Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Nishant on November 30, 2014, 08:47:53 AM
-
Underlining and all formatting in the original (http://stmarcelinitiative.com/eleison-comments/?lang=en
)
Eleison Comments
by His Excellency Richard Williamson
Current Issue
Living Popes
November 29, 2014
The Church needs living Popes, however bad.
Kill off the Church they won’t, however mad.
On January 29, 1949, Pope Pius XII made the following remarks about the importance of the Pope: If ever one day – speaking purely hypothetically – material Rome were to collapse; if ever this Vatican basilica, symbol of the one and only victorious Catholic Church, were to bury beneath its ruins the historic treasures and sacred tombs which it encloses, even then the Church would be in no way demolished or split. Christ’s promise to Peter would still hold true, the Papacy would last for ever, like the Church, one and indestructible, being founded on the Pope then living.”
Since these words are classic Church doctrine (only the underlining has been added), resting as they do on Our Lord’s own words (Mt. XVI, 16–18), then it is small wonder if, ever since 1962 when the living Popes became Conciliar, millions upon millions of Catholics have been driven to becoming likewise Conciliar and liberal. The only way out of the problem that sedevacantists can see is to deny that the Conciliar Popes have been Popes at all, which can seem to be common sense, but to most Catholics it seems even more to be common sense that the Church designed by God to rest upon the living Pope cannot have existed for the last half century (1962–2014) without one.
It is easy to see how the decline of Christian civilisation since the height of the Middle Ages has led to the present corruption of the living Popes. It is easy to see how God can have permitted this appalling corruption to punish that appalling decline. What is less easy to see is how the Church can still live when the living Popes on whom it is founded are convinced that liberalism, war on God, is Catholic. In Our Lord’s own words, A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit and an evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit (Mt. VII, 18).
But a tree half good, half bad, can produce fruits half good, half bad. Now taken as a whole, a mixture of good and bad is bad, but that does not mean that taken part by part, the mixture’s good parts are as bad as its bad parts. Cancer in the liver will kill me, but that does not mean that I have cancer in the lungs. Now no living churchman, any more than any man alive, is entirely good or entirely bad. We are all a fluctuating mixture until the day we die. So can there ever have been a living Pope whose fruits were entirely evil? The answer can only be, no. In which case the Catholic Church can have half-lived for the last 50 years on the half-good fruits of the Conciliar Popes, with a half-life permitted by God to purify his Church, but which he would never permit to go so far as to kill his Church.
Thus for example Paul VI wept for the lack of vocations. Benedict XVI hankered after Tradition. Even Pope Francis surely means to bring men to God when he drags God down to men. So, Conciliar Popes are dreadfully mistaken in their ideas, fatally ambiguous in the Faith where they need to be absolutely unambiguous. The Church has been and is dying beneath them, but whatever parts in them have still been good have enabled the Church to continue, and they have been needed as living heads to continue the body of the living Church, as Pius XII said. Then let us not fear that they will be allowed to kill off the Church, but let us for our part fight their liberalism tooth and nail and pray for their return to Catholic sanity, because we do need them for the life of our Church.
Kyrie eleison.
-
For decades many in tradition have categorized him as being part of the "False-Resistance" (now in his "exile" false-resistance to the false-resistance).
He claims as much with his continued ridiculous "arguments" and his fealty to his "Cardboard Popes".
Ask yourselves again (and again), why he won't consecrate another and wishes no real organization!
-
More hogwash! On The contrary: It is easy to see how Popes, as close as their office brings them to Jesus Christ, are for the most part, holy men.
Paul VI (the "weeper" according to Williamson) : gαy
Benedict XVI: A child sacrificing demon
Francis I: Denies the Divinity of Christ
He dares to call upon those three men?
Satan knows his time is very short. This is why the mask continues to come off. We have a chioce to make here! Truth or error?
:applause:
More hogwash from the Lyin' of Wimbledon?
-
Paul VI (the "weeper" according to Williamson) : gαy
Benedict XVI: A child sacrificing demon
Francis I: Denies the Divinity of Christ
You should be banned for that.
-
More hogwash from the Lyin' of Wimbledon?
And you, too.
-
«Thus for example Paul VI wept for the lack of vocations. Benedict XVI hankered after Tradition. Even Pope Francis surely means to bring men to God when he drags God down to men.»
Paul VI wept for the lack of vocations? His council and the way he applied it were the cause of such lack of vocations. Has H.E. forgotten how many religious abandoned their vocation because of the council?
Benedict XVI hankered after Tradition? In which manner? By his motu proprio Summorum pontificuм, with which he humiliated the Holy Mass? Surely H.E. hasn't seen all the damage BXVI did to the Church.
Francis surely means to bring men to God? How could H.E. be so sure? When he intends to drag God dawn to men he means to bring some god (not the Catholic God, in which he does not believe) to men, not the other way around.
-
I honestly don't understand what the heck H.E. is doing with this EC.
Where does he come up with a tree half good, half bad, which produce fruits half good, half bad? I never heard that one before.
-
"Pope Francis(sic) surely means to bring men to God(sic)"?
To what god is Bergoglio intending to bring men? To the god of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity?
To the god of atheism? To the god of the moslem? To the god of the
Christ-haters? To the anti-Catholic god?
There is only One True God. Our God ordered us to tear down the altars to all the false
Gods. Since our Father went up into the mountain to receive the Tablets from our God, we have been playing around with false gods. The men had gathered all their gold and had it fashioned into a god, and Our Father smashed it to pieces!
Ratzinger placed, as did Wyjtola before him, images of all their false gods upon the altar at Assissi, and the Archbishop lamented that we are very close to saying that he is no pope! Bishop de Castro Mayer was more forceful and direct. He wasn't trying for twenty five years to make a deal with heathen Rome. Bp. de Castro Mayer, at the consecration of the four bishops (including H. E. Williamson), at which he was both witness and co-consecrator, proclaimed:
"We do not have a pope--there is no pope!"
This brave bishop, who was running the only diocese in the entire world according to the eternal Catholic principles, saw clearly that Rome had lost the faith-- and that Wyjtola was not the pope of the Roman Catholic Church of Jesus Christ (everyone, of course, knew he was the pope of the Conciliar Church of Vatican II). And Ratzinger? Archbishop Lefebvre battled him and his crony periti at the Council, and clearly declared that "he is not Catholic."
The brain-washing and programming of Fellay, Lorans, Dici, the Cor Unums, and their mouthpieces has been quite successful. Even though the SSPX has seemingly mortally wounded itself, all its "resisters" have bought the same argument-- they only debate the terms and the timing of crawling back into the harlots bed.
And this is a very important point. God commanded that we have NO false gods before us (part of our duty to God); He also commanded that we not covet our neighbors wife ( part of our duties to our fellow man). These commandments are equal in import and power. They are two sides of the same coin. Like man, "male and female He created them"-- you can't have one without the other.
To seek refuge in the temple of a false God, is the same as to seek comfort in thr bed of the harlot. Every single one of her accusers had slowly slinked away. One minute they wanted to stone her to death; the next minute they tried to hide their face from their sins. "Who accuseth you," asked the Lord. "No one man, Master." "and neither do I --go, and sin no more!"
The men were chasing the harlot; they were following false gods. That is the re-enactment today going on in the SSPX. When you are chasing the harlot; when you are going after false gods, of course you speech cannot be "Yeah, Yeah and No, No" -- everything has to be carefully crafted so your "wife"(the Catholic faithful) never realizes what you're up to. So, you come up with crazy stories, like:
"He freed the Mass", "He lifted the excommunications". "He's really traditional", "They accept us as we are", "Only Fellay has the grace to decide these things". "He retracted the AFD(in some basement in a chapel in Ireland)", "the novus ordo mass brings Jesus Christ down on the altar", and "Pope Francis wants to bring man to god."
If these popes , these past forty years, have truly been the Vicars of Our Lord Jesus Christ, how dare we, for even one minute, contemplate resisting them and disobeying ALL their orders snd commands. If Jesus Christ is truly represented by the jew-loving, buddhist-loving, moslem- loving, atheist-loving "popes" of the Conciliar Church, then the Archbishop was dead wrong, and is properly consigned to Eternal Fire, where all excommunicated must go!
Rather, it is the leaders of the SSPX, and figures of the so called resistance, who are earning for themselves the wrath of Almighty God, because they are leading souls astray, and away from the True Church.
-
I honestly don't understand what the heck H.E. is doing with this EC.
Where does he come up with a tree half good, half bad, which produce fruits half good, half bad? I never heard that one before.
This is a new analogy. In the past, H.E. had tried to prove the conciliar popes were/are simultaneously popes of two churches with the analogy of an apple half fresh, half rotten.
-
I honestly don't understand what the heck H.E. is doing with this EC.
Where does he come up with a tree half good, half bad, which produce fruits half good, half bad? I never heard that one before.
This is a new analogy. In the past, H.E. had tried to prove the conciliar popes were/are simultaneously popes of two churches with the analogy of an apple half fresh, half rotten.
This disanalogy is a variation on a bad theme... once again it doesn't pass the Catholic sniff test.
-
Just in case we do not understand the full meaning of the words we use, let's impress them into our mind with some vivid images. Remember, when Archbishop Lefebvre was blasting those who had taken over the Church, He termed them conciliarists-- a Counciliar Church, with new sacraments, new worship-- not the Catholic Church. To emphasize, he said " these are not just words we throw through the air" as he pointed to those at Rome. " We did not ask for this, we did not make this, we do not make this up!"
Pope Francis prays at the Blue Mosque in Istanbul
Play video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OR9HOJNEYvI&feature=player_embedded
00:01:54
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OR9HOJNEYvI&feature=player_embedded)Added on 11/29/14
10,711 views
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OR9HOJNEYvI&feature=player_embedded)
Francis at the Blue Mosque...
“Silent Adoration”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OR9HOJNEYvI&feature=player_embedded
francis-blue-mosque.jpg
Bergoglio is right now visiting Istanbul, Turkey, as Bp Williamson is reporting that Bergoglio is wanting to bring men to God. In his visit to Istanbul, he prays with those who hate God, those who hate Jesus Christ, and , following Ratzinger and Wyjtola, he (Bergoglio) asks the muslim leader to pray for him!! This is all conducted in the leading Mosque of the religion-- the religion for which we thank the Blessed Virgin for her assistance in the battles against them.
Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OR9HOJNEYvI
After the prayer, Francis said to the Muslim leader, “I also want to ask you to pray for me” (source).
:
•
-
hugeman:
If these popes , these past forty years, have truly been the Vicars of Our Lord Jesus Christ, how dare we, for even one minute, contemplate resisting them and disobeying ALL their orders snd commands. If Jesus Christ is truly represented by the jew-loving, buddhist-loving, moslem- loving, atheist-loving "popes" of the Conciliar Church, then the Archbishop was dead wrong, and is properly consigned to Eternal Fire, where all excommunicated must go!
Rather, it is the leaders of the SSPX, and figures of the so called resistance, who are earning for themselves the wrath of Almighty God, because they are leading souls astray, and away from the True Church.
In summary of most of the remarks made on this thread, I would say that the general consensus here results in a practically unanimous conclusion that the Catholic Church is dead; it no longer exists; it has virtually vanished from the face of the earth. The conciliar popes are so besotted with heresy and error that they can not possibly have been real popes. The worst of them is currently reigning. (That ends right there the church built upon the rock Peter. We really need go no further) But some of you do. Those who seek some kind of refuge from this conciliar madness are now being told that there really is none. The Novus Ordo has always been totally unacceptable. The SSPX, once an acceptable alternative for many, is gone. The "resistance" priests have been weighed in the balance and found wanting. A number of you stand in doubt of the deceased Archbishop. The only living bishop, who for many of us represents at least a glimmer of hope, is himself now on the hot seat. He too has been all but tossed upon the trash heap. A number of you brazenly reject him, or at the very least, question every word which proceeds from his mouth. Good luck! For you're telling me, if I hear you correctly, that we're no longer dealing with a Conciliar church, whose errors, though they are legion, is, nevertheless, a visible, practical entity on some some level. No! Now were talking about a Church which isn't, a church which has totally dissolved in a figurative mushroom of destruction. We are now Catholics without a Catholic Church.
-
In summary of most of the remarks made on this thread, I would say that the general consensus here results in a practically unanimous conclusion that the Catholic Church is dead; it no longer exists; it has virtually vanished from the face of the earth. The conciliar popes are so besotted with heresy and error that they can not possibly have been real popes. The worst of them is currently reigning. (That ends right there the church built upon the rock Peter. We really need go no further) But some of you do. Those who seek some kind of refuge from this conciliar madness are now being told that there really is none. The Novus Ordo has always been totally unacceptable. The SSPX, once an acceptable alternative for many, is gone. The "resistance" priests have been weighed in the balance and found wanting. A number of you stand in doubt of the deceased Archbishop. The only living bishop, who for many of us represents at least a glimmer of hope, is himself now on the hot seat. He too has been all but tossed upon the trash heap. A number of you brazenly reject him, or at the very least, question every word which proceeds from his mouth. Good luck! For you're telling me, if I hear you correctly, that we're no longer dealing with a Conciliar church, whose errors, though they are legion, is, nevertheless, a visible, practical entity on some some level. No! Now were talking about a Church which isn't, a church which has totally dissolved in a figurative mushroom of destruction. We are now Catholics without a Catholic Church.
And Jesus saith to them: "You will all be scandalized in my regard this night; for it is written, I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep shall be dispersed."
Fear not, little flock, for it hath pleased your Father to give you a kingdom.
-
hugeman: If these popes , these past forty years, have truly been the Vicars of Our Lord Jesus Christ, how dare we, for even one minute, contemplate resisting them and disobeying ALL their orders snd commands. If Jesus Christ is truly represented by the jew-loving, buddhist-loving, moslem- loving, atheist-loving "popes" of the Conciliar Church, then the Archbishop was dead wrong, and is properly consigned to Eternal Fire, where all excommunicated must go!
Rather, it is the leaders of the SSPX, and figures of the so called resistance, who are earning for themselves the wrath of Almighty God, because they are leading souls astray, and away from the True Church.
In summary of most of the remarks made on this thread, I would say that the general consensus here results in a practically unanimous conclusion that the Catholic Church is dead; it no longer exists; it has virtually vanished from the face of the earth. The conciliar popes are so besotted with heresy and error that they can not possibly have been real popes. The worst of them is currently reigning. (That ends right there the church built upon the rock Peter. We really need go no further) But some of you do. Those who seek some kind of refuge from this conciliar madness are now being told that there really is none. The Novus Ordo has always been totally unacceptable. The SSPX, once an acceptable alternative for many, is gone. The "resistance" priests have been weighed in the balance and found wanting. A number of you stand in doubt of the deceased Archbishop. The only living bishop, who for many of us represents at least a glimmer of hope, is himself now on the hot seat. He too has been all but tossed upon the trash heap. A number of you brazenly reject him, or at the very least, question every word which proceeds from his mouth. Good luck! For you're telling me, if I hear you correctly, that we're no longer dealing with a Conciliar church, whose errors, though they are legion, is, nevertheless, a visible, practical entity on some some level. No! Now were talking about a Church which isn't, a church which has totally dissolved in a figurative mushroom of destruction. We are now Catholics without a Catholic Church.
For myself I will just rely on this letter from Saint Athanasius
Letter of Saint Athanasius to His Flock (4th Century A.D.)
"May God console you! ... What saddens you ... is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises --- but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in the struggle --- the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith?
True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way ...
You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your Faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis.
No one, ever, will prevail against your Faith, beloved Brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.
Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray.
Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."
(Coll. selecta SS. Eccl. Patrum, Caillau and Guillou, Vol. 32, pp. 411-412)
-
Consoling reading, MyrnaM, because we are surely in a sad place.
-
But a tree half good, half bad, can produce fruits half good, half bad. Now taken as a whole, a mixture of good and bad is bad, but that does not mean that taken part by part, the mixture’s good parts are as bad as its bad parts. Cancer in the liver will kill me, but that does not mean that I have cancer in the lungs. Now no living churchman, any more than any man alive, is entirely good or entirely bad. We are all a fluctuating mixture until the day we die. So can there ever have been a living Pope whose fruits were entirely evil? The answer can only be, no. In which case the Catholic Church can have half-lived for the last 50 years on the half-good fruits of the Conciliar Popes, with a half-life permitted by God to purify his Church, but which he would never permit to go so far as to kill his Church.
Thus for example Paul VI wept for the lack of vocations. Benedict XVI hankered after Tradition. Even Pope Francis surely means to bring men to God when he drags God down to men. So, Conciliar Popes are dreadfully mistaken in their ideas, fatally ambiguous in the Faith where they need to be absolutely unambiguous. The Church has been and is dying beneath them, but whatever parts in them have still been good have enabled the Church to continue, and they have been needed as living heads to continue the body of the living Church, as Pius XII said. Then let us not fear that they will be allowed to kill off the Church, but let us for our part fight their liberalism tooth and nail and pray for their return to Catholic sanity, because we do need them for the life of our Church.
Wut? This is what you've got Bishop Williamson? Really?
I have to seriously wonder what the heck is going on with him...and the Resistance.
-
Consoling reading, MyrnaM, because we are surely in a sad place.
Agreed. I have often come back to the letter of St Athanasius.
-
Bishop Williamson,
But a tree half good, half bad, can produce fruits half good, half bad. Now taken as a whole, a mixture of good and bad is bad, but that does not mean that taken part by part, the mixture’s good parts are as bad as its bad parts.
Our Lord,
By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.
-
Bishop Williamson,
But a tree half good, half bad, can produce fruits half good, half bad. Now taken as a whole, a mixture of good and bad is bad, but that does not mean that taken part by part, the mixture’s good parts are as bad as its bad parts.
Our Lord,
By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.
:applause:
-
hugeman: If these popes , these past forty years, have truly been the Vicars of Our Lord Jesus Christ, how dare we, for even one minute, contemplate resisting them and disobeying ALL their orders snd commands. If Jesus Christ is truly represented by the jew-loving, buddhist-loving, moslem- loving, atheist-loving "popes" of the Conciliar Church, then the Archbishop was dead wrong, and is properly consigned to Eternal Fire, where all excommunicated must go!
Rather, it is the leaders of the SSPX, and figures of the so called resistance, who are earning for themselves the wrath of Almighty God, because they are leading souls astray, and away from the True Church.
In summary of most of the remarks made on this thread, I would say that the general consensus here results in a practically unanimous conclusion that the Catholic Church is dead; it no longer exists; it has virtually vanished from the face of the earth. The conciliar popes are so besotted with heresy and error that they can not possibly have been real popes. The worst of them is currently reigning. (That ends right there the church built upon the rock Peter. We really need go no further) But some of you do. Those who seek some kind of refuge from this conciliar madness are now being told that there really is none. The Novus Ordo has always been totally unacceptable. The SSPX, once an acceptable alternative for many, is gone. The "resistance" priests have been weighed in the balance and found wanting. A number of you stand in doubt of the deceased Archbishop. The only living bishop, who for many of us represents at least a glimmer of hope, is himself now on the hot seat. He too has been all but tossed upon the trash heap. A number of you brazenly reject him, or at the very least, question every word which proceeds from his mouth. Good luck! For you're telling me, if I hear you correctly, that we're no longer dealing with a Conciliar church, whose errors, though they are legion, is, nevertheless, a visible, practical entity on some some level. No! Now were talking about a Church which isn't, a church which has totally dissolved in a figurative mushroom of destruction. We are now Catholics without a Catholic Church.
“We are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church and for the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong.
That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been.
It has:
- its new dogmas,
- its new priesthood,
- its new institutions,
- its new worship,
all already condemned by the Church in many a docuмent, official and definitive....
The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic.
To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church....
~Archbishop Lefebvre, Reflections on Suspension a divinis, June 29, 1976
-
Fr. Ceriani answered Bp. Williamson's EC 385 quoting some saints:
Firstly, he quotes the Godspell to make clear the context:
Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.
Then he quotes St. John Chrysostom referring to such text:
But that none should say, An evil tree brings forth indeed evil fruit, but it brings forth also good, and so it becomes hard to discern, as it has a two-fold produce; on this account He adds, "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit."
And St. Augustine:
They fix their attention on what is said, “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit,” and therefore think that neither can it happen that an evil soul should be changed into something better, nor a good one into something worse; as if it were said, A good tree cannot become evil, nor an evil tree good. But it is said, “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” For the tree is certainly the soul itself, i.e. the man himself, but the fruits are the works of the man; an evil man, therefore, cannot perform good works, nor a good man evil works. If an evil man, therefore, wishes to perform good works, let him first become good. So the Lord Himself says in another passage more plainly: “Either make the tree good, or make the tree bad.” But if He were figuratively representing the two natures of such parties by these two trees, He would not say, “Make:” for who of the sons of men can make a nature? Then also in that passage, when He had made mention of these two trees, He added, “Ye hypocrites, how can ye, being evil, speak good things?” As long, therefore, as any one is evil, he cannot bring forth good fruits; for if he were to bring forth good fruits, he would no longer be evil. So it might most truly have been said, snow cannot be warm; for when it begins to be warm, we no longer call it snow, but water. It may therefore come about, that what was snow is no longer so; but it cannot happen that snow should be warm. So it may come about, that he who was evil is no longer evil; it cannot, however, happen that an evil man should do good. And although he is sometimes useful, this is not the man’s own doing; but it is done through him, in virtue of the arrangements of divine providence.
Then, Fr. Ceriani brings to our attention other passage of St. Matthew's Godspell:
Either make the tree good and its fruit good: or make the tree evil, and its fruit evil. For by the fruit the tree is known.
On which St. Jerome and St. John Chrysostom comment as follows:
He binds them by means of a syllogism, which the Greeks call aphycton. We can call it "inescapable". He shutes in from both directions those whom he interrogates and he presses them on both horns. If, he says, the devil is evil, then he cannot do good works. But if the deeds that you see are good, it follows that it is not the devil who is doing them. For it is not possible for good to arise from evil, or evil from good.
Because in truth the distinction of the tree is shown by the fruit, not the fruit by the tree; but ye do the contrary. For what if the tree be the origin of the fruit; yet it is the fruit that makes the tree to be known.
-
I do not understand this parable about the fruits. It seems to say that an evil man cannot do good, which makes sense. But then it seems to say that a good man cannot do evil as if the good man cannot sin. This part of the parable I do not understand because I thought that even the best men sin often.
-
I honestly don't understand what the heck H.E. is doing with this EC.
Where does he come up with a tree half good, half bad, which produce fruits half good, half bad? I never heard that one before.
Your guess is as good as mine.
-
hugeman: If these popes , these past forty years, have truly been the Vicars of Our Lord Jesus Christ, how dare we, for even one minute, contemplate resisting them and disobeying ALL their orders snd commands. If Jesus Christ is truly represented by the jew-loving, buddhist-loving, moslem- loving, atheist-loving "popes" of the Conciliar Church, then the Archbishop was dead wrong, and is properly consigned to Eternal Fire, where all excommunicated must go!
Rather, it is the leaders of the SSPX, and figures of the so called resistance, who are earning for themselves the wrath of Almighty God, because they are leading souls astray, and away from the True Church.
In summary of most of the remarks made on this thread, I would say that the general consensus here results in a practically unanimous conclusion that the Catholic Church is dead; it no longer exists; it has virtually vanished from the face of the earth. The conciliar popes are so besotted with heresy and error that they can not possibly have been real popes. The worst of them is currently reigning. (That ends right there the church built upon the rock Peter. We really need go no further) But some of you do. Those who seek some kind of refuge from this conciliar madness are now being told that there really is none. The Novus Ordo has always been totally unacceptable. The SSPX, once an acceptable alternative for many, is gone. The "resistance" priests have been weighed in the balance and found wanting. A number of you stand in doubt of the deceased Archbishop. The only living bishop, who for many of us represents at least a glimmer of hope, is himself now on the hot seat. He too has been all but tossed upon the trash heap. A number of you brazenly reject him, or at the very least, question every word which proceeds from his mouth. Good luck! For you're telling me, if I hear you correctly, that we're no longer dealing with a Conciliar church, whose errors, though they are legion, is, nevertheless, a visible, practical entity on some some level. No! Now were talking about a Church which isn't, a church which has totally dissolved in a figurative mushroom of destruction. We are now Catholics without a Catholic Church.
No , Holly ,
The Catholic faith is not dead; and certainly I, for one, am not saying it is dead. We acknowledge that the thieves, the home-invaders if you will, have taken over the buildings and the monuments; they have stolen the holy books and re-written them with new meanings; they have white-washed and tossed out the teachings of 2,000 years of saints, martyrs and popes. However, the True Faith has been implanted by such as St. Pius V, St. Pius X, Card. Mindzenty, Arch . Lefebvre , and thousands of hundreds of faithful Catholic priests , sisters , monks, missals, rosaries and Masses.
The establishment, as a Catholic institution has fundamentally changed its innards; therefore its original mission and calling has disappeared. But individual Catholic remain.
The Church was not built upon a man. Jesus Christ is the Head of Our Catholic Church. He built the Church upon the rock of faith He had instilled in Peter over those years. The ROCK is the solid teaching of Jesus Christ; the rock is the image of Jesus Christ imprinted upon Peter by His word. As Our God created all of creation by the Word, so too did the Word become flesh, and dwelt amongst us. This Word was the same Word as in the Beginning; this word was with God, and this word was God. Therefore, this word was also Jesus Christ; and this word was the faith Christ transmitted to Peter, and upon which Christ's Church was being established. Now, Christ promised that He would be with this ROCK, this faith, all days--until the end of time. Could Our Lord possibly lie? Could he prevaricate and ask His disciples, "think ye, when the Son of Man returns, will He find the faith?" Of course not! Jesus Christ knew that His Church, which He was building even then, would go into eclipse.
Yes, the SSPX was an alternative to the Counciliar madness-- as long as it held fast to the Traditions it had received. But now, Fellay and Co. adhere to the Vatican II madness, and all the teachings of the VC popes. Fellay now accepts the phony worship of the Conciliar mass; they accept the protestant sacraments, they accept the phony ministers.
No one questions every word from any bishop; but Our Lord instructed us to watch, lest we be led astray . He gave us a brain to think; an intelligence to discern; a mind to judge and measure. We are obligated to ensure we worship Him (God) in the manner He desires. So, we need to listen to the words spoken; the spoken words transmit thoughts and ideas; the spoken word creates knowledge, acceptance and understanding; or it creates confusion, chaos, misdirection. We hear the word for our faith grows by hearing; and we need to be sure the hearing is the Word of God.
We are not Catholics without a Church; our Church exists with, through, and in Almighty God. For our goal is simple: everlasting life in heaven. All the joys, all the happinesses, all the successes of all the men and women of the world could not equal the joy which will be ours during just one hour in heaven. That's the promise of Christ; that's His guarantee. God is on His Throne, Our Christ is in His heaven. God will never abandon you.If we are left homeless, be sure to know its not by the True God.
-
The cancer or virus in the body is a better analogy to describe the Conciliar infection, it is the one the Society has traditionally used. But Bishop Williamson only mentions it in passing and does not develop it.
Just like a cancer has a life of its own, infects many organs and members of the body and reduces them practically to death without completely destroying the body, so too the Conciliar infection destroys the spiritual life of many Catholics without completely destroying the Church. This analogy has a very solid basis in Scripture and Tradition, for everyone knows the Church is called a body in Sacred Scripture, and the Fathers often refer to heresy and liberalism as a disease and infection.
A tree or vine and its branches can also be used for the same reason. The tree itself is divine, but the infection that has consumed many of its branches is satanic. And in both cases, there is no life outside the tree or body, just as there is no salvation outside the Church, and the communion with Rome the head and centre of the universal Church.
50+ year Sedevacantist ecclesiology, on the other hand is novel and heterodox, and impossible to square with traditional Roman Catholic teaching on the nature of the Church. The Catholic Church believes and teaches in a visible Church, an Apostolic Church, a Church with power of jurisdiction handed down from St. Peter and the Apostles, a Church with a universal centre in Rome, to which is promised indefectibility. No one can willfully separate from the Roman Church, and hope to remain a good Catholic. Archbishop Lefebvre always told the Bishops he consecrated to "remain firmly attached to the See of Peter and the Roman Church." St. Athanasius, who also was an Ordinary mistreated by Rome, and persecuted by many who were weak or liberal, is also an example of this, for he never broke from Rome, or encouraged any one to do so. The idea of a Catholic Church without Rome is an an absurdity and impossibility. In the analogy, Rome is the head, or the tree trunk, infected no doubt, but not destroyed. The branches partake in the life of the tree or the body, only and in so far as they remain firmly attached to Rome.
Why do I maintain relations with Rome? Why do I keep going to Rome? Because I think that Rome is the center of Catholicism, because I think that there cannot be any Catholic Church without Rome. Consequently, if our purpose is to find a way of setting the Church straight again, it is by turning to Rome that maybe, with the grace of God, we may perhaps manage to set the situation straight. It is not one single bishop like myself who can set the whole situation straight in the Catholic Church. That is why I strive to keep on going to Rome and to plead the cause of Tradition ... bring about a regrouping of the faithful staying with the Society, so that they keep their bond with Rome and with the Church. It is very important that there should always be the bond with Rome if we wish to remain Catholic; even if we do not agree with everything being done in Rome, I think the bond is absolutely indispensable.
-
No one can willfully separate from the Roman Church, and hope to remain a good Catholic.
That is true, but no one can forcibly keep anyone united to the Roman Church. Those who departed built a new church and deceived many making them to believe this new church was the same Roman Catholic Church, but obviously it is not. No one should separate from the Catholic Church to enter the new church.
We have never wished to belong to this system which calls itself the Conciliar Church, and defines itself with the Novus Ordo Missæ, an ecuмenism which leads to indifferentism and the laicization of all society. Yes, we have no part, nullam partem habemus, with the pantheon of the religions of Assisi; our own excommunication by a decree of Your Eminence or of another Roman Congregation would only be the irrefutable proof of this. We ask for nothing better than to be declared out of communion with this adulterous spirit which has been blowing in the Church for the last 25 years; we ask for nothing better than to be declared outside of this impious communion of the ungodly. We believe in the One God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and we will always remain faithful to His unique Spouse, the One Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church.
-
More hogwash! On The contrary: It is easy to see how Popes, as close as their office brings them to Jesus Christ, are for the most part, holy men.
Paul VI (the "weeper" according to Williamson) : gαy
Benedict XVI: A child sacrificing demon
Francis I: Denies the Divinity of Christ
He dares to call upon those three men?
