Author Topic: Former R&R blogger (Read 2374 times)

Quo vadis Domine · « **on:** May 23, 2019, 05:24:03 PM »

http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2019/05/21/ending-cognitive-dissonance/

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #1 on:** May 23, 2019, 06:12:23 PM »

Quote

The Conclusion is very simple
If you accept Francis is the pope then you must accept communion for adulterers, you must accept allowing communion for protestants, you must accept LGBT novelties, you must accept the novus ordo mass, the new rites, the “cult of man”, Ecuмenism, that the Roman Catholic Church is just one of many that lead to heaven, That error has rights, and all of the other profanations you see around you because it is from the pope and the magisterium and Vatican II……

This conclusion is wrong, for the simple fact that no V2 pope has ever made the above errors (and all the other errors not listed) obligatory to believe/accept under pain of sin. Hence, recognizing any of the V2 popes (until the Church tells us otherwise) is a separate issue from rejecting the 1,000s of errors which they condoned and promoted. V2 "policy" and "pastoral approaches" are not dogma. The above conclusion would only be accurate if one of the V2 popes attempted to define a blatant false doctrine, or used force to command sin.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #2 on:** May 23, 2019, 06:48:29 PM »

Pax Vobis, you need to do more studying because Catholic theologians teach that a pope who was to become a manifest heretic in his non-magisterial capacity would lose the papacy. That a pope could impose on the Church even a non-infallible heretical doctrine is denied by pretty much every theologian prior to V2. Only R&R people teach that a pope could impose heretical teaching on the Church as long as it isn’t infallible. The R&R position is rapidly becoming discredited thanks to Frank.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #3 on:** May 23, 2019, 08:11:27 PM »

Quote

Catholic theologians teach that a pope who was to become a manifest heretic in his non-magisterial capacity would lose the papacy.

This is true but you’re jumping the gun, because no catholic can declare anyone (and especially not the pope) a manifest heretic. This can only be done by Church authorities. In the case of the pope, it would have to be the Cardinals or a council of bishops. ...Since this hasn’t happened, then we can’t say he’s not the pope. We have no authority to make this determination (either of his papacy or his manifest/pernicious/obstinate heresy). +Bellarmine makes this very clear.

Quote

That a pope could impose on the Church even a non-infallible heretical doctrine is denied by pretty much every theologian prior to V2.

Do you know what the word “impose” means? It means “forced to accept”. Is any Catholic forced to accept V2 under pain of sin? No. Is any catholic forced to accept V2 as a matter of Faith? No. Is any Catholic forced to attend the new mass or accept it? No. So the V2 ideals are NOT imposed, but only PROPOSED. Those who have accepted these errors do so willingly (except for a small few whom God will guide to the Truth eventually, as He has shown for 50 yrs, due to their good will and desire for Truth). But most have accepted error through PROposal, not imposition.

2Vermont · « **Reply #4 on:** May 23, 2019, 08:14:33 PM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on May 23, 2019, 05:24:03 PM

http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2019/05/21/ending-cognitive-dissonance/

:applause: :cheers:

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #5 on:** May 23, 2019, 08:35:45 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on May 23, 2019, 08:11:27 PM

This is true but you’re jumping the gun, because no catholic can declare anyone (and especially not the pope) a manifest heretic. This can only be done by Church authorities. In the case of the pope, it would have to be the Cardinals or a council of bishops. ...Since this hasn’t happened, then we can’t say he’s not the pope. We have no authority to make this determination (either of his papacy or his manifest/pernicious/obstinate heresy). +Bellarmine makes this very clear.

Not so........

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
“… for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.”
“In addition to this, what finds itself in the ultimate disposition to death, immediately thereafter ceases to exist, without the intervention of any other external force, as is obvious; therefore, also the Pope heretic ceases to be Pope by himself, without any deposition.
Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are “ipso facto” deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity.”

St. Francis de Sales:
“Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church . . . ”
Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794: “47.
Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, therefore, sentences called ‘ipso facto’ have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect” – false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous.
St. Alphonsus Liguori:
“If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.”
Canon 188.4, 1917 Code of Canon Law:
“There are certain causes which effect the tacit (silent) resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of the law, and hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are… (4) publicly defects from the Catholic faith.”
(Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus: …4 A fide catholica publice defecerit.)
Cardinal Billot — De Ecclesia, 1927
“Given, therefore, the hypothesis of a pope who would become notoriously heretical, one must concede without hesitation that he would by that very fact lose the pontifical power, insofar as, having become an unbeliever, he would by his own will be cast outside the body of the Church.”

