure subjectivism.
The restoration of the Church will come about only through recognized jurdisiction. Any else is tantamount to requiring Catholics to venture uncertain opinions or rely upon miracles.
And regarding this notion that the Church can be reduced to a small flock, no one disputes this. But this same flock will retain all the essential characteristics of the true Church of Jesus Christ, something which all the traditionalist Bishops, Priests and laymen combined simply do not yet possess.
One day they will and the Church will be reduced when authority is finally exercised and anathemas begin to ring out from Rome once again, but I'm afraid you have jumped the gun and consequently are in grave danger of erring. History is filled with errors in the "opposite" direction. Do not be victim to the tendencies of fallen nature. And do not be surpised that the greatest crisis in the Church is obscure and difficult to understand -- it is a great mystery.
May I suggest that you refrain from trying to "figure it out" and simply practice the traditional faith to the best of your abilities.
-
Such a private decision is not even derived from judging someone's status regarding the Church, but from the fact that a Pope cannot teach evil doctrines.
Making comparisons with the Donatists is not honest either. They refused to receive the repentant lapsi back into the fold. Their error sprung from a lack of mercy.
I suggest you read Augustine's Letters against the Donatists.
-
No my friend, you have erred in your judgment, you have not taken all things sufficiently into account in making your determination. It makes "sense" to you based on your very limited knowledge and that pure subjectivism.
I admit my knowledge is limited. At one time I was content in the conservative wing of the Novus Ordo, going to Mass once in a while, enjoying my Sundays off, believing that the Catholic religion was really just too complicated for the ordinary layman to understand since, in 12 years of relgious education all I really knew was that God loves me. (I do not exaggerate.) My downfall was reading the Roman Catechism I happened to find in a bookstore overseas because I thought I should probably find out a little about the religion since the Protestant Evangelicals were telling me that the Catholic religion is the "whore of Babylon". I was shocked to discover that not only was the religion pretty darn simple, but it made perfect sense. Since truly discovering Catholicism, my days in the conciliar religion were numbered.
It is not my subjectivism that causes the Vatican, cardinals, popes, and bishops to routinely support and defend heretical doctrines and objective evils. What they do is available for all the world to see and the Fathers of the Church would have long ago excommunicated them. The real problem today is that few bishops will act according to the example of St. Athanasius and St. Basil. The SSPX, for example, wishes instead to claim that they take the "prudent" course by refusing communion in practice while denying that they do so in word.
I am willing to accept the possibility of error on my part. But I only say what the SSPX does, so I do not think my judgment on the matter is the problem.
-
Learn to read.
What was that you said a few weeks ago about being more charitable to me?
There's only one Church SS.
Correct, there is only one Catholic Church. I'm saying that a counter-fit church does exist as well. You don't think the Vatican II church is a counter-fit church?
-
video for interested Catholics:
http://www.youtube.com/user/10WiseVirgins
-
One thing is for certain: When the conciliar church begins ordaining women, there will be women bishops very soon after and the Vatican will simply not be able to resist appointing women as cardinals (the first will probably be in charge of the Congregation for the Clergy) and I am absolutely confident that the first conclave that includes women cardinals will elect one of them as pope; probably on the first ballot.
And, in case you're asking, the very same people who defend the women priests will demand that we accept a woman pope, or would that be a "popess"?
And not one act they do will be valid or licit, none.
-
... mark of visibility ...
I made a mistake here. Visibility is not an actual mark of the Church. Forgive me.
-
I made a mistake here. Visibility is not an actual mark of the Church. Forgive me.
Your error was only technical. While "visibility" is not one of the Four Marks of the Church, visibility is associated with one of them, unity, i.e., the "one" of "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic". The Church is a visible society on earth because it is made up of human beings.
The only difficulty here is when one associates the manifest heretic with that society. This would be like considering the prisoners in the prison and the townspeople of the town where the prison is located as being members of one society. Although both societies occasionally mix (the guards and other workers enter the prisons, sometimes prisoners escape) and it can be difficult to tell one from another (prisoners want to reform but remain in prison, some of the townsfolk should be in prison, but they have eluded detection and continue to exercise authority in the town as well as the gangsters who are well known for what they are but no will remove them from the town) and some members of one society claims to belong in the other (the prisoner who claims, "I was framed!"), they are still two entirely different societies.
In the same way the Church is a visible society in the world. The collection of Catholics make up that one, visible society. It is true that there are many in that society that are less than stellar. There are many who exercise authority but whose treachery has not yet been detected. And there are those who have openly declared war with the Church by proclaiming and defending heresies which put them out of the society of the Church even if most people are afraid of their prior positions in the Chruch and refuse to recognize the fact of his departure for fear of what others will think or the sanctions others will place upon them. Those conciliar officials who have removed themselves from Catholic society but continue to reign are akin to the gangsters in our example above.
I realize this is an imperfect analogy, but it can suffice for illustrative purposes.
You really were not far off.
-
Thank you. I just thought I would correct it in order to avoid confusion.
-
And regarding this notion that the Church can be reduced to a small flock, no one disputes this. But this same flock will retain all the essential characteristics of the true Church of Jesus Christ, something which all the traditionalist Bishops, Priests and laymen combined simply do not yet possess.
I disagree. Since my explanation doesn't really seem to fit in this thread, I think I will start my own thread for it.
-
UPDATE
It appears that I was wrong when I said that the Cardinal will not be made to retract his remarks in which he claimed that there was no theological impediment to the ordination of women...sort of.
The cardinal has indeed "clarified" his position because,"The reactions to this interview have forced me to consider the issue more carefully, and I found that, especially for not having taken into due consideration the latest declarations of the Magisterium on this subject, I gave rise to these reactions”.
The report of his clarification can be found at: http://tinyurl.com/6kaoq4n
I note that the cardinal did not deny his prior assertion that the ordination of women is theologically possible only that his statement is incompatible with current papal declarations and, since communion with the pope is paramount, he had to rethink his support for women's ordination.
Clearly, this trial baloon was not favorably received which is an indication that women's ordination in the conciliar church is still a long way off. On the other hand, the cardinal's "retraction" was made in such a way that, should a future pope find room to ordain women, he could support the decision.
I so detest these clarifications that are much more confusing than the issue they are meant to clarify.