Satan knows his time is very short. This is why the mask continues to come off. We have a chioce to make here! Truth or error?
Are you comfortable risking your soul by casting your lot with the likes of these people?
We are looking to interviews with people in the following subject areas:
Anything to do with South Africa
Secret Government / Space programs / Black Ops
Alien / Extra Terrestrial / Inter Terrestrial / Interdimentional beings
Hidden History
Archological finds / Star Maps / Ancient Astronaughts
Natural Health / Natural Cures / Alternative Healing
Comparitive Religions / Ophiolatrea (study of Serpent worship) / Paganism
Mythology
cօռspιʀαcιҽs / Illuminati / nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr
Metaphysics
Magick
Anything Vatican related
Anything Cannibis related
Please note that Freedom Central is self funded, we do not answer to anybody, nor will we be co opted. We are one of the very few truly unco-opted Alternative Media platforms out there, as most of the big names are controlled. Our work has put our lives in danger at times, and we continue to persue lifestyles that can best be described as ambitious activism towards a fair, just, peaceful, sustainable world.
For the first time in over a year and a half, Freedom Central has returned the Donate button to our page. We are desperate to replace Mel Ve’s laptop for editing, as it was recently hacked and rendered useless. This happened following on our release of our interview with Toos Nijenhuis, who is a survivor of ritual abuse at the highest level. Her abusers include Royalty, clergy and Papacy. Following on from the release of this interview, we were asked to leave our premises, and our business has been destroyed.
If you like what we do, please help us to continue our work by donating to us.
-
The Catholic Church believes and teaches in a visible Church, an Apostolic Church, a Church with power of jurisdiction handed down from St. Peter and the Apostles, a Church with a universal centre in Rome, to which is promised indefectibility.
On the hypothesis that Bergoglio is pope we have grave obligations towards him.
For example...
- we would be bound to assist at Holy Mass in a rite approved by him,
- offered by a priest approved by the residential bishop appointed by him,
- at our local parish church.
- We would be bound to recognise that the liturgy according to which nearly his whole church worships is good and conducive to salvation.
- We would be bound to recognise his Code of laws as good and conducive to holiness.
In a word, we would be bound to practice the New Religion and to regard it as the true religion revealed by Our Lord, and to see its supernatural goodness.
But all of this is in fact absurd in the light of faith, so we are forced to resolve an apparent contradiction.
The simple and obvious answer is that this Argentinian fellow's claim, which only arose last year you might recall, is unfounded... He isn't the pope.
-
Nishant said,
The cancer or virus in the body is a better analogy to describe the Conciliar infection, it is the one the Society has traditionally used. But Bishop Williamson only mentions it in passing and does not develop it.
The problem with the cancer analogy is that if left unchecked, the cancer will spread and kill the patient. That's what cancer does. It spreads.
Nishant also said,
Just like a cancer has a life of its own, infects many organs and members of the body and reduces them practically to death without completely destroying the body, so too the Conciliar infection destroys the spiritual life of many Catholics without completely destroying the Church. This analogy has a very solid basis in Scripture and Tradition, for everyone knows the Church is called a body in Sacred Scripture, and the Fathers often refer to heresy and liberalism as a disease and infection.
Is this how cancer operates? Surely for the patient to have any chance of survival, the cancer must be detected early and the cancer cells destroyed or removed. If not, the disease spread to the vital organs and the body will no longer function, resulting in the death of the patient.
Bishop Williamson's analogy is therefore puzzling. He says -
Cancer in the liver will kill me, but that does not mean that I have cancer in the lung.
If liver cancer kills, having healthy lungs is of little consequence to the patient who is dead.
It is more likely, however, that cancer in the liver will spread to the lungs and to the other once healthy organs. Isn't this what happens with Stage 4 cancer?
The cancer analogy seems terminal, IMO.
-
I do not understand this parable about the fruits. It seems to say that an evil man cannot do good, which makes sense. But then it seems to say that a good man cannot do evil as if the good man cannot sin. This part of the parable I do not understand because I thought that even the best men sin often.
I was taught the fruits are used in the sense of results. By their results you will know them.
-
The Catholic Church believes and teaches in a visible Church, an Apostolic Church, a Church with power of jurisdiction handed down from St. Peter and the Apostles, a Church with a universal centre in Rome, to which is promised indefectibility.
On the hypothesis that Bergoglio is pope we have grave obligations towards him.
For example...
- we would be bound to assist at Holy Mass in a rite approved by him,
- offered by a priest approved by the residential bishop appointed by him,
- at our local parish church.
- We would be bound to recognise that the liturgy according to which nearly his whole church worships is good and conducive to salvation.
- We would be bound to recognise his Code of laws as good and conducive to holiness.
In a word, we would be bound to practice the New Religion and to regard it as the true religion revealed by Our Lord, and to see its supernatural goodness.
But all of this is in fact absurd in the light of faith, so we are forced to resolve an apparent contradiction.
The simple and obvious answer is that this Argentinian fellow's claim, which only arose last year you might recall, is unfounded... He isn't the pope.
No sense in quoting Lane. You can find quotes by him that talk the opposite way. It depends on what state of mind he is in at the time.
Nado, look to the argument not the author!
-
The Catholic Church believes and teaches in a visible Church, an Apostolic Church, a Church with power of jurisdiction handed down from St. Peter and the Apostles, a Church with a universal centre in Rome, to which is promised indefectibility.
On the hypothesis that Bergoglio is pope we have grave obligations towards him.
For example...
- we would be bound to assist at Holy Mass in a rite approved by him,
- offered by a priest approved by the residential bishop appointed by him,
- at our local parish church.
- We would be bound to recognise that the liturgy according to which nearly his whole church worships is good and conducive to salvation.
- We would be bound to recognise his Code of laws as good and conducive to holiness.
In a word, we would be bound to practice the New Religion and to regard it as the true religion revealed by Our Lord, and to see its supernatural goodness.
But all of this is in fact absurd in the light of faith, so we are forced to resolve an apparent contradiction.
The simple and obvious answer is that this Argentinian fellow's claim, which only arose last year you might recall, is unfounded... He isn't the pope.
No sense in quoting Lane. You can find quotes by him that talk the opposite way. It depends on what state of mind he is in at the time.
Nado, look to the argument not the author!
I do. But lots of people don't, so I needed to add what I just did so they don't think that author is a consistent source of that position.
If inconsistency is true of John Lane it is certainly true of ABL (as we all know).
We really need to focus on the argument and not the man, whether the man be John Lane, ++L, ++T, +W, etc..
-
The cancer or virus in the body is a better analogy to describe the Conciliar infection, it is the one the Society has traditionally used. But Bishop Williamson only mentions it in passing and does not develop it.
Just like a cancer has a life of its own, infects many organs and members of the body and reduces them practically to death without completely destroying the body, so too the Conciliar infection destroys the spiritual life of many Catholics without completely destroying the Church. This analogy has a very solid basis in Scripture and Tradition, for everyone knows the Church is called a body in Sacred Scripture, and the Fathers often refer to heresy and liberalism as a disease and infection.
A tree or vine and its branches can also be used for the same reason. The tree itself is divine, but the infection that has consumed many of its branches is satanic. And in both cases, there is no life outside the tree or body, just as there is no salvation outside the Church, and the communion with Rome the head and centre of the universal Church.
50+ year Sedevacantist ecclesiology, on the other hand is novel and heterodox, and impossible to square with traditional Roman Catholic teaching on the nature of the Church. The Catholic Church believes and teaches in a visible Church, an Apostolic Church, a Church with power of jurisdiction handed down from St. Peter and the Apostles, a Church with a universal centre in Rome, to which is promised indefectibility. No one can willfully separate from the Roman Church, and hope to remain a good Catholic. Archbishop Lefebvre always told the Bishops he consecrated to "remain firmly attached to the See of Peter and the Roman Church." St. Athanasius, who also was an Ordinary mistreated by Rome, and persecuted by many who were weak or liberal, is also an example of this, for he never broke from Rome, or encouraged any one to do so. The idea of a Catholic Church without Rome is an an absurdity and impossibility. In the analogy, Rome is the head, or the tree trunk, infected no doubt, but not destroyed. The branches partake in the life of the tree or the body, only and in so far as they remain firmly attached to Rome.
Why do I maintain relations with Rome? Why do I keep going to Rome? Because I think that Rome is the center of Catholicism, because I think that there cannot be any Catholic Church without Rome. Consequently, if our purpose is to find a way of setting the Church straight again, it is by turning to Rome that maybe, with the grace of God, we may perhaps manage to set the situation straight. It is not one single bishop like myself who can set the whole situation straight in the Catholic Church. That is why I strive to keep on going to Rome and to plead the cause of Tradition ... bring about a regrouping of the faithful staying with the Society, so that they keep their bond with Rome and with the Church. It is very important that there should always be the bond with Rome if we wish to remain Catholic; even if we do not agree with everything being done in Rome, I think the bond is absolutely indispensable.
When you contemplate that analogy for a bit, you start to realize that it is blasphemous. The Mystical Body of Christ is cancerous? Really?
I think you can find sedevacantists who do hold novel and heterodox ideas but that doesn't mean that all sedevacantists hold those ideas. You wouldn't want us to choose the worst ideas of the Recognize and Resist movement and make those the official ecclesiology of the R&R movement would you? I don't think you would do well in a debate with John Lane or John Daly among others. If you want an ecclesiology that is impossible to square with traditional Roman Catholic teaching why don't you have a look at that ecclesiology that would imply that canonizations are not infallible or that public heretics can legitimately hold ecclesiastical offices. An ecclesiology that would force faithful Catholics to put themselves under the authority of a man that does not believe in a Catholic God is truly bankrupt.
-
This requires a
:facepalm:
"Living Pope" in the context of Pius XII is by contrast with his hypothetical destruction of material Rome and not that there can never be a lengthy period of sedevacante in the Church.
If you want to make this argument, you would be better off citing the "perpetual successors" line from Vatican II.
Neither one is cogent on its own however. It's obvious that the Church doesn't cease to exist during a period of sedevacante. Question then becomes one of how long such a vacancy could last without compromising the indefectibility of the Church and perpetual succession.
Why can't we have some honesty in understanding the complexity of the issue?
-
Nor can the vacancy problem be a question of TIME, since there's no essential difference between several months, several years, and fifty years. If there is, then please be so kind as to enlighten us on what the time-limit for vacancy is.
Is it five years, seven months, twelve days, fifteen minutes, and thirty-five seconds? Or some other number?
While 50 years certainly SEEMS like a stretch, that's just a gut-feel thing and doesn't involve theological principles of any kind.
-
Nor can the vacancy problem be a question of TIME, since there's no essential difference between several months, several years, and fifty years. If there is, then please be so kind as to enlighten us on what the time-limit for vacancy is.
Is it five years, seven months, twelve days, fifteen minutes, and thirty-five seconds? Or some other number?
While 50 years certainly SEEMS like a stretch, that's just a gut-feel thing and doesn't involve theological principles of any kind.
For now let's set it at 150 years, that way we won't have to address it until next century. :cheers:
-
Lepanto Again:
More hogwash! On The contrary: It is easy to see how Popes, as close as their office brings them to Jesus Christ, are for the most part, holy men.
Paul VI (the "weeper" according to Williamson) : gαy
Benedict XVI: A child sacrificing demon
Francis I: Denies the Divinity of Christ
He dares to call upon those three men?
Satan knows his time is very short. This is why the mask continues to come off. We have a chioce to make here! Truth or error?
I would plead and beg for no Lepanto again. But the plea, I'm sure would go ignored. I could ask Lepant to put a sock in it, but that would probably trigger even more verbiage from this overwrought person. So I'll just share a few words from Pope Francis. But before doing that, a few comments on Paul VI and Benedict per the above quote from the excitable one. Is the bishop wrong for reminding us that Paul VI wept at the loss of vocations? Yes, he was probably gαy; but what does that have to do with his concern over the loss of vocations? As for Benedict's alleged witnessing of a child being sacrificed to a demon. I believe it was Fr. Pfeiffer who mentioned that in the past. Do we have any real proof that the pontiff did participate in child sacricfice? I don't think we do.
Now as for Francis' alleged denial of the Divinity of Christ: I guide you all to a homily which the pope delivered at St. Peter's Square, Sunday, 15 June, 2014
Dear Brothers and Sisters, Good morning!
Today we celebrate the Solemnity of the Holy Trinity, which leads us to contemplate and worship the divine life of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit: a life of communion and perfect love, origin and aim of all the universe and of every creature: God. We also recognize in the Trinity the model for the Church, in which we are called to love each other as Jesus loved us. And love is the concrete sign that demonstrates faith in God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And love is the badge of the Christian, as Jesus told us: “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (Jn 13:35). It’s a contradiction to think of Christians who hate. It’s a contradiction. And the devil always seeks this: to make us hate, because he’s always a troublemaker; he doesn’t know love; God is love!
We are all called to witness and proclaim the message that “God is love”, that God isn’t far and insensitive to our human affairs. He is close to us, always beside us, walking with us to share our joys and our sorrows, our hopes and our struggles. He loves us very much and for that reason he became man, he came into the world not to condemn it, but so the world would be saved through Jesus (cf. Jn 3:16-17). And this is the love of God in Jesus, this love that is so difficult to understand but that we feel when we draw close to Jesus. And he always forgives us, he always awaits us, he loves us so much. And we feel the love of Jesus and the love of God.
The Holy Spirit, gift of the Risen Jesus, conveys divine life to us and thus lets us enter into the dynamism of the Trinity, which is a dynamism of love, of communion, of mutual service, of sharing. A person who loves others for the very joy of love is a reflection of the Trinity. A family in which each person loves and helps one another is a reflection of the Trinity. A parish in which each person loves and shares spiritual and material effects is a reflection of the Trinity.
True love is boundless, but it knows how to limit itself, to interact with others, to respect the freedom of others. Every Sunday we go to Mass, we celebrate the Eucharist together and the Eucharist is like the “burning bush” in which the Trinity humbly lives and communicates; for this reason the Church placed the feast of Corpus Domini after that of the Trinity. Next Thursday, according to Roman tradition, we’ll celebrate Holy Mass at the Basilica of St John Lateran and then, we’ll have the procession with the Most Holy Sacrament. I invite all Romans and pilgrims to participate in order to express our desire to be “a people made one in the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” (St Cyprian). I await everyone next Thursday at 7:00 pm, for the Mass and the Corpus Christi Procession.
May the Virgin Mary, perfect creation of the Trinity, help us to make our whole lives, in small gestures and more important choices, an homage to God, who is Love.
I don't know about you, but for me, this homily leaves little doubt in my mind about Francis' belief in the Divinity of Christ. So, lepant, I, for one, do not know what you're really talking about. And I don't think the bishop would either.
Now please, lepant, when you answer, do it calmly and rationally, and try not to get any on you. Please, lepant, no more of this: :dwarf:
-
Lepanto Again: More hogwash! On The contrary: It is easy to see how Popes, as close as their office brings them to Jesus Christ, are for the most part, holy men.
Paul VI (the "weeper" according to Williamson) : gαy
Benedict XVI: A child sacrificing demon
Francis I: Denies the Divinity of Christ
He dares to call upon those three men?
Satan knows his time is very short. This is why the mask continues to come off. We have a chioce to make here! Truth or error?
I would plead and beg for no Lepanto again. But the plea, I'm sure would go ignored. I could ask Lepant to put a sock in it, but that would probably trigger even more verbiage from this overwrought person. So I'll just share a few words from Pope Francis. But before doing that, a few comments on Paul VI and Benedict per the above quote from the excitable one. Is the bishop wrong for reminding us that Paul VI wept at the loss of vocations? Yes, he was probably gαy; but what does that have to do with his concern over the loss of vocations? As for Benedict's alleged witnessing of a child being sacrificed to a demon. I believe it was Fr. Pfeiffer who mentioned that in the past. Do we have any real proof that the pontiff did participate in child sacricfice? I don't think we do.
Now as for Francis' alleged denial of the Divinity of Christ: I guide you all to a homily which the pope delivered at St. Peter's Square, Sunday, 15 June, 2014
Dear Brothers and Sisters, Good morning!
Today we celebrate the Solemnity of the Holy Trinity, which leads us to contemplate and worship the divine life of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit: a life of communion and perfect love, origin and aim of all the universe and of every creature: God. We also recognize in the Trinity the model for the Church, in which we are called to love each other as Jesus loved us. And love is the concrete sign that demonstrates faith in God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And love is the badge of the Christian, as Jesus told us: “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (Jn 13:35). It’s a contradiction to think of Christians who hate. It’s a contradiction. And the devil always seeks this: to make us hate, because he’s always a troublemaker; he doesn’t know love; God is love!
We are all called to witness and proclaim the message that “God is love”, that God isn’t far and insensitive to our human affairs. He is close to us, always beside us, walking with us to share our joys and our sorrows, our hopes and our struggles. He loves us very much and for that reason he became man, he came into the world not to condemn it, but so the world would be saved through Jesus (cf. Jn 3:16-17). And this is the love of God in Jesus, this love that is so difficult to understand but that we feel when we draw close to Jesus. And he always forgives us, he always awaits us, he loves us so much. And we feel the love of Jesus and the love of God.
The Holy Spirit, gift of the Risen Jesus, conveys divine life to us and thus lets us enter into the dynamism of the Trinity, which is a dynamism of love, of communion, of mutual service, of sharing. A person who loves others for the very joy of love is a reflection of the Trinity. A family in which each person loves and helps one another is a reflection of the Trinity. A parish in which each person loves and shares spiritual and material effects is a reflection of the Trinity.
True love is boundless, but it knows how to limit itself, to interact with others, to respect the freedom of others. Every Sunday we go to Mass, we celebrate the Eucharist together and the Eucharist is like the “burning bush” in which the Trinity humbly lives and communicates; for this reason the Church placed the feast of Corpus Domini after that of the Trinity. Next Thursday, according to Roman tradition, we’ll celebrate Holy Mass at the Basilica of St John Lateran and then, we’ll have the procession with the Most Holy Sacrament. I invite all Romans and pilgrims to participate in order to express our desire to be “a people made one in the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” (St Cyprian). I await everyone next Thursday at 7:00 pm, for the Mass and the Corpus Christi Procession.
May the Virgin Mary, perfect creation of the Trinity, help us to make our whole lives, in small gestures and more important choices, an homage to God, who is Love.
I don't know about you, but for me, this homily leaves little doubt in my mind about Francis' belief in the Divinity of Christ. So, lepant, I, for one, do not know what you're really talking about. And I don't think the bishop would either.
Now please, lepant, when you answer, do it calmly and rationally, and try not to get any on you. Please, lepant, no more of this: :dwarf:
So often [people ask]: 'But do you believe?': 'Yes! Yes! '; 'What do you believe in?'; 'In God!'; 'But what is God for you?'; 'God, God'. But God does not exist: Do not be shocked! So God does not exist! There is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, they are persons, they are not some vague idea in the clouds ... This God spray does not exist! The three persons exist!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lmCaXr7m4_Q
(“Pope at Santa Marta: What we dare not hope for”, News.va, Oct. 9, 2014)
-
Why can't we have some honesty in understanding the complexity of the issue?
Indeed......
-
Ferdinand:
Deacon Bergoglio the Heretic said:
So often [people ask]: 'But do you believe?': 'Yes! Yes! '; 'What do you believe in?'; 'In God!'; 'But what is God for you?'; 'God, God'. But God does not exist: Do not be shocked! So God does not exist! There is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, they are persons, they are not some vague idea in the clouds ... This God spray does not exist! The three persons exist!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lmCaXr7m4_Q
(“Pope at Santa Marta: What we dare not hope for”, News.va, Oct. 9, 2014)
Uh-huh... and what is it that you're trying to say, ferdinand? Don't answer immediately. Think at least a few seconds before replying. We can all wait, I'm sure.
-
Seems like, in order to defend Bp. Williamson's ideas, it is necessary to defend Francis' as well… :pray:
-
My dear hollingsworth, you and I know as does the Lyin' of Wimbledon that Bergoglio is a Manifest Heretic, hence not the Vicar of Christ.
Because some random homily from the deacon isn't explicitly heretical, doesn't make him orthodox. Even Fr. Martin Luther every now and then uttered a phrase or two that wasn't heretical.
-
Because some random homily from the deacon isn't explicitly heretical, doesn't make him orthodox. Even Fr. Martin Luther every now and then uttered a phrase or two that wasn't heretical.
You know, ferdinand, I'm glad you brought up Luther. Yes, Luther was a heretic, no doubt. But that heretic Luther accepted Christ's Divinity nonetheless. That's what we're talking about here, isn't it? One of your (sedevacantist?) pals was taking the good bishop to task because he, the bishop, had the temerity to suggest that some of these conciliar popes had some not totally rotten parts. He (your pal) mentions specifically that Francis does not believe in Christ's Divinity. But fact is, Francis does believe in Christ's Divinity. So that's what I'm trying to say. Please try to be a bit more respectful towards a bishop of the Church. To call him the "Lyin of Wimbledon" is not only tasteless, it is just not true. BTW, does the bishop still live in Wimbledon? Please, furthermore, try not to sound stupid in your reply. I can not abide stupid people. No offense, you understand. :thinking:
-
«But fact is, Francis does believe in Christ's Divinity.»
Liberalism is a heresy in the doctrinal order, because heresy is the formal and obstinate denial of all Christian dogmas in general. It repudiates dogma altogether and substitutes opinion, whether that opinion be doctrinal or the negation of doctrine. Consequently it denies every doctrine in particular.
-
Because some random homily from the deacon isn't explicitly heretical, doesn't make him orthodox. Even Fr. Martin Luther every now and then uttered a phrase or two that wasn't heretical.
You know, ferdinand, I'm glad you brought up Luther. Yes, Luther was a heretic, no doubt. But that heretic Luther accepted Christ's Divinity nonetheless. That's what we're talking about here, isn't it? One of your (sedevacantist?) pals was taking the good bishop to task because he, the bishop, had the temerity to suggest that some of these conciliar popes had some not totally rotten parts. He (your pal) mentions specifically that Francis does not believe in Christ's Divinity. But fact is, Francis does believe in Christ's Divinity. So that's what I'm trying to say. Please try to be a bit more respectful towards a bishop of the Church. To call him the "Lyin of Wimbledon" is not only tasteless, it is just not true. BTW, does the bishop still live in Wimbledon? Please, furthermore, try not to sound stupid in your reply. I can not abide stupid people. No offense, you understand. :thinking:
Looks like this one has as darkened an intellect as Bergolio. There is no taking to task the foolish mind. They wouldn't listen even if one rose from the dead. It's just the hard truth.
Et lux in tenebris lucet, et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt.
-
More hogwash! On The contrary: It is easy to see how Popes, as close as their office brings them to Jesus Christ, are for the most part, holy men.
Paul VI (the "weeper" according to Williamson) : gαy
Benedict XVI: A child sacrificing demon
Francis I: Denies the Divinity of Christ
He dares to call upon those three men?
Satan knows his time is very short. This is why the mask continues to come off. We have a chioce to make here! Truth or error?
World Citizen, Ken O'Keefe, believes that most of those who hold prominent offices today, are disordered and compromised characters, completely controlled by the world's Puppet Masters. He mentions this very briefly in this rather long but interesting video. Why should the Conciliar popes be an exception?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SZXrWTaNlY
-
We all know that one of the hallmarks of being a modernist is that one changes his stripes
seemingly with the wind. One quote or statement does not a Catholic make. While the public cannot judge Bergoglio's interior motives, certainly we are required to measure his Catholicity as demonstrated by those external markers of his inner self: his words and actions. Taken as a whole, one would have great difficulty concluding the man has any semblance of the Catholic faith. One almost expects him to arise before he dies, as did Cardinal Lustinger, the Archbishop primate ov Paris, France, and declare : "A Jew I was born, a Jew I lived, and a Jew I will die!"
On the other matter of H.E.Williamson. I have known him almost thirty five years; he was on the wrong side of many, many issues ( eg "the nine", "Fr. Urrotigouity", the 2000 pilgriimmage, etc). But he is an honorable, honest prelate. He may be mistaken at times, but a liar he is not.
-
A rose by any other name...
A disanalogy when used intentionally in order to prop up one's position is opposed to the virtue of truth or veracity, and its gravity is relative to the culprit, the nature of the subject and to the degree it deceives other people.
-
We all know that one of the hallmarks of being a modernist is that one changes his stripes
seemingly with the wind. One quote or statement does not a Catholic make. While the public cannot judge Bergoglio's interior motives, certainly we are required to measure his Catholicity as demonstrated by those external markers of his inner self: his words and actions. Taken as a whole, one would have great difficulty concluding the man has any semblance of the Catholic faith. One almost expects him to arise before he dies, as did Cardinal Lustinger, the Archbishop primate ov Paris, France, and declare : "A Jew I was born, a Jew I lived, and a Jew I will die!"
On the other matter of H.E.Williamson. I have known him almost thirty five years; he was on the wrong side of many, many issues ( eg "the nine", "Fr. Urrotigouity", the 2000 pilgriimmage, etc). But he is an honorable, honest prelate. He may be mistaken at times, but a liar he is not.
One can be personally honest and trustworthy, but be filled which such poor reasoning and errors harmful to the faith that he becomes, for practical purposes, a danger to the Faith. Like an innocent monkey wielding a loaded pistol, nobody defends his right based on the fact a monkey has no ill-will.
:applause:
I would add the caveat...
For one to remain subjectively honest, with such poor reasoning skills and erroneous argumentation, one would intellectually have to be a monkey (or a close relative).
Matthew, why do you allow this attack against Bishop Williamson to continue? It has deteriorated to the point that the Bishop is now intellectually likened to "a monkey". Enough!
-
We all know that one of the hallmarks of being a modernist is that one changes his stripes
seemingly with the wind. One quote or statement does not a Catholic make. While the public cannot judge Bergoglio's interior motives, certainly we are required to measure his Catholicity as demonstrated by those external markers of his inner self: his words and actions. Taken as a whole, one would have great difficulty concluding the man has any semblance of the Catholic faith. One almost expects him to arise before he dies, as did Cardinal Lustinger, the Archbishop primate ov Paris, France, and declare : "A Jew I was born, a Jew I lived, and a Jew I will die!"
On the other matter of H.E.Williamson. I have known him almost thirty five years; he was on the wrong side of many, many issues ( eg "the nine", "Fr. Urrotigouity", the 2000 pilgriimmage, etc). But he is an honorable, honest prelate. He may be mistaken at times, but a liar he is not.
One can be personally honest and trustworthy, but be filled which such poor reasoning and errors harmful to the faith that he becomes, for practical purposes, a danger to the Faith. Like an innocent monkey wielding a loaded pistol, nobody defends his right based on the fact a monkey has no ill-will.
:applause:
I would add the caveat...
For one to remain subjectively honest, with such poor reasoning skills and erroneous argumentation, one would intellectually have to be a monkey (or a close relative).
Matthew, why do you allow this attack against Bishop Williamson to continue? It has deteriorated to the point that the Bishop is now intellectually likened to "a monkey". Enough!
As Truth is what we covet, let's refrain from the ad hominems.
My comment was qualifying Nado's analogy. Nado if anything was supporting the hypothesis that one could be honest and trustworthy while having poor reasoning skills.
-
Covet Truth, you may have missed the following:
A rose by any other name...
A disanalogy when used intentionally in order to prop up one's position is opposed to the virtue of truth or veracity, and its gravity is relative to the culprit, the nature of the subject and to the degree it deceives other people.
If we truly covet Truth we must develop an abhorrence for falsehoods of all flavors (including disanalogies), regardless of their source.
-
We all know that one of the hallmarks of being a modernist is that one changes his stripes
seemingly with the wind. One quote or statement does not a Catholic make. While the public cannot judge Bergoglio's interior motives, certainly we are required to measure his Catholicity as demonstrated by those external markers of his inner self: his words and actions. Taken as a whole, one would have great difficulty concluding the man has any semblance of the Catholic faith. One almost expects him to arise before he dies, as did Cardinal Lustinger, the Archbishop primate ov Paris, France, and declare : "A Jew I was born, a Jew I lived, and a Jew I will die!"
On the other matter of H.E.Williamson. I have known him almost thirty five years; he was on the wrong side of many, many issues ( eg "the nine", "Fr. Urrotigouity", the 2000 pilgriimmage, etc). But he is an honorable, honest prelate. He may be mistaken at times, but a liar he is not.
One can be personally honest and trustworthy, but be filled which such poor reasoning and errors harmful to the faith that he becomes, for practical purposes, a danger to the Faith. Like an innocent monkey wielding a loaded pistol, nobody defends his right based on the fact a monkey has no ill-will.
:applause:
I would add the caveat...
For one to remain subjectively honest, with such poor reasoning skills and erroneous argumentation, one would intellectually have to be a monkey (or a close relative).
Gentlemen,
I trust you are aware that I was addressing only the derogatory comment regarding the good Bishop and his former location at Wimbledon. I think it important to not let the discussion of the facts be colored by one's opinion as to whether or not a subject has spoken truthfully. That is a totally different kettle of fish, and, really, should be addressed elsewhere. In these (CathInfo) forums, I would think most people want to keep the discussions at the factual level, so all could assess correctly the relative merits of the ideas presented. I've, for one, not seen any proof or substantiation that His Excellency deliberately misleads or speaks untruths. ( As I said, if one thought such was the case, it should be on a different thread or forum). Ideas and facts should be able to stand on their own two legs-- without destroying the character of the presenter of those ideas or facts. That's all I'm saying.
-
We all know that one of the hallmarks of being a modernist is that one changes his stripes
seemingly with the wind. One quote or statement does not a Catholic make. While the public cannot judge Bergoglio's interior motives, certainly we are required to measure his Catholicity as demonstrated by those external markers of his inner self: his words and actions. Taken as a whole, one would have great difficulty concluding the man has any semblance of the Catholic faith. One almost expects him to arise before he dies, as did Cardinal Lustinger, the Archbishop primate ov Paris, France, and declare : "A Jew I was born, a Jew I lived, and a Jew I will die!"
On the other matter of H.E.Williamson. I have known him almost thirty five years; he was on the wrong side of many, many issues ( eg "the nine", "Fr. Urrotigouity", the 2000 pilgriimmage, etc). But he is an honorable, honest prelate. He may be mistaken at times, but a liar he is not.
One can be personally honest and trustworthy, but be filled which such poor reasoning and errors harmful to the faith that he becomes, for practical purposes, a danger to the Faith. Like an innocent monkey wielding a loaded pistol, nobody defends his right based on the fact a monkey has no ill-will.