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #6 on:** May 23, 2019, 08:49:10 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on May 23, 2019, 08:11:27 PM

This is true but you’re jumping the gun, because no catholic can declare anyone (and especially not the pope) a manifest heretic. This can only be done by Church authorities. In the case of the pope, it would have to be the Cardinals or a council of bishops. ...Since this hasn’t happened, then we can’t say he’s not the pope. We have no authority to make this determination (either of his papacy or his manifest/pernicious/obstinate heresy). +Bellarmine makes this very clear.

Do you know what the word “impose” means? It means “forced to accept”. Is any Catholic forced to accept V2 under pain of sin? No. Is any catholic forced to accept V2 as a matter of Faith? No. Is any Catholic forced to attend the new mass or accept it? No. So the V2 ideals are NOT imposed, but only PROPOSED. Those who have accepted these errors do so willingly (except for a small few whom God will guide to the Truth eventually, as He has shown for 50 yrs, due to their good will and desire for Truth). But most have accepted error through PROposal, not imposition.

http://strobertbellarmine.net/believe.html

You are forced to accept the teaching of the pope even if it is not a dogmatic definition. Please do some more studying before you lead Catholics into a pit.

Quote

To sum up, Catholics are bound to believe what the Church teaches. To refuse the assent of divine-Catholic faith to a dogma is to be a heretic; to refuse the assent of ecclesiastical faith to a doctrine which the Church teaches as belonging indirectly to the deposit of faith is to be more or less near to heresy; to refuse internal religious assent to the non-infallible doctrinal decisions of the Holy See is to fail in that submission which Catholics are strictly bound to render to the teaching authority of the Church.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #7 on:** May 23, 2019, 09:52:14 PM »

You guys are ridiculous. Your “private interpretation” of heresy agenda is chaotic and Protestant to the extreme. Quote me ONE theologian who said that a laymen or any non-Rome authority can label another catholic a heretic, (in the sense of canon law labels, which are the ONLY ones that affect “ipso facto” penalties and all the rest).

Yes, we are all allowed to “call a spade a spade” and call someone a heretic who speaks error. But this is not the proper use of the term “heretic”, which when speaking of ecclesiastical penalties and removal of office of a cleric, has a VERY SPECIFIC meaning, which can only be determined by Church process.

Again, show me one quote where a laymen is allowed to determine heresy, officially. I’ll wait.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #8 on:** May 23, 2019, 09:56:14 PM »

Quote

to refuse internal religious assent to the non-infallible doctrinal decisions of the Holy See is to fail in that submission which Catholics are strictly bound to render to the teaching authority of the Church.

Multiple, multiple theologians have said that V2 requires “religious assent”, which is conditional. We are allowed to contest and debate those points of novelty. Doctrine has nothing to do with it. Any catholic property “submits” to V2, by giving “religious assent” which is so loose and ambiguous that it is almost meaningless (not to mention, this term is less than 100 yrs old). The bar is quite low.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #9 on:** May 23, 2019, 11:41:22 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on May 23, 2019, 09:52:14 PM

You guys are ridiculous. Your “private interpretation” of heresy agenda is chaotic and Protestant to the extreme. Quote me ONE theologian who said that a laymen or any non-Rome authority can label another catholic a heretic, (in the sense of canon law labels, which are the ONLY ones that affect “ipso facto” penalties and all the rest).

Yes, we are all allowed to “call a spade a spade” and call someone a heretic who speaks error. But this is not the proper use of the term “heretic”, which when speaking of ecclesiastical penalties and removal of office of a cleric, has a VERY SPECIFIC meaning, which can only be determined by Church process.

Again, show me one quote where a laymen is allowed to determine heresy, officially. I’ll wait.

If a layman cannot determine heresy, officially, how do you, a layman, determine that the Conciliar teaching is erroneous and to be avoided, officially? But if you are not making an official determination of error, why do you accuse me of making an official determination of heresy? Do you know the meaning of hypocrisy? But your position is much worse than mine because your position has no support in traditional Catholic theology. So not only are you not authorized to call what you believe to be the Catholic hierarchy erroneous but you haven't a theological leg to stand on.

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #10 on:** May 24, 2019, 05:11:33 AM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria on May 23, 2019, 11:41:22 PM

If a layman cannot determine heresy, officially, how do you, a layman, determine that the Conciliar teaching is erroneous and to be avoided, officially? But if you are not making an official determination of error, why do you accuse me of making an official determination of heresy? Do you know the meaning of hypocrisy? But your position is much worse than mine because your position has no support in traditional Catholic theology. So not only are you not authorized to call what you believe to be the Catholic hierarchy erroneous but you haven't a theological leg to stand on.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #11 on:** May 24, 2019, 08:19:15 AM »

Quote

If a layman cannot determine heresy, officially, how do you, a layman, determine that the Conciliar teaching is erroneous and to be avoided, officially?