:applause:
I would add the caveat...
For one to remain subjectively honest, with such poor reasoning skills and erroneous argumentation, one would intellectually have to be a monkey (or a close relative).
Matthew, why do you allow this attack against Bishop Williamson to continue? It has deteriorated to the point that the Bishop is now intellectually likened to "a monkey". Enough!
For the record, I believe Bishop Williamson to have an above average intellect.
-
50 years from now, when those of us who personally know the good Bishop are no longer here, what will the historical verdict be regarding his last 6 ECs? Will they conclude that these letters were written by a great Catholic Bishop/Warrior in defense of the Holy Faith?
Unfortunately, I think not.
-
More hogwash! On The contrary: It is easy to see how Popes, as close as their office brings them to Jesus Christ, are for the most part, holy men.
Paul VI (the "weeper" according to Williamson) : gαy
Benedict XVI: A child sacrificing demon
Francis I: Denies the Divinity of Christ
He dares to call upon those three men?
Satan knows his time is very short. This is why the mask continues to come off. We have a chioce to make here! Truth or error?
World Citizen, Ken O'Keefe, believes that most of those who hold prominent offices today, are disordered and compromised characters, completely controlled by the world's Puppet Masters. He mentions this very briefly in this rather long but interesting video. Why should the Conciliar popes be an exception?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SZXrWTaNlY
You mean the Church-hating Noam Chomsky/Howard Zinn protege, Ken O'Keefe? Gee, what does David Icke have to say? :facepalm:
-
Ferd:
For the record, I believe Bishop Williamson to have an above average intellect.
It's official now and on the record: Ferdy believes the bishop to have above average intelligence. H. E.'s intellect has been judged to be above that of the monkeys. But I think one great question remains: Does Ferd himself have above average intelligence? I have grave doubts, but the jury is still out. :laugh1:
-
The mark of a Christian is that he loves his fellow christian, said love is usually demonstrated thru man's vulgar nature by the charity with which they interact.
-
hugeman:
On the other matter of H.E.Williamson. I have known him almost thirty five years; he was on the wrong side of many, many issues ( eg "the nine", "Fr. Urrotigouity", the 2000 pilgriimmage, etc). But he is an honorable, honest prelate. He may be mistaken at times, but a liar he is not.
Thank you for that, hugeman. You say the bishop was on the wrong side of many issues. That's OK. You are not damning this "honest prelate" with faint praise, as others might. You are sincere, I believe, in your convictions about the bishop's mistakes in the past, real and alleged. I can handle that, and so should any Catholic of good will be able to do the same.
But this forum provides refuge for a number of halfwits of not such good will. The chiefest of these, IMO, is Ferdinand. This loquacious churl feels he has to post a comment, assuring all of us that, in his educated opinion, Bp. Williamson has above average intelligence- this, of course, after thoroughly trashing the cleric in a reprehensible and puerile manner.
I am certain, that by making such a concession to the good bishop, Ferdinand thinks, by his affirmative declaration, that he has lifted the former from the curse of near monkeyhood, and that we all can now breathe a sigh of relief, since this light, Ferdinand, who shineth in the darkness has reluctantly admitted that H.E. is not a total idiot.
Any of us, alas, who take exception with Fernando"s view of things, must continue to grovel on in the darkness, refusing the light which he gratuitously shines upon our benighted intellects. The darkness comprehendeth it not.
:sad:
-
The mark of a Christian is that he loves his fellow christian, said love is usually demonstrated thru man's vulgar nature by the charity with which they interact.
That's rich, coming from someone who compares Bishop Fellay to Stalin on his website.
Well, thank-you, Green Scapular, for that very nice promo of the site, -- it was really unexpected, but sweet none-the-less. And yes, quite a few faithful Catholics felt as if Fellay, by his wholesale "purging" and "elimination" of loyal, dedicated priests smacked quite a bit of the tactics of that communist thug, Stalin. But be sure, of course, that Stalin had nothing on Fellay and Company: The communists hadn't yet perfected using the pulpit and the sacred Hosts to do their evil work. The communists, much to their credit, pulled no punches in their hatred for religion; Fellay, Rostand, LeRoux, Pflugger, Nely, and their sidekicks, however,kept up the fraud that Fellay, and even Ratzinger, were traditional. It wasn 't until the fateful "slip of the 'send' button" that traditionalists found out about Fellay's true love thru the publishing of the Letter of the Three Bishops, and the April Fifteenth Docuмent (AFD) swearing acceptance of the Vatican Council and all it's horrors.
And all this, of course, Green Scapular, done with great charity-- for it is a duty of Catholics to instruct the ignorant, and a duty also to aid those faced with certain destruction.
But this isn't about SOS--SaveOurSSPX, as much as it is about your efforts, Green Scapular, to offer prayers, sacrifices, and Holy Masses to convert those lost to a heathen faith, to the true faith of Jesus Christ. Would not your stellar efforts be more productively employed in showing Fellay and his "yes" choir that certain death follows those who accept the new religion of the Conciliarists? Archbishop Lefebvre basically said exactly that.
One would think that, Green Scapular, that one such as you who can recall posts made on SOS two years ago, would certainly have burned into the mind the dire warnings of the Archbishop, 'I will put it strictly on the doctrinal level: do you agree with these great encyclicals and these Saints of the Church, or not?' Have you given up trying to save the lost sheep. So now all you can do it criticize those who have no desire to be lost? Perhaps, Green Scapular, the question really is: " do you agree with the Archbishop's great assessment leading to the consecrations of four bishops? If you do, then why do you let Fellay snd Co suffer the great risks to their souls; and if you do not agree with the Archbishop 's assessment, then why are you not insisting, as did Cardinal Mueller and Archbishop deNoia, that Fellay and Co present themselves to a monastery to begin reparations for their open and notorious sins against the Vicars of Christ, the Holy Ghost, and, even, Christ himself? You cannot have it both ways. Christ Our Lord exclaimed that he wishes you to be either hot or cold; but since you seem to be neither hot nor cold, He will ---- ------ -- -- mouth. And so, we come back to the Green Scapular-- please don't take it off.
-
Most of us like Bp. W because he does not belong to the ubiquitous Cult of Nice. The same goes for Fr. Pfeiffer although they have very different backgrounds which could be part of the trouble when working together. Going through the Winchester and Cambridge system may cultivate an idea that one can walk on water and that one is there to govern lesser mortals ..... especially from the colonies! Consequently, the bishop will very much be his own man and will defer to very few; the few that can provide him with the opportunity to govern. ABL came along and the rest is history.
Imagine Bp. W now in the top job in the SSPX and saying nice things about Bergoglio and his immediate successors! We would all be behind the Swiss clique in having found something with which to bash this half-Anglican English upstart! History does not move in a straight line and is full of surprises. So, do not be so upset if he prefers not to settle down on the Kentucky farmstead and prefers instead to bolster his position as a bishop of a church and a pope he has yet to fully renounce. There is not going to be a mini-SSPX, so his options are few. What he does have is plenty of time to develop ideas that spring from the crisis. One of these is to do with the possibility that the religious instinct of man however it presents itself on earth is still pleasing to God and is therefore beneficial. He has often said that sometimes it pays to have been a protestant and not to be too Catholic! I would say that he is thinking here of discovering traditional themes inside and outside Catholicism that can draw men together and help mitigate the disaster to come.
-
Most of us like Bp. W because he does not belong to the ubiquitous Cult of Nice. The same goes for Fr. Pfeiffer although they have very different backgrounds which could be part of the trouble when working together. Going through the Winchester and Cambridge system may cultivate an idea that one can walk on water and that one is there to govern lesser mortals ..... especially from the colonies! Consequently, the bishop will very much be his own man and will defer to very few; the few that can provide him with the opportunity to govern. ABL came along and the rest is history.
Imagine Bp. W now in the top job in the SSPX and saying nice things about Bergoglio and his immediate successors! We would all be behind the Swiss clique in having found something with which to bash this half-Anglican English upstart! History does not move in a straight line and is full of surprises. So, do not be so upset if he prefers not to settle down on the Kentucky farmstead and prefers instead to bolster his position as a bishop of a church and a pope he has yet to fully renounce. There is not going to be a mini-SSPX, so his options are few. What he does have is plenty of time to develop ideas that spring from the crisis. One of these is to do with the possibility that the religious instinct of man however it presents itself on earth is still pleasing to God and is therefore beneficial. He has often said that sometimes it pays to have been a protestant and not to be too Catholic! I would say that he is thinking here of discovering traditional themes inside and outside Catholicism that can draw men together and help mitigate the disaster to come.
Yes, it has that odor of the Conciliar ideas about the religious sense in men somehow being pleasing to God. While, on the other hand, the cultish sectarianism of the major and "minis", has merited confusion and rancor among the remaining replicants of Tradition, with no ability to even slow or impede the revolution which has overtaken the Church.
-
Why does sedevacantism logically lead to a false ecclesiology? Because it denies the interconnection between the Apostolic succession and the Petrine succession, and the fact that the Petrine succession is uniquely continued in the Roman Church. Bishops or Ordinaries and Cardinals or Roman clergy can only be appointed to office and incardinated within the diocese of Rome by a Pope. Those who already have been appointed by the last Pope remain, but no new Cardinals, or Bishops, can be appointed while the See remains vacant. Therefore, a sede vacante cannot last longer than the time it takes for every Bishop appointed by the last Pope, or every Roman cleric incardinated by the last Pope to die. The logical conclusion of such a heterodox idea would be that the Catholic Church ceases to have ordinary jurisdiction, formal Apostolic succession and lose Her Roman and visible character.
Whoever understands this understands that a sede vacante cannot last forever, and it is not a small error to think so, but a very grave and serious one. This is the argument the Society has traditionally made against the erroneous novelty that is sedevacantism, it has never really been addressed.
http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q15_sedevacantists.htm
"The Church is indefectible (principle 3) not only in her faith and means of sanctification, but also in her monarchical constitution (principle 4), comprising governing power i.e., jurisdiction, hence Vatican I’s profession that Peter will have perpetual successors ... But is indefectibility preserved if there is no pope since 1962 or if there is no one with ordinary jurisdiction whom the sedevacantists can point out as such? The Church is visible (principle 3) and not just a society composed of those who are joined by interior bonds (state of grace, same faith,...). A society is recognized and maintained as such by its authority (its efficient cause).
Yes, the episcopate is most sacred, for it comes from the hands of Jesus Christ through Peter and his successors. Such is the unanimous teaching of Catholic Tradition ... the mission and the institution, which assign the pastor his flock, and the flock its pastor, these are given by Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost through the ministry of Peter and his successors ... Rome was, more evidently than ever,the sole source of pastoral power. We, then, both priests and people, have a right to know whence our pastors have received their power. From whose hand have they received the keys? ... Thus it is that the divine Founder of the Church, who willed that she should be a city seated on a mountain, gave her visibility; it was an essential requisite; for since all were called to enter her pale, all must be able to see her.
50+ year Sedevacantism reduces all these doctrines to meaninglessness. The fact that such a sede vacante is precluded by these doctrines is sufficient proof that the Popes are not formal heretics, nor has the See been vacant, but they are only materially in error - therefore, we ought to pray for their conversion, and in the meanwhile can and should resist their errors, as Bishop Williamson says, without falling into the error of sedevacantism, which is almost as bad.
-
Nishant said,
50+ year Sedevacantism reduces all these doctrines to meaninglessness.
Unless, of course, this is the revolt and we are at the beginning of the end.
-
No, even if we were at the end, the Catholic Church could not cease to be Apostolic. Vatican I says, "So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world, even as he had been sent by the Father, in like manner it was his will that in his Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time." There will be shepherds and teachers ("pastores et doctores") in the Church until the end, sent just like the Apostles were sent. Dom Gueranger explains this refers to bishops sent by Christ through Peter, who have a mission and ordinary jurisdiction. Do you believe such bishops don't exist anymore? If yes, then you would be mistaken. The SSPX article explains this in more detail.
Also the traditional ecclesiology the Society maintains was being critiqued from the sedevacantist perspective, (not to mention some indecent personal attacks on Bishop Williamson), by more than one poster, that is why I responded to it here.
One last thing about real Roman Catholic ecclesiology and the false Church that co-exists with the true in Rome, Anne Catherine Emmerich said, "I see that the false Church of Darkness is making progress, and I see the dreadful influence that it has on people. The Holy Father and the Church are verily in so great a distress that one must implore God day and night." and leaving aside other matters relating to her words, this clearly proves that there is no contradiction in there being a false Church, and a true Church and Pope in Rome at the same time.
-
Nishant said:
"50+ year Sedevacantism reduces all these doctrines to meaninglessness."
And these words of God also:
Mark 13:34
"Even as a man who going into a far country, left his house; and gave authority to his servants over every work, and commanded the porter to watch."
Colossians 2:18-19
" Let no man seduce you, willing in humility, and religion of angels, walking in the things which he hath not seen, in vain puffed up by the sense of his flesh, And not holding the head, from which the whole body, by joints and bands, being supplied with nourishment and compacted, groweth unto the increase of God."
-
Dom Gueranger, Chair of St. Peter said:
... We, then, both priests and people, have a right to know whence our pastors have received their power. From whose hand have they received the keys? ... Thus it is that the divine Founder of the Church, who willed that she should be a city seated on a mountain, gave her visibility; it was an essential requisite; for since all were called to enter her pale, all must be able to see her.
Nishant: 50+ year Sedevacantism reduces all these doctrines to meaninglessness. The fact that such a sede vacante is precluded by these doctrines is sufficient proof that the Popes are not formal heretics, nor has the See been vacant, but they are only materially in error - therefore, we ought to pray for their conversion, and in the meanwhile can and should resist their errors, as Bishop Williamson says, without falling into the error of sedevacantism, which is almost as bad.
yes, not only does 50+ years of SVism reduce doctrines to meaninglessness, it reduces the visible church to invisibility, doesn't it? It makes the hierarchical structure totally disappear. Because, as I understand it anyway, a sede vacante vacates all other Episcopal and clerical offices, as well. The latter owe their existences to the former. No pope, no hierachy. Ergo, no Church. So, listen to Bishop Williamson. Pray for the Consecration of Russia. Try to say 15 decades of the Rosary every day. Wear the brown scapular. Pat the sedes on the head, and tell them to go outside and play. :wink:
-
Wessex:
So, do not be so upset if he (Bp W) prefers not to settle down on the Kentucky farmstead and prefers instead to bolster his position as a bishop of a church and a pope he has yet to fully renounce. There is not going to be a mini-SSPX, so his options are few.
I always feel quite proud of myself whenever I understand something that Wessex writes. I lift the above quote out of broader remarks by the resident sage. He is spot on here, IMO
-
You poor people who haven't been given the understanding that the conciliar Popes are true Popes and don't understand their strategy and tactics. Here is prophesied when "he who now holdeth, is " taken out of the way."
Prophecy of Monk of Premol (496)
"..... And here it is that the King of Zion (Pope) along with his cross, with his sceptre and his triple crown, shaking off, on the ruins, the dust of his shoes, hastens to flee towards other shores. And is it not so, 0 Lord, that Your Church is rent asunder by her own children?
The sons of Zion are divided into two camps; one faithful to the fugitive Pontiff, and the other inclined or disposed to the government of Zion respecting the Sceptre, but breaking in pieces the triple crown.
"But my spirit wanders and my eyes become obscured at the sight of this terrible cataclysm. But the Spirit said to me, that the man who hopes in God does penance, because the all powerful and merciful God will draw the world out of confusion and a new world will commence. Then the Spirit said to me: 'Here is the beginning of the end of Time which begins!' And I awoke terrified."
The "Pope" who will break in pieces the triple crown will be the one spoken of by St Francis, who will be the false prophet of the Apocalypse.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2748949/posts
"I have seen one of my successors, of the same name, who was fleeing over the bodies of his brethren. He will take refuge in some hiding place; but after a brief respite, he will die a cruel death." St Pius X
-
yes, not only does 50+ years of SVism reduce doctrines to meaninglessness, it reduces the visible church to invisibility, doesn't it?
And the Vatican II Church makes the Catholic Church visible?
-
He has often said that sometimes it pays to have been a protestant and not to be too Catholic!
Any examples?
I don't know that he has said this often, but I'm pretty sure he mentioned this at this conference wrt the pope issue (because I remember raising an eyebrow at the comment):
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Bishop-Williamsons-Conference-110514
-
2Vermont:
And the Vatican II Church makes the Catholic Church visible?
Not an unreasonable question. It is my understanding that the visible Church does not exist without a pope duly enthroned and recognized upon the Chair of St. Peter. If there is no visible pope, then subsequently, there is no visible Church. We might not like what we see, but it is a question of visibility in time and space. There are a few other forum members, who, I think, are better equipped than I, to develop the theological implications of a Church without a pope. Maybe a few of them would care to wade in.
-
You don't seem to have the right understanding of the visible Church. The visible Church are those faithful Catholics who live and practice Catholicity.
Yes, the Vatican Council of 1870 told us there would always be a Pope. This is good reason to have hope Our Lord has only "removed" the Pope as Cardinal Manning tells us is the explanation of these words from Saint Paul in his 2nd letter to the Thessolonians: "And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way."
Regardless if God has "take out of the way" the Pope, the visible Church still exists in its members. The visible Church is not ONLY the hierarchy with all its pomp and glory. It is also the members with the hierarchy in all its sorrow and affliction.
Read the entire section of 2 Thessolonians and try to convince everybody this isn't exactly what is happening today: "Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity. "
Better start taking this seriously and sobering up.
That is what some of the first traditionalist priests I met, who defended the Tradition even before the SSPX was founded, thought. There were some old Jesuits among them.
That is also what fathers Méramo, Turco, Ceriani and Grosso think.
-
Lepanto Again said:
"Can you not see that if the Pope goes to other shores how that can very well fit in with him being "taken out of the way". Our household will stick to what solid Bishops of days gone by have taught us about both the Faith and the end times. It is foolish and dangerous to "listen" to private opinions. "
The prophesy about going to other shores is precisely that he "will be taken out of the way". The point is, it has not happened yet and the conciliar Popes are true Popes.
Some of you people think that if you were Pope in our time, you could walk in and change everything back to pre-Vatican 2. The situation would not allow that, because as St John Paul 2 understood with the wisdom of the Holy Ghost, he would have schismed the Church and made the situation even worse. Hence his employment of the "Slavic solution" as understood by Fr Malachi Martin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4hyaUx5Zqg
The conciliar Popes have been largely powerless and have had to largely keep a watching brief "until Our Lady comes". For without the graces she will bring, in prelude to the Triumph of her Immaculate heart, the House cannot be re-built. They all understood what is coming and the need to wait patiently.
The unity of the world will be. The dignity of the human person shall be recognized not only formally but effectively. The inviolability of life, from the womb to old age… Undue social inequalities will be overcome. The relations between peoples will be peaceful, reasonable and fraternal. Neither selfishness, nor arrogance, nor poverty… [shall] prevent the establishment of a true human order, a common good, a new civilization. —POPE PAUL VI, Urbi et Orbi Message, April 4th, 1971
We must be prepared to undergo great trials in the not-too-distant future; trials that will require us to give up even our lives, and a total gift of self to Christ and for Christ. Through your prayers and mine, it is possible to alleviate this tribulation, but it is no longer possible to avert it, because it is only in this way that the Church can be effectively renewed. How many times, indeed, has the renewal of the Church been effected in blood? This time, again, it will not be otherwise. —St Pope John Paul 2
Empowered by the Spirit, and drawing upon faith’s rich vision, a new generation of Christians is being called to help build a world in which God’s gift of life is welcomed, respected and cherished—not rejected, feared as a threat, and destroyed. A new age in which love is not greedy or self-seeking, but pure, faithful and genuinely free, open to others, respectful of their dignity, seeking their good, radiating joy and beauty. A new age in which hope liberates us from the shallowness, apathy, and self-absorption which deaden our souls and poison our relationships. Dear young friends, the Lord is asking you to be prophets of this new age… —POPE BENEDICT XVI, Homily, World Youth Day, Sydney, Australia, July 20th, 2008
This nation, and the Europe which [Saint] Bede and his contemporaries helped to build, once again stands at the threshold of a new age. —POPE BENEDICT XVI, Address at Ecuмenical Celebration, London, England; September 1th, 2010; Zenit.org
“What lies ahead, as the fulfillment of a transformation that is actually already in place from the death and resurrection of Christ, is therefore a new creation. It is not an annihilation of the universe and all that surrounds us” but rather a bringing of everything to its fullness of being, truth, and beauty. —POPE FRANCIS, November 26th, General Audience; Zenit
…[the] pilgrimage of all of the People of God; and by its light even the other peoples can walk towards the Kingdom of justice, towards the Kingdom of peace. What a great day it will be, when the weapons will be dismantled in order to be transformed into instruments of work! And this is possible! We bet on hope, on the hope of peace, and it will be possible. —POPE FRANCIS, Sunday Angelus, December 1st, 2013; Catholic News Agency, Dec. 2nd, 2013
We implore [Mary’s] maternal intercession that the Church may become a home for many peoples, a mother for all peoples, and that the way may be opened to the birth of a new world. It is the Risen Christ who tells us, with a power that fills us with confidence and unshakeable hope: “Behold, I make all things new” (Rev 21:5). With Mary we advance confidently towards the fulfillment of this promise… —POPE FRANCIS, Evangelii Gaudium, n. 288
But so many in tradition, sit on the sidelines carping and even rejecting the conciliar Popes for they are justly deprived of wisdom and understanding by the Holy Ghost for their pharasiasm & hypocritical formalism.
There will be a good number of red faces and a shuffling of feet to confession in the years to come!!
Psalms 34:26
"Let them be clothed with confusion and shame, who speak great things against me."
-
More Novus Ordo propoganda at Cathinfo. :fryingpan:
This is the wrong forum for that.
-
Still waiting for andysloan to answer the question I posted on another thread (Crisis in the Church - St John Bosco vision). So here it is again.
Andysloan - Do you have a special devotion to John Paul II?
I'm sure you posted somewhere that you do.
All you have to do is answer, without resorting to your usual format of quotes interspersed with vicious insults. I'm sure you can manage it if you really try.
-
Lepanto again (alas :shocked:)
You (hollingsworth) don't seem to have the right understanding of the visible Church. The visible Church are those faithful Catholics who live and practice Catholicity(sic).
Lepant infers that the Church need not be visible in order for "faithful Catholics" to, (ahem), "practice Catholicity." I'm not sure that I've ever practiced "Catholicity." I may be accused, hopefully of having practice Catholicism. I still do. As a Protestant in earlier years, it wasn't necessary that the Church be visible. It was for us then the "universal church." It was invisible. It had no particularly visible headquarters, certainly not in Rome. It had no visible satellites throughout the world. Our "churches" were not really churches or parishes. They amounted to little more than elaborate halls, (sometimes not so elaborate), in which we met for worship. Our clergy made no claim to Apostolic succession. In fact, some of them, even to this day, can purchase their pastor licenses online. Now, it appears, that I must get used to the idea once again that,(ahem), Catholicity, as well as Protestanticity, can be practiced without reference to any visible components. It can even be done in the absence of a pope or Supreme Head. I'm so confused. Please help me :confused1: :rolleyes:
-
To awkwardcustomer
I am pleased to say I have a very special devotion to St John Paul 2. I love him very much.
And because of my defence of his integrity, especially on CI where he is often unjustly hated and detracted, the Holy Ghost, in the communion of saints, has infused in me more knowledge of him, friendship and love.
-
To awkwardcustomerI am pleased to say I have a very special devotion to St John Paul 2. I love him very much.
And because of my defence of his integrity, especially on CI where he is often unjustly hated and detracted, the Holy Ghost, in the communion of saints, has infused in me more knowledge of him, friendship and love.
Surely it is not the Holy Ghost who has infused in you knowledge of Karol Wojtyla, but maybe one of the "gods" JPII allowed to be worshiped in Catholic churches, some of which he worshiped as well.
-
Adolphus said:
"Surely it is not the Holy Ghost who has infused in you knowledge of Karol Wojtyla, but maybe one of the "gods" JPII allowed to be worshiped in Catholic churches, some of which he worshiped as well."
So you reject the canonisation of St John Paul 2?
"Divine providence preserves the Church lest in such matters it should err through the fallible testimony of men" St Thomas Aquinas
I think you will find that it is the demons your refer to, that inspired your horrific accusation!
Proverbs 21:16
"A man that shall wander out of the way of doctrine, shall abide in the company of the giants."
Psalms 34:26
"Let them blush: and be ashamed together, who rejoice at my evils. Let them be clothed with confusion and shame, who speak great things against me."
-
Nado said:
"Did you know that this is a "traditional" Catholic forum? "
To reject validly elected Popes and canonisations is not traditional catholicism
-
Adolphus said:
"Surely it is not the Holy Ghost who has infused in you knowledge of Karol Wojtyla, but maybe one of the "gods" JPII allowed to be worshiped in Catholic churches, some of which he worshiped as well."
So you reject the canonisation of St John Paul 2?
In saner times he would never have been pope, and would have been excommunicated if he persisted in worshipping with infidels and heretics. So yes--I reject his canonization. In fact, anybody who has been canonized in the last 40 years, if not since 1958, should be reviewed when a sane Catholic hierarchy is restored.
-
Nado said:
"Did you know that this is a "traditional" Catholic forum? "
To reject validly elected Popes and canonisations is not traditional catholicism
Kiss a koran, accept pagan blessings, worship with infidels and heretics, believe that there is no Catholic God and no God spray or whatever that was the heretic in chief said, stop counting beads, and all is well...
-
OHCA said:
"In saner times ."
ie. times unlike now, when we find such corrupted catholicism, that people even reject canonisations.
-
OHCA said:
"Kiss a koran, accept pagan blessings, worship with infidels and heretics, believe that there is no Catholic God and no God spray or whatever that was the heretic in chief said, stop counting beads, and all is well..."
Gain understanding and wisdom. Listen 1hr -1hr 10 mins:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4hyaUx5Zqg
-
Adolphus said:
"Surely it is not the Holy Ghost who has infused in you knowledge of Karol Wojtyla, but maybe one of the "gods" JPII allowed to be worshiped in Catholic churches, some of which he worshiped as well."
So you reject the canonisation of St John Paul 2?
"Divine providence preserves the Church lest in such matters it should err through the fallible testimony of men" St Thomas Aquinas
I think you will find that it is the demons your refer to, that inspired your horrific accusation!
Proverbs 21:16
"A man that shall wander out of the way of doctrine, shall abide in the company of the giants."
Psalms 34:26
"Let them blush: and be ashamed together, who rejoice at my evils. Let them be clothed with confusion and shame, who speak great things against me."
I don't really care how many texts you quote.
This is simple: a true saint worships only the True God and tries to convert those who believe in false gods. JPII did the opposite.
-
Adolphus said:
"This is simple: a true saint worships only the True God and tries to convert those who believe in false gods. JPII did the opposite. "
2 Thessalonians 2:10
"Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying:"
-
Adolphus said:
"This is simple: a true saint worships only the True God and tries to convert those who believe in false gods. JPII did the opposite. "
2 Thessalonians 2:10
"Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying:"
As usual, andysloan does not answer and quotes texts.
Well, here is one that can easily be applied to modernists, including JPII and the other conciliar popes:
«They have forsaken me, the fountain of living water, and have digged to themselves cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.»
Je 2:13
-
That excerpt does not specifically reference the conciliar Popes. But this one does:
Luke 22:31-32
"And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not:
Making a statement that a validly elected Pope, whom Christ has confirmed in faith has "worshipped false gods", is a very, very serious accusation:
With the Fr Malachi Martin interview above, you have an opportunity of understanding.
Proverbs 1:23-27
"Turn ye at my reproof: behold I will utter my spirit to you, and will shew you my words. Because I called, and you refused: I stretched out my hand, and there was none that regarded. You have despised all my counsel, and have neglected my reprehensions.
I also will laugh in your destruction, and will mock when that shall come to you which you feared. "
-
That excerpt does not specifically reference the conciliar Popes. But this one does:
Luke 22:31-32
"And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not:
Making a statement that a validly elected Pope, whom Christ has confirmed in faith has "worshipped false gods", is a very, very serious accusation:
With the Fr Malachi Martin interview above, you have an opportunity of understanding.
Proverbs 1:23-27
"Turn ye at my reproof: behold I will utter my spirit to you, and will shew you my words. Because I called, and you refused: I stretched out my hand, and there was none that regarded. You have despised all my counsel, and have neglected my reprehensions.
I also will laugh in your destruction, and will mock when that shall come to you which you feared. "
You mean a heretic and apostate whose canonization was invalid?
-
Adolphus said:
"You mean a heretic and apostate whose canonization was invalid?"
So Our Lord's prayer failed then?
Luke 22:31-32
"And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not:
Mark 13:34
"Even as a man who going into a far country, left his house; and gave authority to his servants over every work, and commanded the porter to watch."
-
2Vermont: And the Vatican II Church makes the Catholic Church visible?
Not an unreasonable question. It is my understanding that the visible Church does not exist without a pope duly enthroned and recognized upon the Chair of St. Peter. If there is no visible pope, then subsequently, there is no visible Church. We might not like what we see, but it is a question of visibility in time and space. There are a few other forum members, who, I think, are better equipped than I, to develop the theological implications of a Church without a pope. Maybe a few of them would care to wade in.
Well, that was a non-answer. It's not a matter of whether we "like" what we see. It's a matter of whether the Catholic Faith is visible in the Vatican II Church. Is it?
-
No, it is not visible, does that mean it is not there ?
-
No, it is not visible, does that mean it is not there ?
I thought the Catholic Church is supposed to be visible.
-
That excerpt does not specifically reference the conciliar Popes. But this one does:
Luke 22:31-32
"And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not:
No, the excerpt you quote does not refer to conciliar (id est, apostate) "popes". It specifically refers to true Catholic Popes.
-
Adolphus said:
Luke 22:31-32
"And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not:
"No, the excerpt you quote does not refer to conciliar (id est, apostate) "popes". It specifically refers to true Catholic Popes. "
Where does Our Lord qualify this statement of guarantee? Or tell us that for 3 generations, there will not be a "porter to watch"?
Or why does the Holy Ghost inform?
Dogma 6:6
"According to Christ's ordinance, Peter is to have successors in his Primacy over the whole Catholic Church and for all time. "
I'm afraid you are in a state of schism. Here's why;
1 Tim 6:3-5
"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to that doctrine which is according to godliness, He is proud, knowing nothing, but sick about questions and strifes of words; from which arise envies, contentions, blasphemies, evil suspicions, Conflicts of men corrupted in mind, and who are destitute of the truth, "
"He left you this sweet key of obedience; for as you know He left His vicar, the Christ, on earth, whom you are all obliged to obey until death, and whoever is outside His obedience is in a state of damnation, as I have already told you in another place." (God the Father to St Catherine - Dialogues; Treatise on Obedience)
Matt 23:1-3
"Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not."
-
Sedeplenists may quote completely the Holy Bible, but cannot answer this:
A true pope worships only the True God and tries to convert those who believe in false gods. Conciliar popes did/do the opposite.
-
Adolphus said:
"A true pope worships only the True God and tries to convert those who believe in false gods. Conciliar popes did/do the opposite."
The Holy Ghost contradicts you!
Dogma 6:6
"According to Christ's ordinance, Peter is to have successors in his Primacy over the whole Catholic Church and for all time. "
Vatican 1; session 4
Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy:
let him be anathema.
Who is in error?
-
Sedeplenists may quote completely the Holy Bible, but cannot answer this:
A true pope worships only the True God and tries to convert those who believe in false gods. Conciliar popes did/do the opposite.
Idealizations about the infallibility and impeccability of the Pope just does not attest to real History. Pope Marcellinus offered incense to idols.
Please read about these few historic examples of Popes that have taught errors and the people who resisted them:
St. Polycarp resisted Pope St. Anicetus
St. Irenaeus resisted Pope St. Victor
Pope Marcellinus offered incense to idols
St. Athanasius & Hilary resisted the Arian politics of Pope Liberius
St. Augustine & Aurelius opposed & resisted Pope Zosimus
Pope Vigilius’ acceptance of Monophysitism had to be resisted
None of these pontificates have ceased to be considered valid, let alone that the Holy See was "vacant" at the time.
-
Sedeplenists may quote completely the Holy Bible, but cannot answer this:
A true pope worships only the True God and tries to convert those who believe in false gods. Conciliar popes did/do the opposite.
Idealizations about the infallibility and impeccability of the Pope just does not attest to real History. Pope Marcellinus offered incense to idols.
Please read about these few historic examples of Popes that have taught errors and the people who resisted them:
St. Polycarp resisted Pope St. Anicetus
St. Irenaeus resisted Pope St. Victor
Pope Marcellinus offered incense to idols
St. Athanasius & Hilary resisted the Arian politics of Pope Liberius
St. Augustine & Aurelius opposed & resisted Pope Zosimus
Pope Vigilius’ acceptance of Monophysitism had to be resisted
None of these pontificates have ceased to be considered valid, let alone that the Holy See was "vacant" at the time.
None of those popes were manifest heretics.
Before Vatican II, the only pope that came the closest was Pope Honorius. St. Francis de Sales said he was "perhaps" a heretic.
When you compare what Honorius did, and what the Vatican II "popes" are doing, it is clearly a case of manifest heresy. The Church says that a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be pope.
Respond this:
Why Pope Honorius was considered as a material heretic, but not formal? There is written proof he denied the Holy Trinity.
A simple sentence will be sufficient.
-
Sedeplenists may quote completely the Holy Bible, but cannot answer this:
A true pope worships only the True God and tries to convert those who believe in false gods. Conciliar popes did/do the opposite.
Idealizations about the infallibility and impeccability of the Pope just does not attest to real History. Pope Marcellinus offered incense to idols.
Please read about these few historic examples of Popes that have taught errors and the people who resisted them:
St. Polycarp resisted Pope St. Anicetus
St. Irenaeus resisted Pope St. Victor
Pope Marcellinus offered incense to idols
St. Athanasius & Hilary resisted the Arian politics of Pope Liberius
St. Augustine & Aurelius opposed & resisted Pope Zosimus
Pope Vigilius’ acceptance of Monophysitism had to be resisted
None of these pontificates have ceased to be considered valid, let alone that the Holy See was "vacant" at the time.
None of those popes were manifest heretics.
Before Vatican II, the only pope that came the closest was Pope Honorius. St. Francis de Sales said he was "perhaps" a heretic.
When you compare what Honorius did, and what the Vatican II "popes" are doing, it is clearly a case of manifest heresy. The Church says that a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be pope.
Respond this:
Why Pope Honorius was considered as a material heretic, but not formal? There is written proof he denied the Holy Trinity.
A simple sentence will be sufficient.
He was not a manifest heretic. He wrote to a Patriarch in the east and recommended a course of action that appeared soft on the heresy then being a threat. Honorius didn't enter an error into the official magisterium, liturgy or law of the Church.
Fact remains that the conciliar popes have not been yet condemned as manifested heretics by the Church. Up to this point, the speculation exist only in the minds of some individual lay Catholics and collectively, in schismatic sects outside the Church. Whereas in the case of Pope Honorius, there is written docuмentation that he was condemned and anathemized by the VI Ecuмenical Council.
The III Council of Constantinople condemns Honorius, after anathematizing the principal monothelite heresiarchs:
“We judge that, together with them, also Honorius, formerly Pope of Rome, was cast out of the Holy and Catholic Church of God and anathematized, for we have verified by his writing sent to Sergius, that he followed the thinking of the latter in everything, and confirmed his impious principles” (3).
Also, we have a pontifical declaration which admits that a Pope may indeed fall into heresy. Here are the words of Adrian II:
“We read that the Roman Pontiff has always judged the chiefs of all the churches (that is, the patriarchs and bishops); but we do not read that anyone has ever judged him. It is true that, after his death, Honorius was anathematized by the Orientals; but one must remember that he was accused of heresy, the only crime which makes the resistance of inferiors to superiors, as well as the rejection of their pernicious doctrines, legitimate”
However, Honorius 's pontificate validity was never questioned and he was never considered not a "True Pope".
-
Fact remains that the conciliar popes have not been yet condemned as manifested heretics by the Church. Up to this point, the speculation exist only in the minds of some individual lay Catholics and collectively, in schismatic sects outside the Church. Whereas in the case of Pope Honorius, there is written docuмentation that he was condemned and anathemized by the VI Ecuмenical Council.
The III Council of Constantinople condemns Honorius, after anathematizing the principal monothelite heresiarchs:
“We judge that, together with them, also Honorius, formerly Pope of Rome, was cast out of the Holy and Catholic Church of God and anathematized, for we have verified by his writing sent to Sergius, that he followed the thinking of the latter in everything, and confirmed his impious principles” (3).
Also, we have a pontifical declaration which admits that a Pope may indeed fall into heresy. Here are the words of Adrian II:
“We read that the Roman Pontiff has always judged the chiefs of all the churches (that is, the patriarchs and bishops); but we do not read that anyone has ever judged him. It is true that, after his death, Honorius was anathematized by the Orientals; but one must remember that he was accused of heresy, the only crime which makes the resistance of inferiors to superiors, as well as the rejection of their pernicious doctrines, legitimate”
However, Honorius 's pontificate validity was never questioned and he was never considered not a "True Pope".
Honorius I was not condemned for teaching heresy, but for negligence and a soft leadership. In none of his writing can be found Monothelitism.
Besides, his anathematization is still not clear. Some apologists sustain that the conciliar acts were forged.
-
Adolphus said:
"A true pope worships only the True God and tries to convert those who believe in false gods. Conciliar popes did/do the opposite."
The Holy Ghost contradicts you!
Dogma 6:6
"According to Christ's ordinance, Peter is to have successors in his Primacy over the whole Catholic Church and for all time. "
Vatican 1; session 4
Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy:
let him be anathema.
Who is in error?
I knew you could not answer…
-
Fact remains that the conciliar popes have not been yet condemned as manifested heretics by the Church. Up to this point, the speculation exist only in the minds of some individual lay Catholics and collectively, in schismatic sects outside the Church. Whereas in the case of Pope Honorius, there is written docuмentation that he was condemned and anathemized by the VI Ecuмenical Council.
The III Council of Constantinople condemns Honorius, after anathematizing the principal monothelite heresiarchs:
“We judge that, together with them, also Honorius, formerly Pope of Rome, was cast out of the Holy and Catholic Church of God and anathematized, for we have verified by his writing sent to Sergius, that he followed the thinking of the latter in everything, and confirmed his impious principles” (3).
Also, we have a pontifical declaration which admits that a Pope may indeed fall into heresy. Here are the words of Adrian II:
“We read that the Roman Pontiff has always judged the chiefs of all the churches (that is, the patriarchs and bishops); but we do not read that anyone has ever judged him. It is true that, after his death, Honorius was anathematized by the Orientals; but one must remember that he was accused of heresy, the only crime which makes the resistance of inferiors to superiors, as well as the rejection of their pernicious doctrines, legitimate”
However, Honorius 's pontificate validity was never questioned and he was never considered not a "True Pope".
Honorius I was not condemned for teaching heresy, but for negligence and a soft leadership. In none of his writing can be found Monothelitism.
Besides, his anathematization is still not clear. Some apologists sustain that the conciliar acts were forged.
This according to the sedevacantist propaganda but the facts are clear: Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic and excommunicated from the Church by the ecuмenical Council of III Constantinople because promoting the heresy of the Monothelites, who taught that there is only one will in Christ.
The council specifically stated that Honorius had advanced heretical teachings, approved of them, and was responsible for disseminating them (and was not merely negligent, as some still lie.) It condemned him by name as a heretic, anathematising him as such and excommunicating him.
“We find that these docuмents [including those of Honorius] are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics…there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines…To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!… [The devil] has actively employed them [including Honorius]…we slew them [including Honorius] with anathema, as lapsed from the faith and as sinners, in the morning outside the camp of the tabernacle of God. &c.”
So we have an Ecuмenical Council's explicit words in one hand and CI Adolphus in the other.
-
Sedeplenists may quote completely the Holy Bible, but cannot answer this:
A true pope worships only the True God and tries to convert those who believe in false gods. Conciliar popes did/do the opposite.
Idealizations about the infallibility and impeccability of the Pope just does not attest to real History. Pope Marcellinus offered incense to idols.
Please read about these few historic examples of Popes that have taught errors and the people who resisted them:
St. Polycarp resisted Pope St. Anicetus
St. Irenaeus resisted Pope St. Victor
Pope Marcellinus offered incense to idols
St. Athanasius & Hilary resisted the Arian politics of Pope Liberius
St. Augustine & Aurelius opposed & resisted Pope Zosimus
Pope Vigilius’ acceptance of Monophysitism had to be resisted
None of these pontificates have ceased to be considered valid, let alone that the Holy See was "vacant" at the time.
Pope St. Anicetus did not do wrong when trying to regularize the rites in the Church. St. Polycarp disagree, but that does not mean the pope was wrong.
The same applies to pope St. Victor.
Pope Marcellinus erred because of fear, not by his own will and afterwards, he showed great repentance and did public penance.
Regarding pope Liberius, we know how much he suffered before signing a semi-arian letter. We can accuse him of cowardice, but not of heresy.
Pope Zosimus was deceived and latter recognized his error. He did not teach heresy.
In the case of pope Vigilius, we know he was forced to condemn the three chapters. He did it because of lack of courage rather than because of believing wrongly.
So, do not mistake saying they taught error and do not compare them with the conciliar popes, who willfully have taught heresy.
-
Fact remains that the conciliar popes have not been yet condemned as manifested heretics by the Church. Up to this point, the speculation exist only in the minds of some individual lay Catholics and collectively, in schismatic sects outside the Church. Whereas in the case of Pope Honorius, there is written docuмentation that he was condemned and anathemized by the VI Ecuмenical Council.
The III Council of Constantinople condemns Honorius, after anathematizing the principal monothelite heresiarchs:
“We judge that, together with them, also Honorius, formerly Pope of Rome, was cast out of the Holy and Catholic Church of God and anathematized, for we have verified by his writing sent to Sergius, that he followed the thinking of the latter in everything, and confirmed his impious principles” (3).
Also, we have a pontifical declaration which admits that a Pope may indeed fall into heresy. Here are the words of Adrian II:
“We read that the Roman Pontiff has always judged the chiefs of all the churches (that is, the patriarchs and bishops); but we do not read that anyone has ever judged him. It is true that, after his death, Honorius was anathematized by the Orientals; but one must remember that he was accused of heresy, the only crime which makes the resistance of inferiors to superiors, as well as the rejection of their pernicious doctrines, legitimate”
However, Honorius 's pontificate validity was never questioned and he was never considered not a "True Pope".
Honorius I was not condemned for teaching heresy, but for negligence and a soft leadership. In none of his writing can be found Monothelitism.
Besides, his anathematization is still not clear. Some apologists sustain that the conciliar acts were forged.
This according to the sedevacantist propaganda but the facts are clear: Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic and excommunicated from the Church by the ecuмenical Council of III Constantinople because promoting the heresy of the Monothelites, who taught that there is only one will in Christ.
The council specifically stated that Honorius had advanced heretical teachings, approved of them, and was responsible for disseminating them (and was not merely negligent, as some still lie.) It condemned him by name as a heretic, anathematising him as such and excommunicating him.
“We find that these docuмents [including those of Honorius] are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics…there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines…To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!… [The devil] has actively employed them [including Honorius]…we slew them [including Honorius] with anathema, as lapsed from the faith and as sinners, in the morning outside the camp of the tabernacle of God. &c.”
So we have an Ecuмenical Council's explicit words in one hand and CI Adolphus in the other.
I have already just told you that St. Francis de Sales said that Pope Honorius was "perhaps" a heretic, but NOT a manifest heretic.
Why do you disagree with that Saint and Doctor of the Church?
Says he who is daring to disagree with an Ecuмenical Council and Pope Adrian II pontifical pronouncement, no less.
-
The council specifically stated that Honorius had advanced heretical teachings, approved of them, and was responsible for disseminating them (and was not merely negligent, as some still lie.) It condemned him by name as a heretic, anathematising him as such and excommunicating him.
“We find that these docuмents [including those of Honorius] are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics…there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines…To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!… [The devil] has actively employed them [including Honorius]…we slew them [including Honorius] with anathema, as lapsed from the faith and as sinners, in the morning outside the camp of the tabernacle of God. &c.”
So we have an Ecuмenical Council's explicit words in one hand and CI Adolphus in the other.
Wrong again. St. Robert Belarmine among other apologists, sustain that the conciliar acts were forged.
-
This according to the sedevacantist propaganda but the facts are clear: Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic and excommunicated from the Church by the ecuмenical Council of III Constantinople because promoting the heresy of the Monothelites, who taught that there is only one will in Christ.
The council specifically stated that Honorius had advanced heretical teachings, approved of them, and was responsible for disseminating them (and was not merely negligent, as some still lie.) It condemned him by name as a heretic, anathematising him as such and excommunicating him.
“We find that these docuмents [including those of Honorius] are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics…there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines…To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!… [The devil] has actively employed them [including Honorius]…we slew them [including Honorius] with anathema, as lapsed from the faith and as sinners, in the morning outside the camp of the tabernacle of God. &c.”
So we have an Ecuмenical Council's explicit words in one hand and CI Adolphus in the other.
All this says nothing about whether a heretic can legitimately hold the Chair of Peter. If it is true that Honorius was a manifest heretic then the moment he fell into public heresy he also lost his office. What was the date that Honorius fell into heresy? Do you know? You certainly haven't proven your point. You will have to show that not only was Honorius a public heretic but he was also accepted as the legitimate successor of Peter AFTER he fell into heresy. And you won't be able to point to any of his acts after he fell into heresy because in cases of common error the Church supplies jurisdiction. So if Honorius appointed true Catholics to Church offices those appointments would still be legitimate. I doubt very much you are going to be able to prove that Honorius was not only a manifest heretic but also that he was a legitimate Pope even after his heresy was made public. I think you are just assuming that's the case. But it is a bad assumption to make given all the rock solid theology and canon law which says that it is not possible for a manifest heretic to be a legitimate Pope or hold any ecclesiastical office whatsoever. Can you quote a good theologian to back up your claim?
-
I have already just told you that St. Francis de Sales said that Pope Honorius was "perhaps" a heretic, but NOT a manifest heretic.
Why do you disagree with that Saint and Doctor of the Church?
Because of the sedeplenist propaganda.
-
I have already just told you that St. Francis de Sales said that Pope Honorius was "perhaps" a heretic, but NOT a manifest heretic.
Why do you disagree with that Saint and Doctor of the Church?
Says he who is daring to disagree with an Ecuмenical Council and Pope Adrian II pontifical pronouncement, no less.
What date did Honorius fall into heresy?
What date did Sergius publish the letter Honorius wrote to him?
Where does it say in Council III Constantinople that Honorius was a MANIFEST heretic?
-
This according to the sedevacantist propaganda but the facts are clear: Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic and excommunicated from the Church by the ecuмenical Council of III Constantinople because promoting the heresy of the Monothelites, who taught that there is only one will in Christ.
The council specifically stated that Honorius had advanced heretical teachings, approved of them, and was responsible for disseminating them (and was not merely negligent, as some still lie.) It condemned him by name as a heretic, anathematising him as such and excommunicating him.
“We find that these docuмents [including those of Honorius] are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics…there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines…To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!… [The devil] has actively employed them [including Honorius]…we slew them [including Honorius] with anathema, as lapsed from the faith and as sinners, in the morning outside the camp of the tabernacle of God. &c.”
So we have an Ecuмenical Council's explicit words in one hand and CI Adolphus in the other.
All this says nothing about whether a heretic can legitimately hold the Chair of Peter. If it is true that Honorius was a manifest heretic then the moment he fell into public heresy he also lost his office. What was the date that Honorius fell into heresy? Do you know? You certainly haven't proven your point. You will have to show that not only was Honorius a public heretic but he was also accepted as the legitimate successor of Peter AFTER he fell into heresy. And you won't be able to point to any of his acts after he fell into heresy because in cases of common error the Church supplies jurisdiction. So if Honorius appointed true Catholics to Church offices those appointments would still be legitimate. I doubt very much you are going to be able to prove that Honorius was not only a manifest heretic but also that he was a legitimate Pope even after his heresy was made public. I think you are just assuming that's the case. But it is a bad assumption to make given all the rock solid theology and canon law which says that it is not possible for a manifest heretic to be a legitimate Pope or hold any ecclesiastical office whatsoever. Can you quote a good theologian to back up your claim?
:applause:
-
The council specifically stated that Honorius had advanced heretical teachings, approved of them, and was responsible for disseminating them (and was not merely negligent, as some still lie.) It condemned him by name as a heretic, anathematising him as such and excommunicating him.
“We find that these docuмents [including those of Honorius] are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics…there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines…To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!… [The devil] has actively employed them [including Honorius]…we slew them [including Honorius] with anathema, as lapsed from the faith and as sinners, in the morning outside the camp of the tabernacle of God. &c.”
So we have an Ecuмenical Council's explicit words in one hand and CI Adolphus in the other.
Wrong again. St. Robert Belarmine among other apologists, sustain that the conciliar acts were forged.
The condemnation of Pope Honorius is very well docuмented and is actually found in the texts of more than one Ecuмenical Council, as follows. Individual fallible saints and doctors do not supersede Ecuмenical Council pronouncements, sorry for the inconvenience.
Ecuмenical Council of III Constantinople
Session XIII: “After we had reconsidered, according to the promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal God protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasius and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these docuмents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this God preserved city, and were like minded with them; and that of Theodore sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and God preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subject to anathema. And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.” (online text)
Council of Trullo
“Also we agree to guard untouched the faith of the Sixth Holy Synod, which first assembled in this imperial city in the time of Constantine, our Emperor, of blessed memory, which faith received still greater confirmation from the fact that the pious Emperor ratified with his own signet that which was written for the security of future generations. This council taught that we should openly profess our faith that in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, our true God, there are two natural wills or volitions and two natural operations; and condemned by a just sentence those who adulterated the true doctrine and taught the people that in the one Lord Jesus Christ there is but one will and one operation; to wit, Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Honorius of Rome, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were bishops of this God-preserved city; Macarius, who was bishop of Antioch; Stephen, who was his disciple, and the insane Polychronius, depriving them henceforth from the communion of the body of Christ our God.” (online text)
Ecuмenical Council of IV Constantinople
Exposition of Faith: “Further, we accept the sixth, holy and universal synod [Constantinople III], which shares the same beliefs and is in harmony with the previously mentioned synods in that it wisely laid down that in the two natures of the one Christ there are, as a consequence, two principles of action and the same number of wills. So, we anathematize Theodore who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, the unholy prelates of the church of Constantinople, and with these, Honorius of Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria as well as Macarius of Antioch and his disciple Stephen, who followed the false teachings of the unholy heresiarchs Apollinarius, Eutyches and Severus and proclaimed that the flesh of God, while being animated by a rational and intellectual soul, was without a principle of action and without a will, they themselves being impaired in their senses and truly without reason.”
Ecuмenical Council II Nicea
The Letter of the Synod to the Emperor and Empress: “And now having carefully traced the traditions of the Apostles and Fathers, we are bold to speak. Having but one mind by the inbreathing of the most Holy Spirit, and being all knit together in one, and understanding the harmonious tradition of the Catholic Church, we are in perfect harmony with the symphonies set forth by the six, holy and ecuмenical councils; and accordingly we have anathematised the madness of Arius, the frenzy of Macedonius, the senseless understanding of Appolinarius, the man-worship of Nestorius, the irreverent mingling of the natures devised by Eutyches and Dioscorus, and the many-headed hydra which is their companion. We have also anathematised the idle tales of Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius; and the doctrine of one will held by Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, and Pyrrhus, or rather, we have anathematised their own evil will. Finally, taught by the Spirit, from whom we have drawn pure water, we have with one accord and one soul, altogether wiped out with the sponge of the divine dogmas the newly devised heresy, well-worthy to be classed with those just mentioned, which springing up after them, uttered such empty nonsense about the sacred icons. And the contrivers of this vain, but revolutionary babbling we have cast forth far from the Church’s precincts.” (online text)
-
The council specifically stated that Honorius had advanced heretical teachings, approved of them, and was responsible for disseminating them (and was not merely negligent, as some still lie.) It condemned him by name as a heretic, anathematising him as such and excommunicating him.
“We find that these docuмents [including those of Honorius] are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics…there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines…To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!… [The devil] has actively employed them [including Honorius]…we slew them [including Honorius] with anathema, as lapsed from the faith and as sinners, in the morning outside the camp of the tabernacle of God. &c.”
So we have an Ecuмenical Council's explicit words in one hand and CI Adolphus in the other.
Wrong again. St. Robert Belarmine among other apologists, sustain that the conciliar acts were forged.
The condemnation of Pope Honorius is very well docuмented and is actually found in the texts of more than one Ecuмenical Council, as follows. Individual fallible saints and doctors do not supersede Ecuмenical Council pronouncements, sorry for the inconvenience.
Ecuмenical Council of III Constantinople
Session XIII: “After we had reconsidered, according to the promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal God protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasius and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these docuмents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this God preserved city, and were like minded with them; and that of Theodore sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and God preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subject to anathema. And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.” (online text)
Council of Trullo
“Also we agree to guard untouched the faith of the Sixth Holy Synod, which first assembled in this imperial city in the time of Constantine, our Emperor, of blessed memory, which faith received still greater confirmation from the fact that the pious Emperor ratified with his own signet that which was written for the security of future generations. This council taught that we should openly profess our faith that in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, our true God, there are two natural wills or volitions and two natural operations; and condemned by a just sentence those who adulterated the true doctrine and taught the people that in the one Lord Jesus Christ there is but one will and one operation; to wit, Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Honorius of Rome, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were bishops of this God-preserved city; Macarius, who was bishop of Antioch; Stephen, who was his disciple, and the insane Polychronius, depriving them henceforth from the communion of the body of Christ our God.” (online text)
Ecuмenical Council of IV Constantinople
Exposition of Faith: “Further, we accept the sixth, holy and universal synod [Constantinople III], which shares the same beliefs and is in harmony with the previously mentioned synods in that it wisely laid down that in the two natures of the one Christ there are, as a consequence, two principles of action and the same number of wills. So, we anathematize Theodore who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, the unholy prelates of the church of Constantinople, and with these, Honorius of Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria as well as Macarius of Antioch and his disciple Stephen, who followed the false teachings of the unholy heresiarchs Apollinarius, Eutyches and Severus and proclaimed that the flesh of God, while being animated by a rational and intellectual soul, was without a principle of action and without a will, they themselves being impaired in their senses and truly without reason.”
Ecuмenical Council II Nicea
The Letter of the Synod to the Emperor and Empress: “And now having carefully traced the traditions of the Apostles and Fathers, we are bold to speak. Having but one mind by the inbreathing of the most Holy Spirit, and being all knit together in one, and understanding the harmonious tradition of the Catholic Church, we are in perfect harmony with the symphonies set forth by the six, holy and ecuмenical councils; and accordingly we have anathematised the madness of Arius, the frenzy of Macedonius, the senseless understanding of Appolinarius, the man-worship of Nestorius, the irreverent mingling of the natures devised by Eutyches and Dioscorus, and the many-headed hydra which is their companion. We have also anathematised the idle tales of Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius; and the doctrine of one will held by Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, and Pyrrhus, or rather, we have anathematised their own evil will. Finally, taught by the Spirit, from whom we have drawn pure water, we have with one accord and one soul, altogether wiped out with the sponge of the divine dogmas the newly devised heresy, well-worthy to be classed with those just mentioned, which springing up after them, uttered such empty nonsense about the sacred icons. And the contrivers of this vain, but revolutionary babbling we have cast forth far from the Church’s precincts.” (online text)
All this proves nothing if the acts were forged. St. Robert Bellarmine knew all this and still sustains the acts were falsified.
But even if they were not, you have not answered Clemens Maria's questions...
-
This according to the sedevacantist propaganda but the facts are clear: Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic and excommunicated from the Church by the ecuмenical Council of III Constantinople because promoting the heresy of the Monothelites, who taught that there is only one will in Christ.
The council specifically stated that Honorius had advanced heretical teachings, approved of them, and was responsible for disseminating them (and was not merely negligent, as some still lie.) It condemned him by name as a heretic, anathematising him as such and excommunicating him.
“We find that these docuмents [including those of Honorius] are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics…there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines…To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!… [The devil] has actively employed them [including Honorius]…we slew them [including Honorius] with anathema, as lapsed from the faith and as sinners, in the morning outside the camp of the tabernacle of God. &c.”
So we have an Ecuмenical Council's explicit words in one hand and CI Adolphus in the other.
All this says nothing about whether a heretic can legitimately hold the Chair of Peter. If it is true that Honorius was a manifest heretic then the moment he fell into public heresy he also lost his office. What was the date that Honorius fell into heresy? Do you know? You certainly haven't proven your point. You will have to show that not only was Honorius a public heretic but he was also accepted as the legitimate successor of Peter AFTER he fell into heresy. And you won't be able to point to any of his acts after he fell into heresy because in cases of common error the Church supplies jurisdiction. So if Honorius appointed true Catholics to Church offices those appointments would still be legitimate. I doubt very much you are going to be able to prove that Honorius was not only a manifest heretic but also that he was a legitimate Pope even after his heresy was made public. I think you are just assuming that's the case. But it is a bad assumption to make given all the rock solid theology and canon law which says that it is not possible for a manifest heretic to be a legitimate Pope or hold any ecclesiastical office whatsoever. Can you quote a good theologian to back up your claim?
The condemnation of heresy was made 40 years after the death of Pope Honorius so nothing here applies. He probably fell into "public" heresy when the writings with Sergius started but his pontificate has always been considered valid. The whole example about Pope Honorius is a demonstration that Popes can and have fallen into error and even heresy. The point is that the conciliar popes were not condemned as manifest heretics by competent authority before their elections, no matter how much an individual lay Catholic wants to think so, and the fact that their elections were approved and recognized by all Bishops infallibly prove that the elections themselves are valid.
-
The council specifically stated that Honorius had advanced heretical teachings, approved of them, and was responsible for disseminating them (and was not merely negligent, as some still lie.) It condemned him by name as a heretic, anathematising him as such and excommunicating him.
“We find that these docuмents [including those of Honorius] are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics…there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines…To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!… [The devil] has actively employed them [including Honorius]…we slew them [including Honorius] with anathema, as lapsed from the faith and as sinners, in the morning outside the camp of the tabernacle of God. &c.”
So we have an Ecuмenical Council's explicit words in one hand and CI Adolphus in the other.
Wrong again. St. Robert Belarmine among other apologists, sustain that the conciliar acts were forged.
The condemnation of Pope Honorius is very well docuмented and is actually found in the texts of more than one Ecuмenical Council, as follows. Individual fallible saints and doctors do not supersede Ecuмenical Council pronouncements, sorry for the inconvenience.
Ecuмenical Council of III Constantinople
Session XIII: “After we had reconsidered, according to the promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal God protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasius and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these docuмents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this God preserved city, and were like minded with them; and that of Theodore sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and God preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subject to anathema. And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.” (online text)
Council of Trullo
“Also we agree to guard untouched the faith of the Sixth Holy Synod, which first assembled in this imperial city in the time of Constantine, our Emperor, of blessed memory, which faith received still greater confirmation from the fact that the pious Emperor ratified with his own signet that which was written for the security of future generations. This council taught that we should openly profess our faith that in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, our true God, there are two natural wills or volitions and two natural operations; and condemned by a just sentence those who adulterated the true doctrine and taught the people that in the one Lord Jesus Christ there is but one will and one operation; to wit, Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Honorius of Rome, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were bishops of this God-preserved city; Macarius, who was bishop of Antioch; Stephen, who was his disciple, and the insane Polychronius, depriving them henceforth from the communion of the body of Christ our God.” (online text)
Ecuмenical Council of IV Constantinople
Exposition of Faith: “Further, we accept the sixth, holy and universal synod [Constantinople III], which shares the same beliefs and is in harmony with the previously mentioned synods in that it wisely laid down that in the two natures of the one Christ there are, as a consequence, two principles of action and the same number of wills. So, we anathematize Theodore who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, the unholy prelates of the church of Constantinople, and with these, Honorius of Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria as well as Macarius of Antioch and his disciple Stephen, who followed the false teachings of the unholy heresiarchs Apollinarius, Eutyches and Severus and proclaimed that the flesh of God, while being animated by a rational and intellectual soul, was without a principle of action and without a will, they themselves being impaired in their senses and truly without reason.”