That's easy. As you pointed out earlier, the distinction of calling someone a heretic when they make heretical statements is allowed and justified. But calling them a heretic (in layman's use of the word) is not the same as CHARGING them with heresy, which is necessary for any of your quotes to apply. You avoid that person and you tell others to watch out for their error. This is making use of the catholic brain God gave you. What we are not allowed, authorized, or trained to do, is to put ourselves in a place of Church authority and mete out canon law judgments. We are not the Church.
.
In the case of V2, as you also pointed out, all catholics have an obligation to give "religious assent" to this council, which means we accept it as a council (no moral problem there) yet we are allowed to question it and demand clarifications on its many novelties.
.
When V2's novelities contradict a previous infallible statement of a previous council, then we have facts to show that V2 should be avoided, until rome corrects this council. We are still waiting for clarification. But I, as a layman, do not have the authority to say that V2 was an anti-council or that it should be condemned, for this is a church decision. It is not necessary for the council to be condemned for me to save my soul; all that's necessary is that I avoid the novelties.

Quote

But if you are not making an official determination of error, why do you accuse me of making an official determination of heresy?

I accuse you of making an official determination of heresy because you are clearly labeling another catholic as a "manifest" heretic, which in canon law terms, means that this person is pernicious/obstinate in their error. "Manifest" is a specific canon law term; it does not mean the same thing as defined by a dictionary. When you assume someone is a manifest heretic, it means you have judged their internal intentions. It means you have gone through the rebuke process and you are determining that their error is held to, and that they are a obstinate in their error. Only the Church can do this.
.
Since only the Church can determine manifest heresy, then all of your quotes/conclusions from the various saints regarding a manifest heretics' legal and ecclesiastical penalties are null.
.
For example, it was 1-2 years from the time that Martin Luther nailed his 99 Heresies on the church door until he was formally excommunicated by the Church. From the time that Luther nailed his errors, it would be right for catholics to TREAT him like a heretic, as he was in error and spreading evil ideas. But Luther DID NOT incur the canon law penalties over his errors UNTIL the Church make a decision on his errors and determined his obstinacy.
.
The issue you are missing here is the care of the Church for all souls, even those who (apparently) hate Her truths. The Church always moves slowly in these cases, especially for a pope! The Church would rather the soul see his error and convert (which happens when they are given 2 rebukes). She does not condemn instantaneously and without due process!

Quote

Do you know the meaning of hypocrisy? But your position is much worse than mine because your position has no support in traditional Catholic theology. So not only are you not authorized to call what you believe to be the Catholic hierarchy erroneous but you haven't a theological leg to stand on.

The difference is that I call V2 erroneous due to its novelties (which no V2 official denies exist). But I stop short of saying that they are blatant heresies or that those who wrote the drafts are official heretics, or that the council should be ignored as an anti-council. I have no right, authority, or training to do any of that. All I can say is that a non-infallible V2 council contradicts MULTIPLE, previous infallible statements. I compare the non-infallible V2 popes vs previous infallible popes. I accept previous infallible statements wholeheartedly (as I must) and I question V2's novelties (which I am allowed to do).
.
You could clear up your thinking on all of this if you remember that when you are reading/quoting/interpreting canon law or any other excerpts on ecclesiastical penalties that 1) you are not a canon nor a lawyer, therefore you can't apply canon law, 2) you aren't part of the church hierarchy, therefore you have no authority, 3) you have no training or duty to interpret ecclesiastical punishments, therefore your conclusions have no meaning.
.
What you can and should do, is be content with pointing out the errors of the day, to sound the alarm regarding novelties and to educate others on the Faith. All other matters are left to the Church.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #12 on:** May 24, 2019, 08:36:27 AM »

Pax, I know you can’t cite a single pre-V2 authority for your position. It is made-up nonsense. Your distinction between calling someone a heretic officially vs unofficially is particularly amusing. “Francis, I call you a heretic...unofficially, of course!” And interesting that you make no such distinction when calling out Frank’s errors. It’s so ridiculously contrived that it’s almost unbelievable that anyone would hold such beliefs.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #13 on:** May 24, 2019, 11:05:43 AM »

Quote

Again, show me one quote where a laymen is allowed to determine heresy, officially. I’ll wait.

Still waiting.
.
Show me one quote, from any theologian, or canon law, where a layman or a priest is allowed to determine ecclesiastical penalties, including excommunication but also lessor ones, as for censures, etc. I'll wait.

Quote

Pax, I know you can’t cite a single pre-V2 authority for your position. It is made-up nonsense.

Can you be more specific? My position is based on the above 2 questions. If laymen and simple priests aren't authorized to hand out Church penalties, then we wait for the Church officials to act. It's not complicated.