Ecuмenical Council II Nicea
The Letter of the Synod to the Emperor and Empress: “And now having carefully traced the traditions of the Apostles and Fathers, we are bold to speak. Having but one mind by the inbreathing of the most Holy Spirit, and being all knit together in one, and understanding the harmonious tradition of the Catholic Church, we are in perfect harmony with the symphonies set forth by the six, holy and ecuмenical councils; and accordingly we have anathematised the madness of Arius, the frenzy of Macedonius, the senseless understanding of Appolinarius, the man-worship of Nestorius, the irreverent mingling of the natures devised by Eutyches and Dioscorus, and the many-headed hydra which is their companion. We have also anathematised the idle tales of Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius; and the doctrine of one will held by Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, and Pyrrhus, or rather, we have anathematised their own evil will. Finally, taught by the Spirit, from whom we have drawn pure water, we have with one accord and one soul, altogether wiped out with the sponge of the divine dogmas the newly devised heresy, well-worthy to be classed with those just mentioned, which springing up after them, uttered such empty nonsense about the sacred icons. And the contrivers of this vain, but revolutionary babbling we have cast forth far from the Church’s precincts.” (online text)
All this proves nothing if the acts were forged. St. Robert Bellarmine knew all this and still sustains the acts were falsified.
But even if they were not, you have not answered Clemens Maria's questions...
No. Sedes misinterpret st. Robert Bellarmine and quote him in isolation to support their schismatic agenda. His whole work about this matter had the purpose of demonstrating that a true Pope can indeed fall into heresy (something the sedes deny) and then he can be judged by the Church. Heresy, being the only legitimate reason, for such resistance from inferiors to superiors.
Even here, this is clear:
De Romano Pontifice, Bk II, Chapter 30:
“The third opinion is on another extreme, certainly, that a Pope cannot be deposed either through secret heresy, or through manifest heresy. This recalls and refutes Bishop Turrecremata (loc cit) [Bellarmine is noting in the previous point, citing this Bishop, where he rejects that a secret heretic can be judged] and certainly is an improbable opinion. Firstly, that a heretical Pope can be judged, is expressly held in Can. Si Papa dist. 40, and with Innocent III (serm. 2 de consec. pontif.) And what is more, in the 8th Council, (act. 7) the acts of the Roman Council under Pope Hadrian are recited, and therein contained, that Pope Honorius appears to be justly anathematized, because he had been convicted of heresy, which is the only reason permitted for inferiors to judge superiors. It must be noted, that although it is probable that Honorius was not a heretic, and that Pope Hadrian II was deceived from corrupt examples of the VI Council, and Honorius was reckoned falsely to be a heretic, nevertheless we cannot deny, in fact Hadrian with the Roman Council, nay more the whole 8th general council had sensed, in the case of heresy a Roman Pontiff can be judged. Add, what would be the most miserable condition of the Church, if she would be compelled to acknowledge a manifestly prowling wolf for a shepherd.”
If anything, st. Bellarmine is in direct contradiction of the sedevacantist thesis. Firstly, a Pope can indeed fall into heresy, second once he does, he can be actually judged by the Church (this is, bishops & cardinals). (Not by individuals).
It would be profitable to read st. Bellarmine complete works, instead of isolated quotes from sede unreliable sites. There is no precedence in the whole Church history of saints abandoning the Apostolic See in Rome.
-
This according to the sedevacantist propaganda but the facts are clear: Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic and excommunicated from the Church by the ecuмenical Council of III Constantinople because promoting the heresy of the Monothelites, who taught that there is only one will in Christ.
The council specifically stated that Honorius had advanced heretical teachings, approved of them, and was responsible for disseminating them (and was not merely negligent, as some still lie.) It condemned him by name as a heretic, anathematising him as such and excommunicating him.
“We find that these docuмents [including those of Honorius] are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics…there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines…To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!… [The devil] has actively employed them [including Honorius]…we slew them [including Honorius] with anathema, as lapsed from the faith and as sinners, in the morning outside the camp of the tabernacle of God. &c.”
So we have an Ecuмenical Council's explicit words in one hand and CI Adolphus in the other.
All this says nothing about whether a heretic can legitimately hold the Chair of Peter. If it is true that Honorius was a manifest heretic then the moment he fell into public heresy he also lost his office. What was the date that Honorius fell into heresy? Do you know? You certainly haven't proven your point. You will have to show that not only was Honorius a public heretic but he was also accepted as the legitimate successor of Peter AFTER he fell into heresy. And you won't be able to point to any of his acts after he fell into heresy because in cases of common error the Church supplies jurisdiction. So if Honorius appointed true Catholics to Church offices those appointments would still be legitimate. I doubt very much you are going to be able to prove that Honorius was not only a manifest heretic but also that he was a legitimate Pope even after his heresy was made public. I think you are just assuming that's the case. But it is a bad assumption to make given all the rock solid theology and canon law which says that it is not possible for a manifest heretic to be a legitimate Pope or hold any ecclesiastical office whatsoever. Can you quote a good theologian to back up your claim?
The condemnation was made 40 years after the death of Pope Honorius and he probably fell into "public" heresy when the writings with Sergius started. The conciliar popes were not condemned as manifest heretics by competent authority before their elections, no matter how much an individual lay Catholic want to think so, and the fact that their elections were approved and recognized by all Bishops infallibly prove that the elections themselves are valid. The whole example about Pope Honorius is a demonstrations that Popes can and have fallen into error and even heresy.
Can you quote a reliable historian about when Honorius fell into MANIFEST heresy? Can you PROVE that Honorius was a MANIFEST heretic DURING his papacy. Apparently the experts who wrote the 1913 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia could not prove it. They wrote the following:
It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned. But he was not condemned as a Monothelite, nor was Sergius. And it would be harsh to regard him as a "private heretic", for he admittedly had excellent intentions.
(cf. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm)
Read the CE article. I think it is clear that there isn't much agreement on anything except that Monothelitism is a heresy and Honorius was wrong not to condemn it. You cannot conclude from anything in that article that Honorius was a manifest heretic during his papacy. In fact the article mentions that while the letter to Sergius was public it was not widely known. The CE article does not even suppose to find him a "private heretic" never mind a manifest heretic.
Why was there no condemnation of Honorius DURING his papacy? Why was he condemned 42 years AFTER HE DIED? Why wasn't he condemned immediately by the next Pope? Evidently it wasn't a high priority at the time. Which makes me think that Honorius was not a MANIFEST heretic. If the docuмents are all authentic then, yes, he was a material heretic but his heresy was not public knowledge.
If his heresy was not revealed until after his death then he retained the papacy. But if he was widely known to have fallen into heresy while he was still alive then he would have lost the office by a tacit resignation. That's what cuм Ex Apostolatus says. That's what Canon 188.4 says. That's what St. Robert Bellermine says. That's what other well-respected theologians say.
-
This according to the sedevacantist propaganda but the facts are clear: Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic and excommunicated from the Church by the ecuмenical Council of III Constantinople because promoting the heresy of the Monothelites, who taught that there is only one will in Christ.
The council specifically stated that Honorius had advanced heretical teachings, approved of them, and was responsible for disseminating them (and was not merely negligent, as some still lie.) It condemned him by name as a heretic, anathematising him as such and excommunicating him.
“We find that these docuмents [including those of Honorius] are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics…there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines…To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!… [The devil] has actively employed them [including Honorius]…we slew them [including Honorius] with anathema, as lapsed from the faith and as sinners, in the morning outside the camp of the tabernacle of God. &c.”
So we have an Ecuмenical Council's explicit words in one hand and CI Adolphus in the other.
All this says nothing about whether a heretic can legitimately hold the Chair of Peter. If it is true that Honorius was a manifest heretic then the moment he fell into public heresy he also lost his office. What was the date that Honorius fell into heresy? Do you know? You certainly haven't proven your point. You will have to show that not only was Honorius a public heretic but he was also accepted as the legitimate successor of Peter AFTER he fell into heresy. And you won't be able to point to any of his acts after he fell into heresy because in cases of common error the Church supplies jurisdiction. So if Honorius appointed true Catholics to Church offices those appointments would still be legitimate. I doubt very much you are going to be able to prove that Honorius was not only a manifest heretic but also that he was a legitimate Pope even after his heresy was made public. I think you are just assuming that's the case. But it is a bad assumption to make given all the rock solid theology and canon law which says that it is not possible for a manifest heretic to be a legitimate Pope or hold any ecclesiastical office whatsoever. Can you quote a good theologian to back up your claim?
The condemnation was made 40 years after the death of Pope Honorius and he probably fell into "public" heresy when the writings with Sergius started. The conciliar popes were not condemned as manifest heretics by competent authority before their elections, no matter how much an individual lay Catholic want to think so, and the fact that their elections were approved and recognized by all Bishops infallibly prove that the elections themselves are valid. The whole example about Pope Honorius is a demonstrations that Popes can and have fallen into error and even heresy.
Can you quote a reliable historian about when Honorius fell into MANIFEST heresy? Can you PROVE that Honorius was a MANIFEST heretic DURING his papacy. Apparently the experts who wrote the 1913 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia could not prove it. They wrote the following:
It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned. But he was not condemned as a Monothelite, nor was Sergius. And it would be harsh to regard him as a "private heretic", for he admittedly had excellent intentions.
(cf. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm)
Read the CE article. I think it is clear that there isn't much agreement on anything except that Monothelitism is a heresy and Honorius was wrong not to condemn it. You cannot conclude from anything in that article that Honorius was a manifest heretic during his papacy. In fact the article mentions that while the letter to Sergius was public it was not widely known. The CE article does not even suppose to find him a "private heretic" never mind a manifest heretic.
Why was there no condemnation of Honorius DURING his papacy? Why was he condemned 42 years AFTER HE DIED? Why wasn't he condemned immediately by the next Pope? Evidently it wasn't a high priority at the time. Which makes me think that Honorius was not a MANIFEST heretic. If the docuмents are all authentic then, yes, he was a material heretic but his heresy was not public knowledge.
If his heresy was not revealed until after his death then he retained the papacy. But if he was widely known to have fallen into heresy while he was still alive then he would have lost the office by a tacit resignation. That's what cuм Ex Apostolatus says. That's what Canon 188.4 says. That's what St. Robert Bellermine says. That's what other well-respected theologians say.
Yes, Pope Honorius was not condemned as heretic during his pontificate and he of course, retained his papacy. However, as said before, the conciliar Popes have not been condemned as manifest heretics either. Up to this point, it is only an speculation.
1. cuм Ex Apostalus Officio does not apply, it has been abrogated at least 3 times by three different Pontiffs: Pius X, Benedict XV, and Pius XII which demonstrates that it is not Divine Law, but Ecclesiastical Law otherwise the Popes who altered it would have been heretics.
2. Canon 188 does not apply to the Roman Pontiff either. It is de fide that the Pope can be judged by none in this world, he may be rebuked and corrected, but that would need to happen by the Church.
3. St. Robert Bellarmine says that the pope can be judged by the Church:
Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. [/b]This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: 'He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.'
-
In what sense was Honorius condemned by the Council? Not as one who had asserted, taught, or propagated heresy, but as one negligent in his pastoral office, one who had favored heretics (not heresy), and had been overindulgent to Sergius.
and this:
We answer, in the second place, that this testimony of St. Leo would prove, not that Honorius was a heretic (for in that very same passage St. Leo says that Honorius was condemned, "because by his negligence he had fanned the flame of heretical dogma"), but that Honorius had sinned grievously, which opinion any one is free to hold who thinks he sees probable ground for it.
cf. http://books.google.com/books?id=oJoNAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA162&lpg=PA162&dq=Supposed+Fall+Honorius+Condemnation&source=bl&ots=9wDXALs6Yt&sig=p_MPCVnrMKh_MIGhcIq37OXRDMI&hl=en&ei=lbd-Ttz0D6fY0QGw2r3dDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Supposed%20Fall%20Honorius%20Condemnation&f=false
From:
The American Catholic Quarterly Review ..., Volume 7 - 2
Contributors James Andrew Corcoran, Patrick John Ryan, Edmond Francis Prendergast
Publisher Hardy and Mahony, 1882
pp. 162 - 168
Basically, they are concluding that Honorius sinned but did not fall into heresy. That is from 1882. So Honorius is not going to prove anything about the current crisis. There is no doubt that the Conciliar Popes are preaching heresy. With Honorius it isn't quite so clear.
-
Yes, Pope Honorius was not condemned as heretic during his pontificate and he of course, retained his papacy. However, as said before, the conciliar Popes have not been condemned as manifest heretics either. Up to this point, it is only an speculation.
It is not the condemnation which causes the loss of office. It is the tacit resignation of the Pope himself by falling into public heresy.
2. Canon 188 does not apply to the Roman Pontiff either. It is de fide that the Pope can be judged by none in this world, he may be rebuked and corrected, but that would need to happen by the Church.
3. St. Robert Bellarmine says that the pope can be judged by the Church:
Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: 'He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.'
That is terrible reading comprehension on your part. St. Robert Bellarmine (Doctor of the Church) does NOT say the Pope can be judged by the Church. He says the exact opposite! The Church judges the man who has already fallen from the papacy by his tacit resignation. St. Robert Bellarmine is a Doctor of the Church principally due to his ecclesiology.
Canon 188 is not used to judge a pope. It specifically says that the office holder tacitly resigns from his office when his heresy becomes manifest. There is no judging there. It is the office holder resigning from the office. Simple.
-
Yes, Pope Honorius was not condemned as heretic during his pontificate and he of course, retained his papacy. However, as said before, the conciliar Popes have not been condemned as manifest heretics either. Up to this point, it is only an speculation.
It is not the condemnation which causes the loss of office. It is the tacit resignation of the Pope himself by falling into public heresy.
2. Canon 188 does not apply to the Roman Pontiff either. It is de fide that the Pope can be judged by none in this world, he may be rebuked and corrected, but that would need to happen by the Church.
3. St. Robert Bellarmine says that the pope can be judged by the Church:
Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: 'He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.'
That is terrible reading comprehension on your part. St. Robert Bellarmine (Doctor of the Church) does NOT say the Pope can be judged by the Church. He says the exact opposite! The Church judges the man who has already fallen from the papacy by his tacit resignation. St. Robert Bellarmine is a Doctor of the Church principally due to his ecclesiology.
Canon 188 is not used to judge a pope. It specifically says that the office holder tacitly resigns from his office when his heresy becomes manifest. There is no judging there. It is the office holder resigning from the office. Simple.
First, just because st. Bellarmine says that the heretical Pontiff falls automatically from the papacy and then, he can be judged and punished by the Church does not make it necessarily de fide. It was only his fallible opinion on the matter. There is simply not consensus among theologians about what happens in the case of a heretical pope so this is a speculation but not a dogma or even a Church teaching. This lack of consensus can be easily proven.
Second, let's say that the speculation is true and the heretical Pope falls tacitly from office. No condemnation required. How the individual Catholic in the pew is supposed to gain the certitude that the Pope is indeed a manifest heretic and therefore no longer Pope? There are literally millions of Catholics out there that don't even think the conciliar Popes have been bad popes at all, let alone, heretics. What parameters are used to determine this manifest heresy? Articles and news from the ʝʊdɛօ - Masonic owned media? At this point, if the individual Catholic arrives to that conclusion can ONLY be following his private judgment and nothing else. It can get pretty risky really fast.
-
The v2 anti-popes have not been legally installed in The Holy See. Aside from that, Bellarmine is not only a Saint but Doc Of The Church, while the prev poster is neither. :reporter:
-
The v2 anti-popes have not been legally installed in The Holy See.
Proof, please.
The conciliar Popes have all the appearances of having been duly elected by a College of Cardinals, followed by a hierarchy of Bishops, and accepted by the Church as such.
Provide evidence otherwise.
-
Second, let's say that the speculation is true and the heretical Pope falls tacitly from office. No condemnation required. How the individual Catholic in the pew is supposed to gain the certitude that the Pope is indeed a manifest heretic and therefore no longer Pope? There are literally millions of Catholics out there that don't even think the conciliar Popes have been bad popes at all, let alone, heretics. What parameters are used to determine this manifest heresy? Articles and news from the ʝʊdɛօ - Masonic owned media? At this point, if the individual Catholic arrives to that conclusion can ONLY be following his private judgment and nothing else. It can get pretty risky really fast.
Any attempt to remove him would be resisted by religious and political establishments. There is no mechanism for a grassroots revolt. Such a concept would be alien to how traditional religious institutions are constituted. Any changes are carried out at the top among an elite. The laity are only allowed to speculate on the very limited choices for high office. Now, that the modernists are in the driving seat, they are likely to be there for generations because 'the system' will ensure that. Cardinals as conciliar appointees (like Fellay's appointees) are unlikely to elect one hostile to their ideolology or programme.
Talk of heresy is restricted to private groups and generally do not enter the minds of ordinary folk. They see a man in white in Rome and say he is the pope even if he were the devil in disguise. They are excused such ignorance because 'the system' expects this. The conclusion is that in the scheme of things most of us are merely bystanders. Any real change could only occur from a full-hearted revolution. ABL would only go so far and then tied himself up in convenient legalisms and contradictory behviour. Bp. W hesitates to go this far. Result: stagnation and endless discussion producing facile nuances.
-
Yes, Pope Honorius was not condemned as heretic during his pontificate and he of course, retained his papacy. However, as said before, the conciliar Popes have not been condemned as manifest heretics either. Up to this point, it is only an speculation.
It is not the condemnation which causes the loss of office. It is the tacit resignation of the Pope himself by falling into public heresy.
2. Canon 188 does not apply to the Roman Pontiff either. It is de fide that the Pope can be judged by none in this world, he may be rebuked and corrected, but that would need to happen by the Church.
3. St. Robert Bellarmine says that the pope can be judged by the Church:
Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: 'He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.'
That is terrible reading comprehension on your part. St. Robert Bellarmine (Doctor of the Church) does NOT say the Pope can be judged by the Church. He says the exact opposite! The Church judges the man who has already fallen from the papacy by his tacit resignation. St. Robert Bellarmine is a Doctor of the Church principally due to his ecclesiology.
Canon 188 is not used to judge a pope. It specifically says that the office holder tacitly resigns from his office when his heresy becomes manifest. There is no judging there. It is the office holder resigning from the office. Simple.
First, just because st. Bellarmine says that the heretical Pontiff falls automatically from the papacy and then, he can be judged and punished by the Church does not make it necessarily de fide. It was only his fallible opinion on the matter. There is simply not consensus among theologians about what happens in the case of a heretical pope so this is a speculation but not a dogma or even a Church teaching. This lack of consensus can be easily proven.
Second, let's say that the speculation is true and the heretical Pope falls tacitly from office. No condemnation required. How the individual Catholic in the pew is supposed to gain the certitude that the Pope is indeed a manifest heretic and therefore no longer Pope? There are literally millions of Catholics out there that don't even think the conciliar Popes have been bad popes at all, let alone, heretics. What parameters are used to determine this manifest heresy? Articles and news from the ʝʊdɛօ - Masonic owned media? At this point, if the individual Catholic arrives to that conclusion can ONLY be following his private judgment and nothing else. It can get pretty risky really fast.
On the contrary, since the Church discussed all aspects of Infallibility at the Vatican Council, there has been a solid consensus that St. Robert Bellarmine is correct. All approved Catholic works since 1870 state categorically that a pope who is a manifest, or explicit, heretic automatically ceases to be pope. This is absolutely solid. And, yes, it can be discerned by individual moral judgment and immediately acted upon by the individual, though a new election cannot be held until the electors themselves all recognize that fact.
Names of such books, page numbers, and theologians please.
To demonstrate such consensus more than a couple of books and a couple of names will be needed. And of course, abstain from sede websites that just copy and paste quotes in isolation from each other.
Even better, cite any Ecclesiastical pronouncements that support this claim to actually make it "Church teaching".
-
An example of lack of consensus among many. Here we have the great Jesuit Suarez disagreeing with Bellarmine. He says a formal condemnation is needed first for the heretical Pope to cease to be Pope. Why believe in Bellarmine's opinion over Suarez when the Church Herself has not really defined anything on the matter.
“I affirm: if he were a heretic and incorrigible, the Pope would cease to be Pope just when a sentence was passed against him for his crime, by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church. This is the common opinion among the doctors, and it is gathered from the first epistle of Saint Clement I, in which one reads that Saint Peter taught that a Pope heretic must be deposed. (…) In the first place, who ought to pronounce such a sentence? Some say that it would be the Cardinals; and the Church would be able undoubtedly to attribute to them this faculty, above all if it were thus established by the consent or determination of the Supreme Pontiffs, as was done in regard to the election. But up to today we do not read in any place that such a judgment has been confided to them. For this reason, one must affirm that, as such, it pertains to all the Bishops of the Church, for, being the ordinary pastors and the pillars of the Church, one must consider that such a case concerns them. And since by divine law there is no greater reason to affirm that the matter is of more interest to these bishops than to those, and since by human law nothing has been established in the matter, one must necessarily sustain that the case refers to all, and even to the general council. That is the common opinion among the doctors”.
-
Wessex:
Any real change,( viz the removal of a heretic pope) could only occur from a full-hearted revolution. ABL would only go so far and then tied himself up in convenient legalisms and contradictory behviour. Bp. W hesitates to go this far. Result: stagnation and endless discussion producing facile nuances.
So, there is no way of practically implementing Bellarmine's thesis. Neither the religious or political establishments would put up with it, right? No way of conducting a "grassroots" revolution because the common folk are too stupid and divided to carry any such revolution to its ultimate conclusion, right? The Archbishop knew, according to Wessex as I understand him. that Bellarmine was right. But he shucked and jived, hiding behind "convenient legalisms," right? ABL knew what the right thing to do was, but he waffled and temporized. So likewise the good bishop. He "hesitates." So, apparently, all the blame for this "endless discussion" and indecision must be placed at the feet of ABL and the good bishop, right? Why could not these two clerics have seen much earlier in the game that Fr. Cekada was right? Was it pride, perhaps, that prevented both ABL and Bp. Williamson from yielding to the sheer, irrefutable logic of Cekadaism? Isn't this really what you're getting at, Wessex? I mean, had these two simply acknowledged the sedevacantist position years ago, we would not be experiencing the "stagnation and endless discussion" today.
-
An example of lack of consensus among many. Here we have the great Jesuit Suarez disagreeing with Bellarmine. He says a formal condemnation is needed first for the heretical Pope to cease to be Pope. Why believe in Belalrmine's opinion over Suarez when the Church has not defined anything in the matter.
“I affirm: if he were a heretic and incorrigible, the Pope would cease to be Pope just when a sentence was passed against him for his crime, by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church. This is the common opinion among the doctors, and it is gathered from the first epistle of Saint Clement I, in which one reads that Saint Peter taught that a Pope heretic must be deposed. (…) In the first place, who ought to pronounce such a sentence? Some say that it would be the Cardinals; and the Church would be able undoubtedly to attribute to them this faculty, above all if it were thus established by the consent or determination of the Supreme Pontiffs, as was done in regard to the election. But up to today we do not read in any place that such a judgment has been confided to them. For this reason, one must affirm that, as such, it pertains to all the Bishops of the Church, for, being the ordinary pastors and the pillars of the Church, one must consider that such a case concerns them. And since by divine law there is no greater reason to affirm that the matter is of more interest to these bishops than to those, and since by human law nothing has been established in the matter, one must necessarily sustain that the case refers to all, and even to the general council. That is the common opinion among the doctors”.
Yes, that is a very well known opinion. That is why sedeplenism and sedevacantism and sedeprivationism (and many other "isms") are merely opinions. They are different ways to explain the current situation and each of them have arguments to be sustained.
That is why one should not consider his/her opinion as a dogma and try to impose it.
The problem is that, within the SSPX, the authorities tried to impose sedeplenism by making of sedevacantism a scarecrow and presenting it as something evil which was the cause of many ills. But this has a good explanation: the authorities wanted to reach an agreement with Rome and those who were prone to sedevacantism were going to make things difficult. So, the first step was to attack sedevacantim.
-
An example of lack of consensus among many. Here we have the great Jesuit Suarez disagreeing with Bellarmine. He says a formal condemnation is needed first for the heretical Pope to cease to be Pope. Why believe in Belalrmine's opinion over Suarez when the Church has not defined anything in the matter.
“I affirm: if he were a heretic and incorrigible, the Pope would cease to be Pope just when a sentence was passed against him for his crime, by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church. This is the common opinion among the doctors, and it is gathered from the first epistle of Saint Clement I, in which one reads that Saint Peter taught that a Pope heretic must be deposed. (…) In the first place, who ought to pronounce such a sentence? Some say that it would be the Cardinals; and the Church would be able undoubtedly to attribute to them this faculty, above all if it were thus established by the consent or determination of the Supreme Pontiffs, as was done in regard to the election. But up to today we do not read in any place that such a judgment has been confided to them. For this reason, one must affirm that, as such, it pertains to all the Bishops of the Church, for, being the ordinary pastors and the pillars of the Church, one must consider that such a case concerns them. And since by divine law there is no greater reason to affirm that the matter is of more interest to these bishops than to those, and since by human law nothing has been established in the matter, one must necessarily sustain that the case refers to all, and even to the general council. That is the common opinion among the doctors”.
Yes, that is a very well known opinion. That is why sedeplenism and sedevacantism and sedeprivationism (and many other "isms") are merely opinions. They are different ways to explain the current situation and each of them have arguments to be sustained.
That is why one should not consider his/her opinion as a dogma and try to impose it.
Catholics are not allowed to form "opinions" that contradict dogma. Vatican I defined infallibly the Petrine Perpetual Succession.
Vatican I Dogma
"If anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema."
Also, it is de fide that the Pope can be judged by no one in the world and the necessity of submission to the Roman Pontiff for salvation is dogma as well defined in Unam Sanctam:
Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: 'The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man' [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven' etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
Infallible doctrine always overrules fallible theological opinions. Ex-cathedra and Council pronouncements have a million times more weight than opinions from theologians, saints, and even doctors of the Church. Doing otherwise would be inverting their authority.
-
Yes, that is a very well known opinion. That is why sedeplenism and sedevacantism and sedeprivationism (and many other "isms") are merely opinions. They are different ways to explain the current situation and each of them have arguments to be sustained.
That is why one should not consider his/her opinion as a dogma and try to impose it.
Catholics are not allowed to form "opinions" that contradict dogma. Vatican I defined infallibly the Petrine Perpetual Succession.
Vatican I Dogma
"If anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema."
Also, it is de fide that the Pope can be judged by no one in the world and the necessity of submission to the Roman Pontiff for salvation is dogma as well defined in Unam Sanctam:
Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: 'The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man' [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven' etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
Infallible doctrine always overrules fallible theological opinions. Ex-cathedra and Council pronouncements have a million times more weight than opinions from theologians, saints, and even doctors of the Church. Doing otherwise would be inverting their authority.
No a million times: in infinite number of times. But what you quoted does not say a pope cannot fall in heresy and thus cease being pope.
-
Yes, that is a very well known opinion. That is why sedeplenism and sedevacantism and sedeprivationism (and many other "isms") are merely opinions. They are different ways to explain the current situation and each of them have arguments to be sustained.
That is why one should not consider his/her opinion as a dogma and try to impose it.
Catholics are not allowed to form "opinions" that contradict dogma. Vatican I defined infallibly the Petrine Perpetual Succession.
Vatican I Dogma
"If anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema."
Also, it is de fide that the Pope can be judged by no one in the world and the necessity of submission to the Roman Pontiff for salvation is dogma as well defined in Unam Sanctam:
Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: 'The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man' [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven' etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
Infallible doctrine always overrules fallible theological opinions. Ex-cathedra and Council pronouncements have a million times more weight than opinions from theologians, saints, and even doctors of the Church. Doing otherwise would be inverting their authority.
No a million times: in infinite number of times. But what you quoted does not say a pope cannot fall in heresy and thus cease being pope.
Then please respond:
1. How the individual Catholic in the pew is supposed to gain the certitude that the Pope is indeed a manifest heretic and therefore no longer Pope? What parameters are used to determine this manifest heresy? Articles and news from the ʝʊdɛօ - Masonic owned media are not necessarily reliable, which is what the common folk usually has access to.
2. Explain why this manifest heresy must be formal, but not material and furthermore, how can you demonstrate the charges of formal heresy in the conciliar Popes. Where is your evidence?
-
Yes, Pope Honorius was not condemned as heretic during his pontificate and he of course, retained his papacy. However, as said before, the conciliar Popes have not been condemned as manifest heretics either. Up to this point, it is only an speculation.
It is not the condemnation which causes the loss of office. It is the tacit resignation of the Pope himself by falling into public heresy.
2. Canon 188 does not apply to the Roman Pontiff either. It is de fide that the Pope can be judged by none in this world, he may be rebuked and corrected, but that would need to happen by the Church.
3. St. Robert Bellarmine says that the pope can be judged by the Church:
Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: 'He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.'
That is terrible reading comprehension on your part. St. Robert Bellarmine (Doctor of the Church) does NOT say the Pope can be judged by the Church. He says the exact opposite! The Church judges the man who has already fallen from the papacy by his tacit resignation. St. Robert Bellarmine is a Doctor of the Church principally due to his ecclesiology.
Canon 188 is not used to judge a pope. It specifically says that the office holder tacitly resigns from his office when his heresy becomes manifest. There is no judging there. It is the office holder resigning from the office. Simple.
First, just because st. Bellarmine says that the heretical Pontiff falls automatically from the papacy and then, he can be judged and punished by the Church does not make it necessarily de fide. It was only his fallible opinion on the matter. There is simply not consensus among theologians about what happens in the case of a heretical pope so this is a speculation but not a dogma or even a Church teaching. This lack of consensus can be easily proven.
Second, let's say that the speculation is true and the heretical Pope falls tacitly from office. No condemnation required. How the individual Catholic in the pew is supposed to gain the certitude that the Pope is indeed a manifest heretic and therefore no longer Pope? There are literally millions of Catholics out there that don't even think the conciliar Popes have been bad popes at all, let alone, heretics. What parameters are used to determine this manifest heresy? Articles and news from the ʝʊdɛօ - Masonic owned media? At this point, if the individual Catholic arrives to that conclusion can ONLY be following his private judgment and nothing else. It can get pretty risky really fast.
On the contrary, since the Church discussed all aspects of Infallibility at the Vatican Council, there has been a solid consensus that St. Robert Bellarmine is correct. All approved Catholic works since 1870 state categorically that a pope who is a manifest, or explicit, heretic automatically ceases to be pope. This is absolutely solid. And, yes, it can be discerned by individual moral judgment and immediately acted upon by the individual, though a new election cannot be held until the electors themselves all recognize that fact.
Names of such books, page numbers, and theologians please.
To demonstrate such consensus more than a couple of books and a couple of names will be needed. And of course, abstain from sede websites that just copy and paste quotes in isolation from each other.
Even better, cite any Ecclesiastical pronouncements that support this claim to actually make it "Church teaching".
I said all the imprimatured books after 1870, for the general laity & clergy, categorically state it one way. Do you have one example from such, after 1870, that that says there is more than one opinion?
I will give you two, for now:
(2) ob fidem (on account of his faith or rather want of faith, i.e. heresy).
In point of fact however, heresy is the only legitimate ground. For a
heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot,
therefore, be its head.
- Catholic Encyclopedia (1908) [Vol. IV p.435] COUNCILS
An heretical pope necessarily ceases to be head of the Church, for by
his heresy he is no longer a member thereof: in the event of his still
claiming the Roman see a general council, improperly so-called
because without the pope, could remove him. But this is not deposition,
since by his own act he is no longer pope.
- A CATHOLIC DICTIONARY, Attwater (1951) . Deposition
Why would you cite a VII Author in your support of sedevacantism?. Very ironic, unless you are just not aware:
Donald Attwater
"Lay People in the Church: A Study for a Theology of the Laity by Yves M.J.
Congar, O.P. Translated by Donald Attwater 1959".
Yves Congar is the intellectual mind behind VII and Attwater translated his book!!
-
For the record, would Cantarella care to tell us who the last anti-pope was? or even the last declared anti-pope? What about the Fr popes of GWS?? :detective:
-
Then please respond:
1. How the individual Catholic in the pew is supposed to gain the certitude that the Pope is indeed a manifest heretic and therefore no longer Pope? What parameters are used to determine this manifest heresy? Articles and news from the ʝʊdɛօ - Masonic owned media are not necessarily reliable, which is what the common folk usually has access to.
2. Explain why this manifest heresy must be formal, but not material and furthermore, how can you demonstrate the charges of formal heresy in the conciliar Popes. Where is your evidence?
If a see my neighbor stealing something from my house, I can say he is a thief. I have no right to put him in jail, since I have to follow a legal process. Such process does not impede to say he is a thief and to act accordingly.
You surely have seen pictures and maybe watch videos of JPII worshiping with Jєωιѕн, pagans and schismatics. You might have read the official docuмents published in official sites or in the official media about Francis declarations.
Of course, one might say that even the official media and the official sites may be controlled by the enemy, which could be true. But then, how can we know if Francis really was elected pope or BXVI really abdicated, or even if JPII really died?
There are some heresies not easy to be catch. One may use an incorrect expression that may mislead others and make them to believe something false. In those cases, the infractor has to be warned about what s/he is saying and the danger in the expressions used.
However, there are other heresies that do not need any warning. If a Catholic priest denies the Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ, that priest is a heretic. You don't need to warn him, since he already knows what the catechism says and what every Catholic must believe regarding the Resurrection.
If JPII prayed and worshiped false gods, he knew he was doing something against the religion. If Francis says that he does not believe in a Catholic God, he knows that what he says is against the Catholic doctrine.
But I don't think I need to tell you what you already know. The conciliar popes have tried to destroy the Catholic Church and built a false church in its place to usurp the True Church.
«He that is not with me, is against me». The conciliar popes are not with Our Lord and therefore are against Him.
-
Then please respond:
1. How the individual Catholic in the pew is supposed to gain the certitude that the Pope is indeed a manifest heretic and therefore no longer Pope? What parameters are used to determine this manifest heresy? Articles and news from the ʝʊdɛօ - Masonic owned media are not necessarily reliable, which is what the common folk usually has access to.
2. Explain why this manifest heresy must be formal, but not material and furthermore, how can you demonstrate the charges of formal heresy in the conciliar Popes. Where is your evidence?
If a see my neighbor stealing something from my house, I can say he is a thief. I have no right to put him in jail, since I have to follow a legal process. Such process does not impede to say he is a thief and to act accordingly.
You surely have seen pictures and maybe watch videos of JPII worshiping with Jєωιѕн, pagans and schismatics. You might have read the official docuмents published in official sites or in the official media about Francis declarations.
Of course, one might say that even the official media and the official sites may be controlled by the enemy, which could be true. But then, how can we know if Francis really was elected pope or BXVI really abdicated, or even if JPII really died?
There are some heresies not easy to be catch. One may use an incorrect expression that may mislead others and make them to believe something false. In those cases, the infractor has to be warned about what s/he is saying and the danger in the expressions used.
However, there are other heresies that do not need any warning. If a Catholic priest denies the Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ, that priest is a heretic. You don't need to warn him, since he already knows what the catechism says and what every Catholic must believe regarding the Resurrection.
If JPII prayed and worshiped false gods, he knew he was doing something against the religion. If Francis says that he does not believe in a Catholic God, he knows that what he says is against the Catholic doctrine.
But I don't think I need to tell you what you already know. The conciliar popes have tried to destroy the Catholic Church and built a false church in its place to usurp the True Church.
«He that is not with me, is against me». The conciliar popes are not with Our Lord and therefore are against Him.
Heresy is the persistent denial of even one single Catholic dogma.
In one sentence respond what it is the dogma of Faith that the conciliar Popes have expressly and obstinately denied?
By the way, the 1917 code of canon law teaches that "to actively assist at sacred functions of non-Catholics" only renders a man suspect of heresy. This is also true for "knowingly and willingly assist in the propagation of heresy". The man therefore, is not considered a manifest heretic but only "suspect of heresy" until proper admonition. There is a process that is involved as follows:
"Heresy" is not a word to be toying around.
‘the suspect of heresy who, once he has been admonished, does not remove the cause of the suspicion is to be prohibited from legitimate actions and, if he be a cleric, when the warning has been once repeated in vain, he will be suspended a divinis; and if the suspect of heresy does not amend himself in the space of six full months, starting from the moment when he incurred the penalty, he will be considered as a heretic, subject to the penalties of heretics’. Let us observe from this how patient and prudent the Church is in respect of such people. In addition to the warning which must be reiterated in the case of a cleric, she gives six months for the retraction or for ultimate clarifications before imposing the penalties proper to heretics. These penalties are not automatic; rather, they must be imposed by the bishop who may ultimately have reasons for not putting them into effect”. only renders a man suspect of heresy.
-
Does Cantarella deny that there is such a thing as an anti-pope? If not then who was the last anti-pope( or declared anti-pope)? :shocked:
-
Yes, Pope Honorius was not condemned as heretic during his pontificate and he of course, retained his papacy. However, as said before, the conciliar Popes have not been condemned as manifest heretics either. Up to this point, it is only an speculation.
It is not the condemnation which causes the loss of office. It is the tacit resignation of the Pope himself by falling into public heresy.
2. Canon 188 does not apply to the Roman Pontiff either. It is de fide that the Pope can be judged by none in this world, he may be rebuked and corrected, but that would need to happen by the Church.
3. St. Robert Bellarmine says that the pope can be judged by the Church:
Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: 'He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.'
That is terrible reading comprehension on your part. St. Robert Bellarmine (Doctor of the Church) does NOT say the Pope can be judged by the Church. He says the exact opposite! The Church judges the man who has already fallen from the papacy by his tacit resignation. St. Robert Bellarmine is a Doctor of the Church principally due to his ecclesiology.
Canon 188 is not used to judge a pope. It specifically says that the office holder tacitly resigns from his office when his heresy becomes manifest. There is no judging there. It is the office holder resigning from the office. Simple.
First, just because st. Bellarmine says that the heretical Pontiff falls automatically from the papacy and then, he can be judged and punished by the Church does not make it necessarily de fide. It was only his fallible opinion on the matter. There is simply not consensus among theologians about what happens in the case of a heretical pope so this is a speculation but not a dogma or even a Church teaching. This lack of consensus can be easily proven.
Second, let's say that the speculation is true and the heretical Pope falls tacitly from office. No condemnation required. How the individual Catholic in the pew is supposed to gain the certitude that the Pope is indeed a manifest heretic and therefore no longer Pope? There are literally millions of Catholics out there that don't even think the conciliar Popes have been bad popes at all, let alone, heretics. What parameters are used to determine this manifest heresy? Articles and news from the ʝʊdɛօ - Masonic owned media? At this point, if the individual Catholic arrives to that conclusion can ONLY be following his private judgment and nothing else. It can get pretty risky really fast.
On the contrary, since the Church discussed all aspects of Infallibility at the Vatican Council, there has been a solid consensus that St. Robert Bellarmine is correct. All approved Catholic works since 1870 state categorically that a pope who is a manifest, or explicit, heretic automatically ceases to be pope. This is absolutely solid. And, yes, it can be discerned by individual moral judgment and immediately acted upon by the individual, though a new election cannot be held until the electors themselves all recognize that fact.
Names of such books, page numbers, and theologians please.
To demonstrate such consensus more than a couple of books and a couple of names will be needed. And of course, abstain from sede websites that just copy and paste quotes in isolation from each other.
Even better, cite any Ecclesiastical pronouncements that support this claim to actually make it "Church teaching".
I said all the imprimatured books after 1870, for the general laity & clergy, categorically state it one way. Do you have one example from such, after 1870, that that says there is more than one opinion?
I will give you two, for now:
(2) ob fidem (on account of his faith or rather want of faith, i.e. heresy).
In point of fact however, heresy is the only legitimate ground. For a
heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot,
therefore, be its head.
- Catholic Encyclopedia (1908) [Vol. IV p.435] COUNCILS
An heretical pope necessarily ceases to be head of the Church, for by
his heresy he is no longer a member thereof: in the event of his still
claiming the Roman see a general council, improperly so-called
because without the pope, could remove him. But this is not deposition,
since by his own act he is no longer pope.
- A CATHOLIC DICTIONARY, Attwater (1951) . Deposition
Why would you cite a VII Author in your support of sedevacantism?. Very ironic, unless you are just not aware:
Donald Attwater
"Lay People in the Church: A Study for a Theology of the Laity by Yves M.J.
Congar, O.P. Translated by Donald Attwater 1959".
Yves Congar is the intellectual mind behind VII and Attwater translated his book!!
What! No response?
This only re-confirms that sedevacantists do not have a leg to stand on not even in their own heads.
The "manifest heresy" of the conciliar Popes is endlessly claimed, but is yet to be illustrated.
-
What! No response?
This only re-confirms that sedevacantists do not have a leg to stand on not even in their own heads.
The "manifest heresy" of the conciliar Popes is endlessly claimed, but is yet to be illustrated.
No, Cantarella. That's not a logical conclusion. There might be many reasons for you to have gotten no response, but you just pick out the one fits your purposes or believing.
And sedevacantists think the see is vacant because the pope fell in heresy, no because the pope cannot fall in heresy.
-
What! No response?
This only re-confirms that sedevacantists do not have a leg to stand on not even in their own heads.
The "manifest heresy" of the conciliar Popes is endlessly claimed, but is yet to be illustrated.
No, Cantarella. That's not a logical conclusion. There might be many reasons for you to have gotten no response, but you just pick out the one fits your purposes or believing.
And sedevacantists think the see is vacant because the pope fell in heresy, no because the pope cannot fall in heresy.
Yes, but they don't even know, let alone, can "prove" what is the formal heresy of the conciliar Popes so their argument is incomplete, at best.
Again,
Heresy is the persistent denial of even one single Catholic dogma.
In one sentence respond what it is the dogma of Faith that the conciliar Popes have expressly and obstinately denied?
-
You also conveniently ignored the part about the admonition procedure for suspect heretics that the Catholic Church follows. There have been five Popes of Rome after Vatican II Council but none of them have even been "admonished" for heresy by no one. This is more than 50 years ago.
By the way, the 1917 code of canon law teaches that "to actively assist at sacred functions of non-Catholics" only renders a man suspect of heresy. This is also true for "knowingly and willingly assist in the propagation of heresy". The man therefore, is not considered a manifest heretic but only "suspect of heresy" until proper admonition. There is a process that is involved as follows:
"Heresy" is not a word to be toying around.
Canon 2315 said:
‘the suspect of heresy who, once he has been admonished, does not remove the cause of the suspicion is to be prohibited from legitimate actions and, if he be a cleric, when the warning has been once repeated in vain, he will be suspended a divinis; and if the suspect of heresy does not amend himself in the space of six full months, starting from the moment when he incurred the penalty, he will be considered as a heretic, subject to the penalties of heretics’. Let us observe from this how patient and prudent the Church is in respect of such people. In addition to the warning which must be reiterated in the case of a cleric, she gives six months for the retraction or for ultimate clarifications before imposing the penalties proper to heretics. These penalties are not automatic; rather, they must be imposed by the bishop who may ultimately have reasons for not putting them into effect”. only renders a man suspect of heresy.
Even st. Bellarmine, who you are so fond of, talks about these admonitions for suspect heretics, or do you disagree with him on that?
-
cantarella:
In one sentence respond what it is the dogma of Faith that the conciliar Popes have expressly and obstinately denied?
Surely, cantarella, you must know tha most of these sedes, who haunt the Catholic blog sites, are incapable of responding "in one sentence." They multiply sentences like bacteria multiply. To wrest the words of St. Paul, Ephesian 3, they endeavor to make you and the rest of the Catholic world as they are. They want you to be "strengthened with power" in the inner man in order to comprehend what is "the breadth and length and height and depth" of SVism. They are inexhaustible. Truth be told, their real religion is SVism, not Catholicism. They have replaced the latter with the former. BTW, most of them despise Bp. Williamson, as well. :thinking:
-
I wonder whether the Feeneyites would be singing a different tune if the Novus Ordo church didn't provide them a cozy place set up shop.
-
I wonder whether the Feeneyites would be singing a different tune if the Novus Ordo church didn't provide them a cozy place set up shop.
I wonder if anyone will at least make an honest attempt to answer Cantarella's clear question with an actual answer.
In one sentence respond what it is the dogma of Faith that the conciliar Popes have expressly and obstinately denied?
-
cantarella: In one sentence respond what it is the dogma of Faith that the conciliar Popes have expressly and obstinately denied?
Surely, cantarella, you must know tha most of these sedes, who haunt the Catholic blog sites, are incapable of responding "in one sentence." They multiply sentences like bacteria multiply. To wrest the words of St. Paul, Ephesian 3, they endeavor to make you and the rest of the Catholic world as they are. They want you to be "strengthened with power" in the inner man in order to comprehend what is "the breadth and length and height and depth" of SVism. They are inexhaustible. Truth be told, their real religion is SVism, not Catholicism. They have replaced the latter with the former. BTW, most of them despise Bp. Williamson, as well. :thinking:
If you were to separate SVs from the R & R people (and that may take some doing because there is so much overlapping), I would say the former need to have a degree of clarity and realism in their thinking, whilst the latter prefer to endure what is mysterious and rely on the supernatural to sort out the human mess. There are benefits in both approaches but I feel there is little to be gained by idly sitting, seeing further deterioration and gambling on things turning out alright in the end without much human endeavour.
Traditionalism has got caught in a bind; it relies on its own monumental precedence to sustain itself, forgetting the need to practice it in life. The indult crowd tend to be hobbyists because they are mere performers of the rituals of another age. The modern SSPX is finally coming to terms with this popular solution and seeks to limit its mission, allowing its besieged followers to integrate better in society. The Resistance waits and waits for a miraculous restoration and is forever dusting off sundry prophesies from the past, giving them a new lick of paint and presenting them as holy writ. It gives authority to countless rogues and charlatans because it likes the idea of a church so in need of its services; the remnant redeeming the errant Church.
Catholics should expect more from a church and not lazily get used to her degeneration and ultimately her redundancy. Therefore, I see little point in belonging to an entity that is so alien on grounds of habituation and superficial loyalty. ABL was excommunicated from the church he recognised and claimed it was a badge of honour while Bp. Williamson was pleased to be reunited with her. Students of logic need not apply!
-
wessex:
If you were to separate SVs from the R & R people (and that may take some doing because there is so much overlapping), I would say the former need to have a degree of clarity and realism in their thinking, whilst the latter prefer to endure what is mysterious and rely on the supernatural to sort out the human mess. There are benefits in both approaches but I feel there is little to be gained by idly sitting, seeing further deterioration and gambling on things turning out alright in the end without much human endeavour.
Traditionalism has got caught in a bind; it relies on its own monumental precedence to sustain itself, forgetting the need to practice it in life. The indult crowd tend to be hobbyists because they are mere performers of the rituals of another age. The modern SSPX is finally coming to terms with this popular solution and seeks to limit its mission, allowing its besieged followers to integrate better in society. The Resistance waits and waits for a miraculous restoration and is forever dusting off sundry prophesies from the past, giving them a new lick of paint and presenting them as holy writ. It gives authority to countless rogues and charlatans because it likes the idea of a church so in need of its services; the remnant redeeming the errant Church.
Catholics should expect more from a church and not lazily get used to her degeneration and ultimately her redundancy. Therefore, I see little point in belonging to an entity that is so alien on grounds of habituation and superficial loyalty. ABL was excommunicated from the church he recognised and claimed it was a badge of honour while Bp. Williamson was pleased to be reunited with her. Students of logic need not apply!
HUH?? :tinfoil:
-
Wessex, I fear the depth of your analysis, which should be clear to most Traditionalists so called, is flying by outside of the general fields of perception, and continuing back to the cosmic void.
Traditionalism has got caught in a bind; it relies on its own monumental precedence to sustain itself, forgetting the need to practice it in life. The indult crowd tend to be hobbyists because they are mere performers of the rituals of another age. The modern SSPX is finally coming to terms with this popular solution and seeks to limit its mission, allowing its besieged followers to integrate better in society. The Resistance waits and waits for a miraculous restoration and is forever dusting off sundry prophesies from the past, giving them a new lick of paint and presenting them as holy writ. It gives authority to countless rogues and charlatans because it likes the idea of a church so in need of its services; the remnant redeeming the errant Church.
That is as accurate as an assessment as can be had, lost among 30 plus page threads which quickly devolve into visions and minutae The sects are at war while "restoration" waits in the ante room. Tradition is indeed trapped, by the indifference to reality.
-
I wonder whether the Feeneyites would be singing a different tune if the Novus Ordo church didn't provide them a cozy place set up shop.
I wonder if anyone will at least make an honest attempt to answer Cantarella's clear question with an actual answer.
In one sentence respond what it is the dogma of Faith that the conciliar Popes have expressly and obstinately denied?
As if no one has ever replied to that question before in the thousands of posts on the same topic. :rolleyes:
So, let's really be honest here. No matter what answer is given it will never be good enough nor honest enough for certain posters. And those same posters probably wouldn't be asking these questions if their Novus Ordo church didn't allow Feeneyism to be preached within it.
-
cantarella:
In one sentence respond what it is the dogma of Faith that the conciliar Popes have expressly and obstinately denied?
vermont: As if no one has ever replied to that question before in the thousands of posts on the same topic.
2V, let's pretend that the question has never been answered in one post, let alone "thousands." Please humor some of us. In one sentence, (and we can probably admit two or three sentences more), please tell us a dogma of Faith which even one conciliar pope has "obstinately denied." Is it the Trinity? the Divinity of Christ? the Resurrection? the New Covenant in Christ's Blood? the repudiation of marriage as between a man and a woman? The rite of ordination? Last rites? etc. , etc.
-
The thrice defined dogma that every Concilliar Pope has denied is: "There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church."
-
How about a few words from the Archbishop, Domitilla:
From An Open Letter to Confused Christians by Abp. Marcel Lefebvre
http://mundabor.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/archbishop-lefebvre-on-extra-ecclesiam-nulla-salus/
From the “Open Letter to Confused Catholics”, available online in English from the SSPX Asia, we read the following:
First, the late Archbishop sets the main points of the question:
(interesting passages in red)
The Church is the one ark of salvation, and we must not be afraid to affirm it. You have often heard it said, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”–a dictum which offends contemporary minds. It is easy to believe that this doctrine is no longer in effect, that it has been dropped. It seems excessively severe.
Yet nothing, in fact, has changed; nothing can be changed in this area. Our Lord did not found a number of churches: He founded only One. There is only one Cross by which we can be saved, and that Cross has been given to the Catholic Church. It has not been given to others. To His Church, His mystical bride, Christ has given all graces. No grace in the world, no grace in the history of humanity is distributed except through her.
Then, he proceeds to explain how proper Catholic doctrine is rightly interpreted:
Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian’s formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” also reject the Creed, “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.
Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”
The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.
The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state theTruth.
-
Domitilla, I guess I should have posed a question from my last post. Which of the conciliar popes has essentially denied what the Archbishop wrote about EENS, and his interpretation of it? Or stated another way: Which of the Archbishop's qualifications as to the true meaning of EENS have conciliar popes clearly rejected? I ask this in all seriousness. If you can clarify for me and for others how the conciliar popes and ABL clearly differed from one another on EENS, then please have at it.
-
Apparently, these popes agree with the Archbishop. They all believe that there is indeed salvation outside of the Church and that Baptism is not necessary to obtain it.
The Archbishop was not that far removed from the Conciliar doctrinal position, both believing that good will can save you.
-
In one sentence respond what it is the dogma of Faith that the conciliar Popes have expressly and obstinately denied?
As if no one has ever replied to that question before in the thousands of posts on the same topic. :rolleyes:
I think it is a fair question. Most Trads would agree that the VII Popes have been very suspect of heresy, but how can you pinpoint just one proof that they have been pertinaceous heretics ? What does the Church define as proof of being a pertinaceous heretic (rather than suspect of..) and where and when has it happened ?
If I had the answer to that question, I would certainly not beat around the bush and I would have been more successful in making others 'see it'.
Have you ever read this article by J Daly : Heresy in History (http://strobertbellarmine.net/heresyhistory.html) ? It makes you realize that the above question is not so silly after all.
-
The thrice defined dogma that every Concilliar Pope has denied is: "There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church."
Where is the evidence? Please cite an official docuмent where we can find this formal rejection of EENS by the Conciliar Popes.
-
:smoke-pot:
-
I wonder whether the Feeneyites would be singing a different tune if the Novus Ordo church didn't provide them a cozy place set up shop.
I wonder if anyone will at least make an honest attempt to answer Cantarella's clear question with an actual answer.
In one sentence respond what it is the dogma of Faith that the conciliar Popes have expressly and obstinately denied?
Every time I read one of these kinds of threads, I'm inched a little closer to full-blown sede. So Frank the Fraud can sputter around doing violence to the concept of the Holy Trinity, saying there is no Catholic God, no God, no God-spray, and that it's just the three amigos; St. :barf: Pope JPII :barf: can kiss the koran, worship with infidels and heretics, and accept pagan blessings; Montini can bastardize and blatantly protestantize the "mass;" but just because they didn't beat a drum and respectively explicitly proclaim there is no God--(well--Frank can even pull that off)--the god(s) of hindus, mohammadeans, zionists, etc. are equal to, and as deserving of worship as, the Catholic God (oops--there isn't one)--they must not be heretical.
-
I wonder whether the Feeneyites would be singing a different tune if the Novus Ordo church didn't provide them a cozy place set up shop.
I wonder if anyone will at least make an honest attempt to answer Cantarella's clear question with an actual answer.
In one sentence respond what it is the dogma of Faith that the conciliar Popes have expressly and obstinately denied?
Every time I read one of these kinds of threads, I'm inched a little closer to full-blown sede. So Frank the Fraud can sputter around doing violence to the concept of the Holy Trinity, saying there is no Catholic God, no God, no God-spray, and that it's just the three amigos; St. :barf: Pope JPII :barf: can kiss the koran, worship with infidels and heretics, and accept pagan blessings; Montini can bastardize and blatantly protestantize the "mass;" but just because they didn't beat a drum and respectively explicitly proclaim there is no God--(well--Frank can even pull that off)--the god(s) of hindus, mohammadeans, zionists, etc. are equal to, and as deserving of worship as, the Catholic God (oops--there isn't one)--they must not be heretical.
Classic, another emotion - ridden and cluttered response. Sorry but rumors on the internet is not evidence, nor does it make it fact.
So sedes read something on the internet that says it is true, therefore it is?
What "sources" are used in their investigation?. Why putting one's trust in Jєωιѕн owned media over magisterial Vatican docuмents, for example. No sede is able to provide any proof of the alleged formal heresy of every Conciliar Pope.
The intention here is to distinguish between what sedes believe and what is fact; but sedes cannot provide any facts. They only have half-cooked conspiracy theories that are not even all the way coherent in their heads.
Risking one's soul over something uncertain is not worthy.
-
Every time I read one of these kinds of threads, I'm inched a little closer to full-blown sede.
I don't think that is a very sound theological argument for becoming sede.
You must also remember than no one here is saying that these Popes are good, or are to be excused in any way for their scandals. They are no doubt bad shepherds, but the sticky point here is "when has any of these Popes fulfilled the criteria for being considered a pertinaceous heretic, according to the Church ?"
Are they pertinaceous heretics when enough people say they are ? Or when the Dimond brothers say so ? Or has the Church ever laid down proper criteria and procedures by which we ought to abide ?
-
I wonder whether the Feeneyites would be singing a different tune if the Novus Ordo church didn't provide them a cozy place set up shop.
I wonder if anyone will at least make an honest attempt to answer Cantarella's clear question with an actual answer.
In one sentence respond what it is the dogma of Faith that the conciliar Popes have expressly and obstinately denied?
Every time I read one of these kinds of threads, I'm inched a little closer to full-blown sede. So Frank the Fraud can sputter around doing violence to the concept of the Holy Trinity, saying there is no Catholic God, no God, no God-spray, and that it's just the three amigos; St. :barf: Pope JPII :barf: can kiss the koran, worship with infidels and heretics, and accept pagan blessings; Montini can bastardize and blatantly protestantize the "mass;" but just because they didn't beat a drum and respectively explicitly proclaim there is no God--(well--Frank can even pull that off)--the god(s) of hindus, mohammadeans, zionists, etc. are equal to, and as deserving of worship as, the Catholic God (oops--there isn't one)--they must not be heretical.
Living Popes eh? Then Francis should insert the names of JXXIII, PVI, and JPII in the Canon of "Ord/ExtOrd" forms of Masses and insist that it is recited out loud.... :smoke-pot:
-
The following example from history may illustrate the seriousness of the question at hand :
Erasmus of Rotterdam
On the subject of Erasmus of Rotterdam, St Alphonsus Liguori tells us that he called the invocation of Our Lady and of the saints idolatry; he condemned monasteries and religious vows and rules, opposed the celibacy of the clergy, jeered at indulgences, relics, feasts, fasts and even auricular confession. He went do far as to claim that man is justified by faith alone and to call into doubt the authority of the Scriptures and of the Councils. St Alphonsus adds that Erasmus accused of audacity the granting of the name of "God" to the Holy Ghost! So it is not surprising to see St Alphonsus quote the proverb according to which Luther hatched out the egg that Erasmus had laid. Nor is it surprising to learn from him that "several writers openly accuse Erasmus of heresy".
But was Erasmus for all that a heretic? He was esteemed by several popes, one of whom asked him to refute Luther. He remained a close friend of St Thomas More. St Alphonsus concludes in his own name, with Bernini, that Erasmus died with the character of an unsound Catholic, but not of a heretic, as he submitted all his writings to the judgement of the Church. (History of Heresies and their Refutation)
What is quite certain is that notwithstanding his doctrines, which even before the Council of Trent could scarcely be considered excusable from the censure of heresy, notwithstanding numerous contemporary complaints and refutations, and notwithstanding his great learning, which diminished the possibility of blameless ignorance, it was and is permissible to consider Erasmus a Catholic. Were one to hold him definitely a heretic, it would follow that Pope Paul III, St Thomas More and many other excellent Catholics remained in communion with a heretic.
Those who today see pertinacity on all sides among traditional Catholics could hardly fail to hold that Erasmus was a heretic and therefore to censure all these good Catholics as heretics or schismatics for remaining in communion with him. Such a conclusion is clearly incorrect and can only be based on false premises.
Source : Heresey in History (http://strobertbellarmine.net/heresyhistory.html)
-
I wonder whether the Feeneyites would be singing a different tune if the Novus Ordo church didn't provide them a cozy place set up shop.
I wonder if anyone will at least make an honest attempt to answer Cantarella's clear question with an actual answer.
In one sentence respond what it is the dogma of Faith that the conciliar Popes have expressly and obstinately denied?
Every time I read one of these kinds of threads, I'm inched a little closer to full-blown sede. So Frank the Fraud can sputter around doing violence to the concept of the Holy Trinity, saying there is no Catholic God, no God, no God-spray, and that it's just the three amigos; St. :barf: Pope JPII :barf: can kiss the koran, worship with infidels and heretics, and accept pagan blessings; Montini can bastardize and blatantly protestantize the "mass;" but just because they didn't beat a drum and respectively explicitly proclaim there is no God--(well--Frank can even pull that off)--the god(s) of hindus, mohammadeans, zionists, etc. are equal to, and as deserving of worship as, the Catholic God (oops--there isn't one)--they must not be heretical.
Classic, another emotion - ridden and cluttered response. Sorry but rumors on the internet is not evidence, nor does it make it fact.
So sedes read something on the internet that says it is true, therefore it is?
What "sources" are used in their investigation?. Why putting one's trust in Jєωιѕн owned media over magisterial Vatican docuмents, for example. No sede is able to provide any proof of the alleged formal heresy of every Conciliar Pope.
The intention here is to distinguish between what sedes believe and what is fact; but sedes cannot provide any facts. They only have half-cooked conspiracy theories that are not even all the way coherent in their heads.
Risking one's soul over something uncertain is not worthy.
As for Frank's studderings and his interview with the atheist journalist, I read those heresies on the Vatican's very own website before the backlash proved more than they expected and took it down.
As for your new "saint" JPII's antics--I've seen pics.
And are you denying the Assisi events? :roll-laugh2:
Have you been to the Bill Clinton School of Denial or something?
Come out of your stupor!
-
As for Frank's studderings and his interview with the atheist journalist, I read those heresies on the Vatican's very own website before the backlash proved more than they expected and took it down.
Ohca,
What is heresy?
Please define in canonical terms what heresy is.
See, 100% of sedes have decided on their own that a heretical Pope loses his pontificate immediately (which is only an speculation by the way, not Church teaching). However, 98% of these same sedes are unable to point out what exactly is the formal heresy of the Conciliar Popes and virtually 0 % is able to provide legitimate evidence on their accusation.