Quote

Your distinction between calling someone a heretic officially vs unofficially is particularly amusing.

It's not amusing because me calling someone a heretic means nothing. It's an informal use of the word, whereby we are calling attention to the error spoken by the person. The formal use of the word, in canon law, is a legal determination through a church process, where the Church declares someone authoritatively as a heretic, with all the spiritual and temporal penalties that go along with it.
.
Much like an accused man who hit his wife behind a garage, not knowing that 2 neighbors saw him do it. "He's guilty" they'll say. And they are correct. But the neighbor's determination of the man's guilt means nothing until the court decides the matter. Even if the local laws say that a man who beats his wife is automatically sentenced to 2 years in jail, the neighbors have no authority to throw him in jail on their own. The court will decide the matter, and they may give him 2 years, or more, or less, when all the facts come to light.
.
All of us Trads are like the neighbor who witnessed the crime. We saw it happen from a distance. It's plain as day. But...we are not the judge, jury or executioner. We must wait for God to act, through His Church, through the process laid out by canon law. This is how the Church is ordered. This is how She operates. It is a penance to wait for justice, but that's reality.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #14 on:** May 24, 2019, 11:30:16 AM »

And ... as usual ... the truth is somewhere in the middle.

If Bergoglio came out tomorrow and said, "Hey, guys, I've converted to Buddhism." ... then what judgment of the Church is necessary? None. That constitutes a public defection from the faith.

It's true that the Church cannot effect deposition, but the Universal Church, and not some armchair lay theologian, has to come to that conclusion or awareness. I knew a guy who decided that Pius IX was not a legitimate pope.

There's no teaching ANYWHERE that requires any FORMAL declaration or process. S&S types keep trying to pretend that there's some juridical process that empties the Holy See. This is not required, and it actual has no effect whatsoever. It's merely a formalization of the "awareness" of the Church that this man is not the pope. In the case of my earlier example of Bergoglio becoming a Buddhist, there would need be no declaration whatsoever. Next step would be to convene a Conclave to elect a Pope. Universal Recognition need not be manifest by some formal decree or docuмent.

So we are somewhere on the continuum between one person alleging heresy and a Universal Recognition of heresy. Short of a dramatic defection scenario such as Bergoglio becoming a Buddhist, this is ALWAYS the process.

One person alleges heresy.
More people allege heresy.
Lots of people allege heresy.
Universal Recognition by the Church that the man is not Catholic.

Nor is there any requirement for X number of "rebukes", not from any legal perspective. Sometimes the pertinacity is so manifest that it's clear.

Where rebukes are necessary would be as part of the Church's discernment process in determining heresy. Is this man just a material heretic in error who by recanting as soon as he's informed of his error manifests his continued adherence to the Church's teaching as the formal rule of faith? Usually such a one quickly drops his position when admonished by the Church. People sometimes allege that these rebukes have to come from someone in authority. What authority? There is NO authority above the pope. People sometimes judge that the Popes has to be judged guilty of the crime of heresy. Nonsense. The Pope cannot be judged (juridically) by any authority. All these things are are, rebukes, judgements, etc. are the process of the Church becoming AWARE that the man is a heretic and not a Catholic. There's no legal or formal ANYTHING involved in deposing a Pope since there is no authority other than God Himself who's in a position to issue such a judgment.

So that's the key.

And where are we in this process (outlined above). We are in a situation where significant numbers of orthodox (aka Traditional Catholics) have strong positive doubts about Bergoglio's legitimacy (and about those of his predecessors). We have not yet reached Universal Recognition.

Now until that Universal Recognition happens, the material designation of the Church remains with Bergoglio, and the chair remains materially occupied. But due to the doubt, he lacks any formal authority: Papa dubius, nullus papa.

That is a summary of my own "sede-doubtist" position. We're in a state of limbo that we need to wait for the Church to resolve.

Author Topic: Former R&R blogger (Read 2374 times)

Quo vadis Domine

Former R&R blogger

Pax Vobis

Re: Former R&R blogger

Clemens Maria

Re: Former R&R blogger

Pax Vobis

Re: Former R&R blogger

2Vermont

Re: Former R&R blogger

Quo vadis Domine

Re: Former R&R blogger

Clemens Maria

Re: Former R&R blogger

Pax Vobis

Re: Former R&R blogger

Pax Vobis

Re: Former R&R blogger

Clemens Maria

Re: Former R&R blogger

Quo vadis Domine

Re: Former R&R blogger

Pax Vobis

Re: Former R&R blogger

Clemens Maria

Re: Former R&R blogger

Pax Vobis

Re: Former R&R blogger

Ladislaus

Re: Former R&R blogger