If a person calls himself a sede, the first homework he should do is finding real evidence for the alledged heresy. Otherwise, all his argument falls apart. Because not such evidence really exists, Sedevacantism is so easily debunked.
-
As for Frank's studderings and his interview with the atheist journalist, I read those heresies on the Vatican's very own website before the backlash proved more than they expected and took it down.
Ohca,
What is heresy?
Please define in canonical terms what heresy is.
See, 100% of sedes have decided on their own that a heretical Pope loses his pontificate immediately (which is only an speculation by the way, not Church teaching). However, 98% of these same sedes are unable to point out what exactly is the formal heresy of the Conciliar Popes and virtually 0 % is able to provide legitimate evidence on their accusation.
If a person calls himself a sede, the first homework he should do is finding real evidence for the alledged heresy. Otherwise, all his argument falls apart. Because not such evidence really exists, Sedevacantism is so easily debunked.
We don't have to find a canonical heresy to say that a pope is not a true pope. As we see when papal infallibility was defined in 1870, it mentions that he will be prevented from "erring" against faith or morals. It doesn't say contradict or deny a previously defined dogma of the faith. To "err" means a mistake that harms faith or morals.
Additionally, "papal infallibility" is not the same as "Church infallibility". Papal infallibility is merely rare and solemn instances where the pope shines the entire Church infallibility on one act of his, in the name of the Church. The scope of Church infallibility, on the other hand, is thousands of times more common and frequent than papal infallibility.
There are quotes that solidly reveal just what I explained above:
St. Thomas Aquinas:
"it would be blasphemy to say that the Church does anything in vain."
Council of Trent. Sess. 22, canon 7:
"If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema."
Auctorem Fidei, 1794. CONDEMNED:
'the Church, governed by the Holy Spirit, could impose a disciplinary law that would be not only useless and more burdensome for the faithful than Christian liberty allows, but also dangerous and harmful"
Quo Graviora, 1833:
"The Church is the pillar and foundation of truthall of which truth is taught by the Holy Spirit. Should the church be able to order, yield to, or permit those things which tend toward the destruction of souls and the disgrace and detriment of the sacrament instituted by Christ?"
If it ever appears God allowed "the pope" to do these things anyway....there is only one conclusion: the man purporting to be pope is not a true pope, otherwise God would have prevented him from giving his approval.
Oh, so now it is not heresy but mere error that deposes the Pope? That is a new one. And of course this "error" can be determined subjectively by the individual Catholic in the pew, right?. Good luck finding support for that claim.
Nado is so off the mark with this one that probably the only people that could take him seriously are the kind of lunatics that follow Pope Michael in Kansas.
-
As for Frank's studderings and his interview with the atheist journalist, I read those heresies on the Vatican's very own website before the backlash proved more than they expected and took it down.
Ohca,
What is heresy?
Please define in canonical terms what heresy is.
See, 100% of sedes have decided on their own that a heretical Pope loses his pontificate immediately (which is only an speculation by the way, not Church teaching). However, 98% of these same sedes are unable to point out what exactly is the formal heresy of the Conciliar Popes and virtually 0 % is able to provide legitimate evidence on their accusation.
If a person calls himself a sede, the first homework he should do is finding real evidence for the alledged heresy. Otherwise, all his argument falls apart. Because not such evidence really exists, Sedevacantism is so easily debunked.
We don't have to find a canonical heresy to say that a pope is not a true pope. As we see when papal infallibility was defined in 1870, it mentions that he will be prevented from "erring" against faith or morals. It doesn't say contradict or deny a previously defined dogma of the faith. To "err" means a mistake that harms faith or morals.
Additionally, "papal infallibility" is not the same as "Church infallibility". Papal infallibility is merely rare and solemn instances where the pope shines the entire Church infallibility on one act of his, in the name of the Church. The scope of Church infallibility, on the other hand, is thousands of times more common and frequent than papal infallibility.
There are quotes that solidly reveal just what I explained above:
St. Thomas Aquinas:
"it would be blasphemy to say that the Church does anything in vain."
Council of Trent. Sess. 22, canon 7:
"If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema."
Auctorem Fidei, 1794. CONDEMNED:
'the Church, governed by the Holy Spirit, could impose a disciplinary law that would be not only useless and more burdensome for the faithful than Christian liberty allows, but also dangerous and harmful"
Quo Graviora, 1833:
"The Church is the pillar and foundation of truthall of which truth is taught by the Holy Spirit. Should the church be able to order, yield to, or permit those things which tend toward the destruction of souls and the disgrace and detriment of the sacrament instituted by Christ?"
If it ever appears God allowed "the pope" to do these things anyway....there is only one conclusion: the man purporting to be pope is not a true pope, otherwise God would have prevented him from giving his approval.
Oh, so now it is not heresy but mere error that deposes the Pope? That is a new one. And of course this "error" can be determined subjectively by the individual Catholic in the pew, right?. Good luck finding support for that claim.
Nado is so off the mark with this one that probably the only people that could take him seriously are the kind of lunatics that follow Pope Michael in Kansas.
The fact that you can't offer the slightest rebuttal says it all.
Yes. The rebuttal is that this claim is utterly false. Most theologians do not even believe that a Pope can ever fall into heresy but they can in fact fall into error when not teaching infallibly. Infallibility only protects him when speaking ex cathedra. In the Catholic Church, heresy is considered to be the only reason for legitimate resistance from inferiors to superiors.
All of a sudden Nado here is disagreeing with St. Bellarmine himself. For a sede, that is having some nerve!
Although it clearly follows from the circuмstances that the Pope can err at times and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not … it is said in the Acts of the Apostles. “One ought to obey God rather than man:” therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truths of the Sacraments, or the commands of natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over (despiciendus). [as quoted in Turrencremata's Summa de Eccles.]
Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: 'He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.'
Honestly, better recant this error before falling into total discredit.
-
Going back to seriousness, are sedes aware that in the Catholic Church there is a process for determining heresy in a person?. Regardless of what the sedes claim, it does not happen automatically.
Does any sede here dare to disagree with st. Bellarmine himself on the matter?
“The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom the manifestly heretical Pope is not “ipso facto” deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended. For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority, and from reason, that the manifest heretic is “ipso facto” deposed. The argument from authority is based on Saint Paul, who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate – which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence”. (14)
So according to St. Bellarmine, who bases his opinion on St. Paul, a heretic is considered to be manifestly obstinate after receiving two warnings.
-
We don't have to find a canonical heresy to say that a pope is not a true pope.
I think you do. If the Pope is only in error or just a bad Pope, then you have no basis for assuming he is not the Pope anymore, except wishful thinking. That's the whole point we're talking about here : prove that the Pope is a pertinaceous heretic.
As we see when papal infallibility was defined in 1870, it mentions that he will be prevented from "erring" against faith or morals. It doesn't say contradict or deny a previously defined dogma of the faith. To "err" means a mistake that harms faith or morals.
So then, can you prove when and where this 'ex cathedra' error happened ? I believe there are very few instances where Papal infallibility has been used (if any) since VII. Again, the burden of proof is on the SV.
Additionally, "papal infallibility" is not the same as "Church infallibility". Papal infallibility is merely rare and solemn instances where the pope shines the entire Church infallibility on one act of his, in the name of the Church. The scope of Church infallibility, on the other hand, is thousands of times more common and frequent than papal infallibility.
I don't think you're going to get a clear path to SV by using this argument.
There are quotes that solidly reveal just what I explained above:
St. Thomas Aquinas:
"it would be blasphemy to say that the Church does anything in vain."
Council of Trent. Sess. 22, canon 7:
"If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema."
Auctorem Fidei, 1794. CONDEMNED:
'the Church, governed by the Holy Spirit, could impose a disciplinary law that would be not only useless and more burdensome for the faithful than Christian liberty allows, but also dangerous and harmful"
Quo Graviora, 1833:
"The Church is the pillar and foundation of truthall of which truth is taught by the Holy Spirit. Should the church be able to order, yield to, or permit those things which tend toward the destruction of souls and the disgrace and detriment of the sacrament instituted by Christ?"
The problem I see with these quotes is illustrated by this quote out of Van Noort, p 251-252 :
And finally his [St Augustine] viewpoint on this matter is found in his retractiones ii. 18 : Wherever I have mentioned in these books [De baptismo contra Donatistas] that the Church is without stain or wrinkle, such statements should not be taken to mean that she is already such, but that she is being prepared to be such when she shall appear in her glorious state.
You see, one such remark at the end of his book, blows away the impression that St Augustine may have given that the Church is already 'perfect'. Can the same be said of the other 'opinions' or learned men ? I have no doubt that individual Church members can be in error, but that does not mean they're all of a sudden outside of the Church. And it does not mean that the Church as a whole has failed.
If it ever appears God allowed "the pope" to do these things anyway....there is only one conclusion: the man purporting to be pope is not a true pope, otherwise God would have prevented him from giving his approval.
Have you read about St Erasmus and what he got away with, without being declared or treated as a heretic ?
he condemned monasteries and religious vows and rules,
he opposed the celibacy of the clergy
he jeered at indulgences, relics, feasts, fasts and even auricular confession
he claimed that man is justified by faith alone
he called into doubt the authority of the Scriptures and of the Councils
he accused of audacity the granting of the name of "God" to the Holy Ghost
And even after all that, he remained in good standing with Pope Paul III, St Thomas More, etc. and he certainly was never treated a heretic. At best they considered him a Catholic in error.
Will you now claim that St Thomas More was wrong ? That St Paul III was wrong ? On what basis ??
As I said before, I would be grateful for anyone giving me the solid proof that the VII Popes are pertinaceous heretics. It really would suit me in the battle I am fighting with my NO family, but I cannot find it. Please help if you can..
-
I used to cut the sedes some slack. I doubt that anyone can find a post of mine over the last several years where I criticize the sede position. I have always been somewhat sympathetic to them. However, because certain over zealous sedes are frequent contributors to CI, their inflexible position is becoming, for me anyway, more and more intolerable. They never let up. They declare unabashedly that conciliar and post-conciliar popes, beyond all doubt, can not have been real popes.
They’ve turned the Catholic Faith into what amounts to a new religion, the religion of the ‘Empty Chair.’ The phony 'Empty Chair' religion has become for these "Catholics" what the phony "h0Ɩ0cαųst" religion is to the faux jews, IMHO. Just as the jews can provide no real forensic or historical evidence for their claim of millions of their people systematically exterminated, so also the fanatical 'Empty Chair' bunch can supply no really solid and convincing evidence, and certainly no authority, for the claims they make.
Cantarella is right:
100% of sedes have decided on their own that a heretical Pope loses his pontificate immediately (which is only an speculation by the way, not Church teaching). However, 98% of these same sedes are unable to point out what exactly is the formal heresy of the Conciliar Popes and virtually 0 % is able to provide legitimate evidence on their accusation.
Where the operative phrase is “decided on their own.” Most of us agree that post conciliar popes have flirted with, and have gotten extremely close, to material heresy. But the Empty Chair fanatic carries it one step further. He pronounces excathedra that these men are anti-popes.
Robert Siscoe remarks on the two theologians most often heard among sedes:
but both opinions,( that of Suarez and that of Bellarmine) agree that a judgment of guilt must be rendered by the proper authorities, or by the guilty party himself, in order for the Pope to be considered no longer Pope. And such a judgment, and consequent determination, is not the domain of private opinion.
Exactly! 1)Either the Pope must acknowledge his own guilt, or 2) the “proper authorities must finally decide. Both Suarez and Bellarmine agree on this. And no conclusions can be drawn in the "domain of private opinion." So why should any of us listen for a second to the likes of private, faceless sede fanatics like adolphus, lepanto again, nado, and (gasp!), the infamous Fernando?. These guys hide from us who they really are. They are very careful not to reveal their true identities and associations. So, for my money anyway, they’re all full of c___p!
-
I used to cut the sedes some slack. I doubt that anyone can find a post of mine over the last several years where I criticize the sede position. I have always been somewhat sympathetic to them. However, because certain over zealous sedes are frequent contributors to CI, their inflexible position is becoming, for me anyway, more and more intolerable. They never let up. They declare unabashedly that conciliar and post-conciliar popes, beyond all doubt, can not have been real popes.
They’ve turned the Catholic Faith into what amounts to a new religion, the religion of the ‘Empty Chair.’ The phony 'Empty Chair' religion has become for these "Catholics" what the phony "h0Ɩ0cαųst" religion is to the faux jews, IMHO. Just as the jews can provide no real forensic or historical evidence for their claim of millions of their people systematically exterminated, so also the fanatical 'Empty Chair' bunch can supply no really solid and convincing evidence, and certainly no authority, for the claims they make.
Cantarella is right:
100% of sedes have decided on their own that a heretical Pope loses his pontificate immediately (which is only an speculation by the way, not Church teaching). However, 98% of these same sedes are unable to point out what exactly is the formal heresy of the Conciliar Popes and virtually 0 % is able to provide legitimate evidence on their accusation.
Where the operative phrase is “decided on their own.” Most of us agree that post conciliar popes have flirted with, and have gotten extremely close, to material heresy. But the Empty Chair fanatic carries it one step further. He pronounces excathedra that these men are anti-popes.
Robert Siscoe remarks on the two theologians most often heard among sedes:
but both opinions,( that of Suarez and that of Bellarmine) agree that a judgment of guilt must be rendered by the proper authorities, or by the guilty party himself, in order for the Pope to be considered no longer Pope. And such a judgment, and consequent determination, is not the domain of private opinion.
Exactly! 1)Either the Pope must acknowledge his own guilt, or 2) the “proper authorities must finally decide. Both Suarez and Bellarmine agree on this. And no conclusions can be drawn in the "domain of private opinion." So why should any of us listen for a second to the likes of private, faceless sede fanatics like adolphus, lepanto again, nado, and (gasp!), the infamous Fernando?. These guys hide from us who they really are. They are very careful not to reveal their true identities and associations. So, for my money anyway, they’re all full of c___p!
I agree with most of what you said here, I just don't think an uncharitable tone is going to soften up the other side of the debate. We've seen too much of that in the past, on both sides of the argument and maybe that is why we've never seen this discussion carried to a conclusion both sides agree with and why there are so many who dig in their toes against all reason.
-
As for Frank's studderings and his interview with the atheist journalist, I read those heresies on the Vatican's very own website before the backlash proved more than they expected and took it down.
Ohca,
What is heresy?
Please define in canonical terms what heresy is.
See, 100% of sedes have decided on their own that a heretical Pope loses his pontificate immediately (which is only an speculation by the way, not Church teaching). However, 98% of these same sedes are unable to point out what exactly is the formal heresy of the Conciliar Popes and virtually 0 % is able to provide legitimate evidence on their accusation.
If a person calls himself a sede, the first homework he should do is finding real evidence for the alledged heresy. Otherwise, all his argument falls apart. Because not such evidence really exists, Sedevacantism is so easily debunked.
We don't have to find a canonical heresy to say that a pope is not a true pope. As we see when papal infallibility was defined in 1870, it mentions that he will be prevented from "erring" against faith or morals. It doesn't say contradict or deny a previously defined dogma of the faith. To "err" means a mistake that harms faith or morals.
Additionally, "papal infallibility" is not the same as "Church infallibility". Papal infallibility is merely rare and solemn instances where the pope shines the entire Church infallibility on one act of his, in the name of the Church. The scope of Church infallibility, on the other hand, is thousands of times more common and frequent than papal infallibility.
There are quotes that solidly reveal just what I explained above:
St. Thomas Aquinas:
"it would be blasphemy to say that the Church does anything in vain."
Council of Trent. Sess. 22, canon 7:
"If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema."
Auctorem Fidei, 1794. CONDEMNED:
'the Church, governed by the Holy Spirit, could impose a disciplinary law that would be not only useless and more burdensome for the faithful than Christian liberty allows, but also dangerous and harmful"
Quo Graviora, 1833:
"The Church is the pillar and foundation of truthall of which truth is taught by the Holy Spirit. Should the church be able to order, yield to, or permit those things which tend toward the destruction of souls and the disgrace and detriment of the sacrament instituted by Christ?"
If it ever appears God allowed "the pope" to do these things anyway....there is only one conclusion: the man purporting to be pope is not a true pope, otherwise God would have prevented him from giving his approval.
Oh, so now it is not heresy but mere error that deposes the Pope? That is a new one. And of course this "error" can be determined subjectively by the individual Catholic in the pew, right?. Good luck finding support for that claim.
Nado is so off the mark with this one that probably the only people that could take him seriously are the kind of lunatics that follow Pope Michael in Kansas.
The fact that you can't offer the slightest rebuttal says it all.
Yes. The rebuttal is that this claim is utterly false.
You are now saying that the quotes I just gave from the Church are utterly false! Why are you rejecting those quotes and what they say?
Most theologians do not even believe that a Pope can ever fall into heresy but they can in fact fall into error when not teaching infallibly. Infallibility only protects him when speaking ex cathedra. In the Catholic Church, heresy is considered to be the only reason for legitimate resistance from inferiors to superiors.
Just as I thought, you are confusing "papal infallibility" with "infallibility of the Church". You can't seem to grasp the difference.
All of a sudden Nado here is disagreeing with St. Bellarmine himself. For a sede, that is having some nerve!
Although it clearly follows from the circuмstances that the Pope can err at times and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not … it is said in the Acts of the Apostles. “One ought to obey God rather than man:” therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truths of the Sacraments, or the commands of natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over (despiciendus). [as quoted in Turrencremata's Summa de Eccles.]
Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: 'He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.'
Honestly, better recant this error before falling into total discredit.
You are confusing commands to do something, and teaching a belief via the magisterium. They are not the same. It is absolutely solidly taught since 1870 that a pope who is a manifest heretic ceases to be a pope automatically. All the Catholic books for general use by clergy and laity teach this. Why are you not accepting it?
Why, also, are you not accepting the quotes I cited?
Simply because these quotes have absolutely nothing to do with the requested evidence for the formal heresy of the Conciliar Popes. It is not the quotes that are false but this claim:
We don't have to find a canonical heresy to say that a pope is not a true pope.
Although taking that back, yes sure sedes can "say" that the Pope is not true Pope all they want but that does not make it a fact.
The following is false though:
It is absolutely solidly taught since 1870 that a pope who is a manifest heretic ceases to be a pope automatically. All the Catholic books for general use by clergy and laity teach this.
The theological question whether a Pope can fall into formal heresy is something that has never been settled or definitively taught by the Magisterium, so this is speculative theology. The overwhelming theological opinions is that he actually cannot.
Without realizing it Nado has recanted the initial error. He is going back to Bellarmine, to square 1. "a pope who is a manifest heretic ceases to be a pope automatically".
So, what is "Manifest Heresy", Nado?
-
According to Saint Pius X and practically all "Traditionalists", modernism is the «synthesis of all heresies». We know, or at least we should know, that the last "popes" have been modernists. Therefore, they are heretics.
If we understand who we are dealing with, we cannot expect these "popes" to take their Catholic mask off. They are modernist, not stupid.
However, if we read the letters for which Honorious I was excommunicated, we can see that what he wrote is not even a millionth of what each one of these conciliar popes have done. And while it is true that some have said that the act condemning Honorious were forged, none of them have said that such excommunication were unfair nor that the punishment were excessive.
Read Card. Ratzinger's DOMINUS IESUS and you will find heresies. That is an official docuмent.
Regarding the two warnings, one has to read the spirit of the law, not the letter. How many writings have been published in different ways, in which pontifical declarations or acts have been condemned by serious persons? Aren't they warnings?
What about Paul VI, who received at least two written warnings from Abbe de Nantes?
If Francis says that Our Lord Jesus Christ is nothing else but a great human being, do you think he needs to be warned twice? Those warnings are refer for those who may not know that what they say is a heresy. Again, we have to consider the spirit of the law and not the letter…
-
Regarding the two warnings, one has to read the spirit of the law, not the letter. How many writings have been published in different ways, in which pontifical declarations or acts have been condemned by serious persons? Aren't they warnings?
What about Paul VI, who received at least two written warnings from Abbe de Nantes?
Thanks for the attempt.
But no, they are not warnings. By warnings what is understood are official admonitions by competent authority. This is, by the Bishops & Cardinals first and foremost, by the Roman Clergy, or by a Synod. Even if there is evidence of these "warnings" made by "serious persons" these would not count to determine "Manifest Heresy".
Why none of the 5000's Bishops of the Catholic Church have attempted to give the Conciliar Popes such public and official warnings as "suspects of heresy", Adolphus?
-
Those warnings are refer for those who may not know that what they say is a heresy. Again, we have to consider the spirit of the law and not the letter…
Not according to St. Bellarmine nor St. Paul for that matter nor the 1917 Code of Canon Law. The reason for the two warnings is to demonstrate pertinacity (obstinacy) for anyone suspect of heresy not only for "who may not know what they say is a heresy". One does not have access to the heretic's internal forum.
Bellarmine: “The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom the manifestly heretical Pope is not “ipso facto” deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended. For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority, and from reason, that the manifest heretic is “ipso facto” deposed. The argument from authority is based on Saint Paul, who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate – which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence”. (14)
‘Avoid the heretic, after a first and second correction, knowing that such a man is perverted and sins, since he is condemned by his own judgment’
“Canon 2315 affirms that ‘the suspect of heresy who, once he has been admonished, does not remove the cause of the suspicion is to be prohibited from legitimate actions and, if he be a cleric, when the warning has been once repeated in vain, he will be suspended a divinis; and if the suspect of heresy does not amend himself in the space of six full months, starting from the moment when he incurred the penalty, he will be considered as a heretic, subject to the penalties of heretics’. Let us observe from this how patient and prudent the Church is in respect of such people. In addition to the warning which must be reiterated in the case of a cleric, she gives six months for the retraction or for ultimate clarifications before imposing the penalties proper to heretics. These penalties are not automatic; rather, they must be imposed by the bishop who may ultimately have reasons for not putting them into effect”.
-
Read Card. Ratzinger's DOMINUS IESUS and you will find heresies. That is an official docuмent.
After reading the docuмent could not find any "heresi..es". It seems there is not a single denial of any de fide Catholic dogma here....but it is getting late :sleep: so it is true that the attention span may be not at its best at this time.
Please, please, please make it easier. Not used to deal with this level of difficulty!!! What paragraph number are the "heresies" found in, dear Adolphus?.
-
On the contrary, it has been settled. You show me one quote since 1870 approved for the general clergy or laity that explicitly says a pope cannot automatically cease to be pope by choosing heresy. You cannot. I can show you plenty saying the exact opposite without any air of controversy, but simply as a fact.
Yes, like this source (one of the two Nado was able to cite)? :rolleyes:
An heretical pope necessarily ceases to be head of the Church, for by
his heresy he is no longer a member thereof: in the event of his still
claiming the Roman see a general council, improperly so-called
because without the pope, could remove him. But this is not deposition,
since by his own act he is no longer pope.
- A CATHOLIC DICTIONARY, Attwater (1951) . Deposition
------------------------------------------------
Donald Attwater
"Lay People in the Church: A Study for a Theology of the Laity by Yves M.J.
Congar, O.P. Translated by Donald Attwater 1959".
Why in the world would a "traditionalist" cite Yves Congar. Yves Congar is the intellectual mind behind VII and Attwater translated his book!!!
Nado misunderstands. The overwhelming consensus is that the Pope cannot fall into heresy to begin with.
-
I recant nothing. St. Robert Bellarmine is correct. I am talking about discernment of that manifest heresy, and it is easily done via the means I gave you quotes for.
What is Manifest Heresy, Nado?.
-
What is Manifest Heresy, Nado?
-
Auctorem Fidei, 1794. CONDEMNED:
'the Church, governed by the Holy Spirit, could impose a disciplinary law that would be not only useless and more burdensome for the faithful than Christian liberty allows, but also dangerous and harmful"
Nado,
I picked this quote because it seemed to support your claim the best. After checking it out, it does not support your claim (that the Church cannot give us anything harmful) at all. Here's why :
Pius VI issued his bull "Auctorem Fidei" in response to the Synod of Pistoia, which contained 85 propositions, some of which were added by Scipio de' Ricci, the Bishop of Pistoia, and of which the latter repented afterwards. The text you quoted is from condemned proposition 78. If you read the whole proposition, you will see that it is not the text you quoted that was condemned, but rather the text that comes before that :
The prescription of the synod about the order of transacting business in the conferences, in which, after it prefaced "in every article that which pertains to faith and to the essence of religion must be distinguished from that which is proper to discipline," it adds, "in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burden-some for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstitution and materialism"; in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,—false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.
I think this is quite a wordy piece of text, and very hard to extract the true meaning and circuмstances. It certainly does not simply condemn what you quoted as being condemned. At best, it shows that Pius VI did believe it unthinkable that the Church up until then had issued anything harmful that needed filtering out, but he does not say that it is something impossible by definition, and it certainly is not the target of the condemnation.
If the Church really teaches that nothing bad can come from her, why did she not just say so, in clear unambiguous words ?
Please also note, the difference in translation, which I have indicated in green.
I believe this example shows the danger in partially quoting some obscure text, out of context and without any qualifications. Therefore, I do not accept that this quote supports your proposition that "nothing harmful can come from the Church" and Cantarella's challenge remains unanswered.
-
Auctorem Fidei, 1794. CONDEMNED:
'the Church, governed by the Holy Spirit, could impose a disciplinary law that would be not only useless and more burdensome for the faithful than Christian liberty allows, but also dangerous and harmful"
Nado,
I picked this quote because it seemed to support your claim the best. After checking it out, it does not support your claim (that the Church cannot give us anything harmful) at all. Here's why :
Pius VI issued his bull "Auctorem Fidei" in response to the Synod of Pistoia, which contained 85 propositions, some of which were added by Scipio de' Ricci, the Bishop of Pistoia, and of which the latter repented afterwards. The text you quoted is from condemned proposition 78. If you read the whole proposition, you will see that it is not the text you quoted that was condemned, but rather the text that comes before that :
The prescription of the synod about the order of transacting business in the conferences, in which, after it prefaced "in every article that which pertains to faith and to the essence of religion must be distinguished from that which is proper to discipline," it adds, "in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burden-some for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstitution and materialism"; in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,—false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.
I think this is quite a wordy piece of text, and very hard to extract the true meaning and circuмstances. It certainly does not simply condemn what you quoted as being condemned. At best, it shows that Pius VI did believe it unthinkable that the Church up until then had issued anything harmful that needed filtering out, but he does not say that it is something impossible by definition, and it certainly is not the target of the condemnation.
If the Church really teaches that nothing bad can come from her, why did she not just say so, in clear unambiguous words ?
Please also note, the difference in translation, which I have indicated in green.
I believe this example shows the danger in partially quoting some obscure text, out of context and without any qualifications. Therefore, I do not accept that this quote supports your proposition that "nothing harmful can come from the Church" and Cantarella's challenge remains unanswered.
I have looked carefully at what you present, and it is plainly incorrect. You have made a useless distinction between established and imposed, which are effectively the same thing, because that which is established by the Church is imposed.
The idea of being "CONDEMNED" comes from the removal of the "as if".
No, it has nothing to do with the difference between imposed and established. Forget about that part and look at the rest of my post. I will try again as soon as I have a bit more time.
-
Regarding the two warnings, one has to read the spirit of the law, not the letter. How many writings have been published in different ways, in which pontifical declarations or acts have been condemned by serious persons? Aren't they warnings?
What about Paul VI, who received at least two written warnings from Abbe de Nantes?
Thanks for the attempt.
But no, they are not warnings. By warnings what is understood are official admonitions by competent authority. This is, by the Bishops & Cardinals first and foremost, by the Roman Clergy, or by a Synod. Even if there is evidence of these "warnings" made by "serious persons" these would not count to determine "Manifest Heresy".
Thank you for the answer.
Can you tell me who gave the official admonitions to Honorious I?
Why none of the 5000's Bishops of the Catholic Church have attempted to give the Conciliar Popes such public and official warnings as "suspects of heresy", Adolphus?
I don't know. My guess is that they are as modernists as the person occupying the Holy See or they are afraid or even ignorant.
What is your guess, Cantarella?
-
Those warnings are refer for those who may not know that what they say is a heresy. Again, we have to consider the spirit of the law and not the letter…
Not according to St. Bellarmine nor St. Paul for that matter nor the 1917 Code of Canon Law. The reason for the two warnings is to demonstrate pertinacity (obstinacy) for anyone suspect of heresy not only for "who may not know what they say is a heresy". One does not have access to the heretic's internal forum.
You tell someone that what he did is wrong to let him know that he is wrong. If he does not know he is wrong, why could you expect him to change? Once he know he did wrong, it would be pertinacity that he did it again. However, there is a second chance, an opportunity to receive another admonition.
pertinacity: the quality of holding tenaciously to a purpose, course of action, or opinion.
However, if you already know that something is wrong and you do it, you don't have excuse. And if you keep doing it, you are being pertinacious.
-
Read Card. Ratzinger's DOMINUS IESUS and you will find heresies. That is an official docuмent.
After reading the docuмent could not find any "heresi..es". It seems there is not a single denial of any de fide Catholic dogma here....but it is getting late :sleep: so it is true that the attention span may be not at its best at this time.
Please, please, please make it easier. Not used to deal with this level of difficulty!!! What paragraph number are the "heresies" found in, dear Adolphus?.
17.
-
According to Saint Pius X and practically all "Traditionalists", modernism is the «synthesis of all heresies». We know, or at least we should know, that the last "popes" have been modernists. Therefore, they are heretics.
If we understand who we are dealing with, we cannot expect these "popes" to take their Catholic mask off. They are modernist, not stupid.
There is something I should have said since the beginning:
This is not about convincing anybody that the Holy See is vacant. Sedevacantism, as sedeplenism, is just an opinion. In these confusing times we are living, nothing seems to be clear regarding the Church's situation. We have Our Lord's promise but it is not clear yet how it will be accomplished.
Everyone who has genuine interest in the Church's situation, tries to find an explanation. Sedevacantism is perhaps the simplest explanation (if something is simple within this confusion). Sedeprivationism is another way to explain the situation. But of course there are many more ways and we don't know for sure what's the real explanation.
These discussions merely expose the reasons why one believes something. Nothing else.
-
Regarding the two warnings, one has to read the spirit of the law, not the letter. How many writings have been published in different ways, in which pontifical declarations or acts have been condemned by serious persons? Aren't they warnings?
What about Paul VI, who received at least two written warnings from Abbe de Nantes?
Thanks for the attempt.
But no, they are not warnings. By warnings what is understood are official admonitions by competent authority. This is, by the Bishops & Cardinals first and foremost, by the Roman Clergy, or by a Synod. Even if there is evidence of these "warnings" made by "serious persons" these would not count to determine "Manifest Heresy".
Thank you for the answer.
Can you tell me who gave the official admonitions to Honorious I?
Why none of the 5000's Bishops of the Catholic Church have attempted to give the Conciliar Popes such public and official warnings as "suspects of heresy", Adolphus?
I don't know. My guess is that they are as modernists as the person occupying the Holy See or they are afraid or even ignorant.
What is your guess, Cantarella?
Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic by three ecuмenical councils when he was already dead. Firstly, The Council III of Constantinople condemned Honorius 40 years after his death so evidently while alive he remained Bishop of Rome (no idea if he ever received official admonitions during his life or not) but even after condemned as a heretic, his pontificate was not ever questioned.
This is interesting:
This anathema against Honorius was later one of the main arguments against Papal infallibility in the discussions surrounding the First Vatican Council of 1870, where the episode was not ultimately regarded as contrary to the proposed dogma. This was because Honorius was not considered by the supporters of infallibility to be speaking ex cathedra in the letters in question (although the Roman historian Hefele and opponents of the definition believed that Honorius had spoken ex cathedra)
As far as why no Bishop has intended to officially accuse and admonish the Conciliar Popes for heresy is perhaps because they know they may not win the case, when the majority of bishops as a whole (to all appearances) have fallen themselves into rampant liberalism (The problem with the heresy of Modernism is that it is like a shapeless and abstract invisible giant that is a gradual poison and no one is able to stop it because no one is able to really identify it in proper time. When they finally can see it, it is already too late).
Most probably the reason could be what is posted above about "Pope Infallibility", meaning that the Pontiff is protected from error only when speaking ex cathedra, so to demonstrate formal "heresy" there must be a persistent denial of a de fide Catholic dogma but no Pope have really done it. Unless he promulgated a Ex Cathedra heresy, then he would be a formal heretic. There is simply no solid evidence, irrefutable bullet-proof of "Manifest Heresy" in the Conciliar Popes and they know it.
-
.
-
Read Card. Ratzinger's DOMINUS IESUS and you will find heresies. That is an official docuмent.
After reading the docuмent could not find any "heresi..es". It seems there is not a single denial of any de fide Catholic dogma here....but it is getting late :sleep: so it is true that the attention span may be not at its best at this time.
Please, please, please make it easier. Not used to deal with this level of difficulty!!! What paragraph number are the "heresies" found in, dear Adolphus?.
17.
17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60
On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63
“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”.64 In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65 “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66
The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”.67
The first part of this paragraph is dealing with schismatics (Eastern Orthodox) who can pass orders and because of this, their sacraments are considered valid.
The second part is dealing with those baptized in Protestant sects, whose Baptism is still considered valid.
Nothing heretical so far.
In the third paragraph though, there is a problem: what is highlighted in color. This could be considered a denial of "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" given that it says that the Christian Churches (Orthodox and Protestants) can be means of salvation . However, this could be heretical but ONLY if one does not believe in Invincible Ignorance but adheres to the strict interpretation of EENS which states that those outside the Church (schismatic and Protestant "Christians" in this case) are not heirs of Heaven but are condemned forever in Hell (commonly known as "feeneyite").
But then again, if one believes in Invincible Ignorance (which even Archbishop Lefebvre believed in) there is nothing heretical here either. According to what most traditionalist believe, even a good willed Hindu, totally ignorant of the Christian Faith, can end up in Heaven; which is even much more heretical that what was written here by Cardinal Ratzinger referring strictly to the "Christian communities" (Orthodox and Protestants) as means of salvation.
-
I often hear Francis and others being accused of being Modernists. How can people accuse them of Modernism if they are not manifestly modernist in their words and actions? And if they are manifestly Modernist in their words and actions and Modernism is the "synthesis of all heresies" how can the same folks say Francis and others are not manifest heretics? Isn't this simple logic? And if they are not manifestly Modernist, then how can anyone call them Modernist in the first place?
-
I often hear Francis and others being accused of being Modernists. How can people accuse them of Modernism if they are not manifestly modernist in their words and actions? And if they are manifestly Modernist in their words and actions and Modernism is the "synthesis of all heresies" how can the same folks say Francis and others are not manifest heretics? Isn't this simple logic? And if they are not manifestly Modernist, then how can anyone call them Modernist in the first place?
High scholarship rather than simple logic seems to be their forte.
-
Regarding the two warnings, one has to read the spirit of the law, not the letter. How many writings have been published in different ways, in which pontifical declarations or acts have been condemned by serious persons? Aren't they warnings?
What about Paul VI, who received at least two written warnings from Abbe de Nantes?
Thanks for the attempt.
But no, they are not warnings. By warnings what is understood are official admonitions by competent authority. This is, by the Bishops & Cardinals first and foremost, by the Roman Clergy, or by a Synod. Even if there is evidence of these "warnings" made by "serious persons" these would not count to determine "Manifest Heresy".
Thank you for the answer.
Can you tell me who gave the official admonitions to Honorious I?
Why none of the 5000's Bishops of the Catholic Church have attempted to give the Conciliar Popes such public and official warnings as "suspects of heresy", Adolphus?
I don't know. My guess is that they are as modernists as the person occupying the Holy See or they are afraid or even ignorant.
What is your guess, Cantarella?
Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic by three ecuмenical councils when he was already dead. Firstly, The Council III of Constantinople condemned Honorius 40 years after his death so evidently while alive he remained Bishop of Rome (no idea if he ever received official admonitions during his life or not) but even after condemned as a heretic, his pontificate was not ever questioned.
This is interesting:
This anathema against Honorius was later one of the main arguments against Papal infallibility in the discussions surrounding the First Vatican Council of 1870, where the episode was not ultimately regarded as contrary to the proposed dogma. This was because Honorius was not considered by the supporters of infallibility to be speaking ex cathedra in the letters in question (although the Roman historian Hefele and opponents of the definition believed that Honorius had spoken ex cathedra)
As far as why no Bishop has intended to officially accuse and admonish the Conciliar Popes for heresy is perhaps because they know they may not win the case, when the majority of bishops as a whole (to all appearances) have fallen themselves into rampant liberalism (The problem with the heresy of Modernism is that it is like a shapeless and abstract invisible giant that is a gradual poison and no one is able to stop it because no one is able to really identify it in proper time. When they finally can see it, it is already too late).
Most probably the reason could be what is posted above about "Pope Infallibility", meaning that the Pontiff is protected from error only when speaking ex cathedra, so to demonstrate formal "heresy" there must be a persistent denial of a de fide Catholic dogma but no Pope have really done it. Unless he promulgated a Ex Cathedra heresy, then he would be a formal heretic. There is simply no solid evidence, irrefutable bullet-proof of "Manifest Heresy" in the Conciliar Popes and they know it.
This has been addressed directly to you already, with no rebuttal from you, and now you speak as if you never heard anything before. What is wrong with you?
The official story is that Honorius was not a manifest heretic. He did not incorporate any error in any of the official organs of the Church. He merely wrote a letter to an eastern patriarch and recommended inaction in the face of the then threatening heresy. Since heresy can sometimes be tolerated in the face of a greater evil, we don't know whether Honorius was actually a personal heretic. St. Francis de Sales said he was not a manifest heretic, but as far as a personal heretic he was "perhaps" so.
The use of the example of Honorius is good only to show how much the hierarchy got worried about heresy EVEN WHEN IT IS NOT MANIFEST. It is also good to shine light on the fact that the doctrinal errors of Vatican II go FAR beyond what Honorius did. The ecuмenia is in EVERY organ of the Church and with a FIXATION.
I started in another thread to go into how we can discern manifest heresy the easy way other than trying to find an outright denial of dogma....and you just poo-poohed it and bailed out with some silly response.
Sorry but this is yet another case when historical facts just do not attest to sede propaganda. There is written evidence that Pope Honorious was condemned as a heretic by three ecunemical councils. Here is the proof:
Ecuмenical Council of III Constantinople
Session XIII: “After we had reconsidered, according to the promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal God protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasius and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these docuмents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this God preserved city, and were like minded with them; and that of Theodore sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and God preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subject to anathema. And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.” (online text)
Council of Trullo
“Also we agree to guard untouched the faith of the Sixth Holy Synod, which first assembled in this imperial city in the time of Constantine, our Emperor, of blessed memory, which faith received still greater confirmation from the fact that the pious Emperor ratified with his own signet that which was written for the security of future generations. This council taught that we should openly profess our faith that in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, our true God, there are two natural wills or volitions and two natural operations; and condemned by a just sentence those who adulterated the true doctrine and taught the people that in the one Lord Jesus Christ there is but one will and one operation; to wit, Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Honorius of Rome, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were bishops of this God-preserved city; Macarius, who was bishop of Antioch; Stephen, who was his disciple, and the insane Polychronius, depriving them henceforth from the communion of the body of Christ our God.” (online text)
Ecuмenical Council of IV Constantinople
Exposition of Faith: “Further, we accept the sixth, holy and universal synod [Constantinople III], which shares the same beliefs and is in harmony with the previously mentioned synods in that it wisely laid down that in the two natures of the one Christ there are, as a consequence, two principles of action and the same number of wills. So, we anathematize Theodore who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, the unholy prelates of the church of Constantinople, and with these, Honorius of Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria as well as Macarius of Antioch and his disciple Stephen, who followed the false teachings of the unholy heresiarchs Apollinarius, Eutyches and Severus and proclaimed that the flesh of God, while being animated by a rational and intellectual soul, was without a principle of action and without a will, they themselves being impaired in their senses and truly without reason.”
Ecuмenical Council II Nicea
The Letter of the Synod to the Emperor and Empress: “And now having carefully traced the traditions of the Apostles and Fathers, we are bold to speak. Having but one mind by the inbreathing of the most Holy Spirit, and being all knit together in one, and understanding the harmonious tradition of the Catholic Church, we are in perfect harmony with the symphonies set forth by the six, holy and ecuмenical councils; and accordingly we have anathematised the madness of Arius, the frenzy of Macedonius, the senseless understanding of Appolinarius, the man-worship of Nestorius, the irreverent mingling of the natures devised by Eutyches and Dioscorus, and the many-headed hydra which is their companion. We have also anathematised the idle tales of Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius; and the doctrine of one will held by Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, and Pyrrhus, or rather, we have anathematised their own evil will. Finally, taught by the Spirit, from whom we have drawn pure water, we have with one accord and one soul, altogether wiped out with the sponge of the divine dogmas the newly devised heresy, well-worthy to be classed with those just mentioned, which springing up after them, uttered such empty nonsense about the sacred icons. And the contrivers of this vain, but revolutionary babbling we have cast forth far from the Church’s precincts.” (online text)
-
I often hear Francis and others being accused of being Modernists. How can people accuse them of Modernism if they are not manifestly modernist in their words and actions? And if they are manifestly Modernist in their words and actions and Modernism is the "synthesis of all heresies" how can the same folks say Francis and others are not manifest heretics? Isn't this simple logic? And if they are not manifestly Modernist, then how can anyone call them Modernist in the first place?
High scholarship rather than simple logic seems to be their forte.
In all seriousness, perhaps there is a good answer to the bolded question?
On another forum, there is a Novus Ordo priest who has expressed real concerns with Francis. He once used the words "manifestly Modernist" to describe him. And when I asked a similar question, I never got a response.
-
The first part of this paragraph is dealing with schismatics (Eastern Orthodox) who can pass orders and because of this, their sacraments are considered valid.
The second part is dealing with those baptized in Protestant sects, whose Baptism is still considered valid.
Nothing heretical so far.
In the third paragraph though, there is a problem: what is highlighted in color. This could be considered a denial of "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" given that it says that the Christian Churches (Orthodox and Protestants) can be means of salvation . However, this could be heretical but ONLY if one does not believe in Invincible Ignorance but adheres to the strict interpretation of EENS which states that those outside the Church (schismatic and Protestant "Christians" in this case) are not heirs of Heaven but are condemned forever in Hell (commonly known as "feeneyite").
But then again, if one believes in Invincible Ignorance (which even Archbishop Lefebvre believed in) there is nothing heretical here either. According to what most traditionalist believe, even a good willed Hindu, totally ignorant of the Christian Faith, can end up in Heaven; which is even much more heretical that what was written here by Cardinal Ratzinger referring strictly to the "Christian communities" (Orthodox and Protestants) as means of salvation.
You might find "technicalities" to defend a heretic, just as many advocates do in court rooms knowing their clients are criminals. The true is that conciliar popes have taught and spread heresies with their words and with their acts and with their omissions (omissions much more evident than that Honorious I was accused of).
But did you say "invincible ignorance" ? :roll-laugh1:
-
I often hear Francis and others being accused of being Modernists. How can people accuse them of Modernism if they are not manifestly modernist in their words and actions? And if they are manifestly Modernist in their words and actions and Modernism is the "synthesis of all heresies" how can the same folks say Francis and others are not manifest heretics? Isn't this simple logic? And if they are not manifestly Modernist, then how can anyone call them Modernist in the first place?
High scholarship rather than simple logic seems to be their forte.
In all seriousness, perhaps there is a good answer to the bolded question?
On another forum, there is a Novus Ordo priest who has expressed real concerns with Francis. He once used the words "manifestly Modernist" to describe him. And when I asked a similar question, I never got a response.
I wonder whether I'll get a response here..... :scratchchin:
-
This has been addressed directly to you already, with no rebuttal from you, and now you speak as if you never heard anything before. What is wrong with you?
The official story is that Honorius was not a manifest heretic. He did not incorporate any error in any of the official organs of the Church. He merely wrote a letter to an eastern patriarch and recommended inaction in the face of the then threatening heresy. Since heresy can sometimes be tolerated in the face of a greater evil, we don't know whether Honorius was actually a personal heretic. St. Francis de Sales said he was not a manifest heretic, but as far as a personal heretic he was "perhaps" so.
The use of the example of Honorius is good only to show how much the hierarchy got worried about heresy EVEN WHEN IT IS NOT MANIFEST. It is also good to shine light on the fact that the doctrinal errors of Vatican II go FAR beyond what Honorius did. The ecuмenia is in EVERY organ of the Church and with a FIXATION.
I started in another thread to go into how we can discern manifest heresy the easy way other than trying to find an outright denial of dogma....and you just poo-poohed it and bailed out with some silly response.
Sorry but this is yet another case when historical facts just do not attest to sede propaganda. There is written evidence that Pope Honorious was condemned as a heretic by three ecunemical councils. Here is the proof:
St. Francis de Sales was proclaimed a Doctor of the Church in 1877. Which was 7 years after papal infallibility was defined. The pope and hierarchy studied his writings beforehand. At that time Pope Pius called the Saint's work "Controversies" - "a full and complete demonstration of the Catholic religion". In that work St. Francis says Honorius was "perhaps" a heretic, but not a manifest heretic. This is not sede propaganda.
The docuмent that you give does show that the hierarchy condemned Honorius, but this was AFTER his death, and it was without any pope approving of it. Without the pope's approval, it is exactly as St. Francis said.
There is plenty of evidence in the testimony of the historians also. In The Seven Ecuмenical Councils by Roman Catholic historian Henry R. Percival, He wrote,
“most Roman controversialists of recent years have admitted both the fact of Pope Honorius’s condemnation, and the Monothelite (and therefore heretical) character of his epistles.”
“I shall therefore say nothing further on this point but shall simply supply the leading proofs that Honorius was as a matter of fact condemned by the Sixth Ecuмenical Council.
1. His condemnation is found in the Acts in the xiiith Session, near the beginning.
2. His two letters were ordered to be burned at the same session.
3. In the xvith Session the bishops exclaimed ‘Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, etc.’
4. In the decree of faith published at the xviijth Session it is stated that ‘the originator of all evil ... found a fit tool for his will in ... Honorius, Pope of Old Rome, etc.’
5. The report of the Council to the Emperor says that ‘Honorius, formerly bishop of Rome’ they had ‘punished with exclusion and anathema’ because he followed the monothelites.
6. In its letter to Pope Agatho the Council says it ‘has slain with anathema Honorius.’
7. The imperial decree speaks of the ‘unholy priests who infected the Church and falsely governed’ and mentions among them ‘Honorius, the Pope of Old Rome, the confirmer of heresy who contradicted himself.’ The Emperor goes on to anathematize ‘Honorius who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy.’
8. Pope Leo II. confirmed the decrees of the Council and expressly says that he too anathematized Honorius.
‘Also Honorins. qui hanc apostolicam sedem non apostolilcae traditionis doctrina lustravit, sed profana proditione immaculatam fidem subvertere conatus est, et omnes, qui in suo errore defuncti sunt.’
9. That Honorius was anathematized by the Sixth Council is mentioned in the Trullan Canons (No. j.).
10. So too the Seventh Council declares its adhesion to the anathema in its decree of faith, and in several places in the acts the same is said.
11. Honorius’s name was found in the Roman copy of the Acts. This is evident from Anastasius’s life of Leo II. (Vita Leonis II.)
12. The Papal Oath as found in the Liber Diurnus taken by each new Pope from the [eighth] to the eleventh century, in the form probably prescribed by Gregory II., ‘smites with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy, Sergius, etc., together with Honorius, because he assisted the base assertion of the heretics.’
13. In the lesson for the feast of St. Leo II. in the Roman Breviary the name of Pope Honorius occurs among those excommunicated by the Sixth Synod. Upon this we may well hear Bossuet: ‘They suppress as far as they can, the Liber Diurnus: they have erased this from the Roman Breviary. Have they therefore hidden it? Truth breaks out from all sides, and these things become so much the more evident, as they are the more studiously put out of sight.’
“With such an array of proof no conservative historian, it would seem, can question the fact that Honorius, the Pope of Rome, was condemned and anathematized as a heretic by the Sixth Ecuмenical Council.” (The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Edinburgh: Clark, 1899))
All of this evidence (especially the texts from the Ecuмenical Councils themselves) compared to a single quote attributed to st, Francis de Sales that says that Honorious was "perhaps" a heretic. Let the reader judge for himself.
-
Auctorem Fidei, 1794. CONDEMNED:
'the Church, governed by the Holy Spirit, could impose a disciplinary law that would be not only useless and more burdensome for the faithful than Christian liberty allows, but also dangerous and harmful"
Nado,
I picked this quote because it seemed to support your claim the best. After checking it out, it does not support your claim (that the Church cannot give us anything harmful) at all. Here's why :
Pius VI issued his bull "Auctorem Fidei" in response to the Synod of Pistoia, which contained 85 propositions, some of which were added by Scipio de' Ricci, the Bishop of Pistoia, and of which the latter repented afterwards. The text you quoted is from condemned proposition 78. If you read the whole proposition, you will see that it is not the text you quoted that was condemned, but rather the text that comes before that :
The prescription of the synod about the order of transacting business in the conferences, in which, after it prefaced "in every article that which pertains to faith and to the essence of religion must be distinguished from that which is proper to discipline," it adds, "in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burden-some for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstitution and materialism"; in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,—false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.
I think this is quite a wordy piece of text, and very hard to extract the true meaning and circuмstances. It certainly does not simply condemn what you quoted as being condemned. At best, it shows that Pius VI did believe it unthinkable that the Church up until then had issued anything harmful that needed filtering out, but he does not say that it is something impossible by definition, and it certainly is not the target of the condemnation.
If the Church really teaches that nothing bad can come from her, why did she not just say so, in clear unambiguous words ?
Please also note, the difference in translation, which I have indicated in green.
I believe this example shows the danger in partially quoting some obscure text, out of context and without any qualifications. Therefore, I do not accept that this quote supports your proposition that "nothing harmful can come from the Church" and Cantarella's challenge remains unanswered.
I have looked carefully at what you present, and it is plainly incorrect. You have made a useless distinction between established and imposed, which are effectively the same thing, because that which is established by the Church is imposed.
The idea of being "CONDEMNED" comes from the removal of the "as if".
Nado,
Following my promise to get back to you regarding "Auctorem Fidei", here's my current opinion and observation :
1. Your original quote is misleading, since it is not the direct object of the condemnation in proposition 78, but rather comes AFTER the object that is condemned. You skipped the bulk of that sentence and therefore altered it's meaning.
2. In your favour, it does seem that your quote is what Paul VI believed to be impossible, or rather, had not happened yet, since the translation I have (Denzinger) uses the past tense "have established", while your translation omits the past tense and simply says "could impose". Given this past tense, it could be interpreted that Paul VI regarded the current situation as being without stain or error. It does not necessarily mean that it will always be like that. I am not saying this is the correct interpretation, only that we do not know for sure and would need to do further investigation and possibly even go back to the original and to the history books.
In any case, it is not sufficiently clear that this an infalible pronouncement that the Church cannot give us anything harmful. I do not regard it as proof of this position. And it certainly is not what I would expect the Church to say if she wanted to give us such an important principle as the one you are claiming she wants us to believe.
It is also interesting to note that this Synod of Pistoia sounds exactly like VII, in which the same ambigouity was used to try and inject errors into the Church. As history shows, that council was afterwards condemned, just like no doubt VII will one day be condemned. But nowhere did I find any reference to the claim that the culprits were treated as pertinaceous heretics who lost their office, like some now treat the VII culprits. Why not ?
-
Auctorem Fidei, 1794. CONDEMNED:
'the Church, governed by the Holy Spirit, could impose a disciplinary law that would be not only useless and more burdensome for the faithful than Christian liberty allows, but also dangerous and harmful"
Nado,
I picked this quote because it seemed to support your claim the best. After checking it out, it does not support your claim (that the Church cannot give us anything harmful) at all. Here's why :
Pius VI issued his bull "Auctorem Fidei" in response to the Synod of Pistoia, which contained 85 propositions, some of which were added by Scipio de' Ricci, the Bishop of Pistoia, and of which the latter repented afterwards. The text you quoted is from condemned proposition 78. If you read the whole proposition, you will see that it is not the text you quoted that was condemned, but rather the text that comes before that :
The prescription of the synod about the order of transacting business in the conferences, in which, after it prefaced "in every article that which pertains to faith and to the essence of religion must be distinguished from that which is proper to discipline," it adds, "in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burden-some for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstitution and materialism"; in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,—false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.
I think this is quite a wordy piece of text, and very hard to extract the true meaning and circuмstances. It certainly does not simply condemn what you quoted as being condemned. At best, it shows that Pius VI did believe it unthinkable that the Church up until then had issued anything harmful that needed filtering out, but he does not say that it is something impossible by definition, and it certainly is not the target of the condemnation.
If the Church really teaches that nothing bad can come from her, why did she not just say so, in clear unambiguous words ?
Please also note, the difference in translation, which I have indicated in green.
I believe this example shows the danger in partially quoting some obscure text, out of context and without any qualifications. Therefore, I do not accept that this quote supports your proposition that "nothing harmful can come from the Church" and Cantarella's challenge remains unanswered.
I have looked carefully at what you present, and it is plainly incorrect. You have made a useless distinction between established and imposed, which are effectively the same thing, because that which is established by the Church is imposed.
The idea of being "CONDEMNED" comes from the removal of the "as if".
Nado,
Following my promise to get back to you regarding "Auctorem Fidei", here's my current opinion and observation :
1. Your original quote is misleading, since it is not the direct object of the condemnation in proposition 78, but rather comes AFTER the object that is condemned. You skipped the bulk of that sentence and therefore altered it's meaning.
2. In your favour, it does seem that your quote is what Paul VI believed to be impossible, or rather, had not happened yet, since the translation I have (Denzinger) uses the past tense "have established", while your translation omits the past tense and simply says "could impose". Given this past tense, it could be interpreted that Paul VI regarded the current situation as being without stain or error. It does not necessarily mean that it will always be like that. I am not saying this is the correct interpretation, only that we do not know for sure and would need to do further investigation and possibly even go back to the original and to the history books.
In any case, it is not sufficiently clear that this an infalible pronouncement that the Church cannot give us anything harmful. I do not regard it as proof of this position. And it certainly is not what I would expect the Church to say if she wanted to give us such an important principle as the one you are claiming she wants us to believe.
It is also interesting to note that this Synod of Pistoia sounds exactly like VII, in which the same ambigouity was used to try and inject errors into the Church. As history shows, that council was afterwards condemned, just like no doubt VII will one day be condemned. But nowhere did I find any reference to the claim that the culprits were treated as pertinaceous heretics who lost their office, like some now treat the VII culprits. Why not ?
Overall, I see a red flag go up upon reading your response. You appear to have that erroneous attitude of looking at what the Church gives us in terms of whether it is fallible or infallible. That is most definitely not a Catholic attitude. Tradition shows no such attitude. That was something that predominated since Vatican II because of the desperateness of grappling with the crisis. It's an attitude that makes one more easily susceptible to fall for the Feeneyite heresy. We are obliged to assent to what "the Church" gives us, including the entire contents of encyclicals and catechisms.
Certainly it would be misleading if someone where to quote from Munificentissimus Deus something outside of the actual definition (of the Assumption) and say that what is quoted is "defined" by the Church. However, it is perfectly respectable to say the Church "teaches" it, unless the context makes it clear She does not. The same goes for an actual anathema; if the encyclical clearly says something is wrong, we can say the Church "condemns" it.
As for councils, they are not officially councils per se unless a true pope approves of whatever he approves from them. The Synod you speak of was not approved by an alleged pope. It has no resemblance to Vatican II.
I think you miss the whole point again. I'll assume it's my clumsiness in expressing myself.
1. Your original quote omitted the bulk of the condemnation and therefore was misleading to say the least, possibly even erroneous.
2. If you read the whole condemnation (without skipping parts or even the bulk of it) it becomes clear that it does not directly support your initial claim, even though maybe indirectly it refers to it. This "maybe" is not because of some diversion tactics (like you seem to insinuate), but because I don't make assumptions and read into partial quotes what I want to read into it. I am trying to stay objective.
-
Auctorem Fidei, 1794. CONDEMNED:
'the Church, governed by the Holy Spirit, could impose a disciplinary law that would be not only useless and more burdensome for the faithful than Christian liberty allows, but also dangerous and harmful"
Nado,
I picked this quote because it seemed to support your claim the best. After checking it out, it does not support your claim (that the Church cannot give us anything harmful) at all. Here's why :
Pius VI issued his bull "Auctorem Fidei" in response to the Synod of Pistoia, which contained 85 propositions, some of which were added by Scipio de' Ricci, the Bishop of Pistoia, and of which the latter repented afterwards. The text you quoted is from condemned proposition 78. If you read the whole proposition, you will see that it is not the text you quoted that was condemned, but rather the text that comes before that :
The prescription of the synod about the order of transacting business in the conferences, in which, after it prefaced "in every article that which pertains to faith and to the essence of religion must be distinguished from that which is proper to discipline," it adds, "in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burden-some for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstitution and materialism"; in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,—false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.
I think this is quite a wordy piece of text, and very hard to extract the true meaning and circuмstances. It certainly does not simply condemn what you quoted as being condemned. At best, it shows that Pius VI did believe it unthinkable that the Church up until then had issued anything harmful that needed filtering out, but he does not say that it is something impossible by definition, and it certainly is not the target of the condemnation.
If the Church really teaches that nothing bad can come from her, why did she not just say so, in clear unambiguous words ?
Please also note, the difference in translation, which I have indicated in green.
I believe this example shows the danger in partially quoting some obscure text, out of context and without any qualifications. Therefore, I do not accept that this quote supports your proposition that "nothing harmful can come from the Church" and Cantarella's challenge remains unanswered.
I have looked carefully at what you present, and it is plainly incorrect. [Response 1] You have made a useless distinction between established and imposed, which are effectively the same thing, because that which is established by the Church is imposed.
The idea of being "CONDEMNED" comes from the removal of the "as if".
Nado,
Following my promise to get back to you regarding "Auctorem Fidei", here's my current opinion and observation :
1. Your original quote is misleading, since it is not the direct object of the condemnation in proposition 78, but rather comes AFTER the object that is condemned. You skipped the bulk of that sentence and therefore altered it's meaning.
2. In your favour, it does seem that your quote is what Paul VI believed to be impossible, or rather, had not happened yet, since the translation I have (Denzinger) uses the past tense "have established", while your translation omits the past tense and simply says "could impose". Given this past tense, it could be interpreted that Paul VI regarded the current situation as being without stain or error. It does not necessarily mean that it will always be like that. I am not saying this is the correct interpretation, only that we do not know for sure and would need to do further investigation and possibly even go back to the original and to the history books.
In any case, it is not sufficiently clear that this an infalible pronouncement that the Church cannot give us anything harmful. I do not regard it as proof of this position. And it certainly is not what I would expect the Church to say if she wanted to give us such an important principle as the one you are claiming she wants us to believe.
It is also interesting to note that this Synod of Pistoia sounds exactly like VII, in which the same ambigouity was used to try and inject errors into the Church. As history shows, that council was afterwards condemned, just like no doubt VII will one day be condemned. But nowhere did I find any reference to the claim that the culprits were treated as pertinaceous heretics who lost their office, like some now treat the VII culprits. Why not ?
Overall, I see a red flag go up upon reading your response. [Response 2] You appear to have that erroneous attitude of looking at what the Church gives us in terms of whether it is fallible or infallible. That is most definitely not a Catholic attitude. Tradition shows no such attitude. That was something that predominated since Vatican II because of the desperateness of grappling with the crisis. It's an attitude that makes one more easily susceptible to fall for the Feeneyite heresy. We are obliged to assent to what "the Church" gives us, including the entire contents of encyclicals and catechisms.
Certainly it would be misleading if someone where to quote from Munificentissimus Deus something outside of the actual definition (of the Assumption) and say that what is quoted is "defined" by the Church. However, it is perfectly respectable to say the Church "teaches" it, unless the context makes it clear She does not. The same goes for an actual anathema; if the encyclical clearly says something is wrong, we can say the Church "condemns" it.
As for councils, they are not officially councils per se unless a true pope approves of whatever he approves from them. The Synod you speak of was not approved by an alleged pope. It has no resemblance to Vatican II.
I think you miss the whole point again. I'll assume it's my clumsiness in expressing myself.
1. Your original quote omitted the bulk of the condemnation and therefore was misleading to say the least, possibly even erroneous.
2. If you read the whole condemnation (without skipping parts or even the bulk of it) it becomes clear that it does not directly support your initial claim, even though maybe indirectly it refers to it. This "maybe" is not because of some diversion tactics (like you seem to insinuate), but because I don't make assumptions and read into partial quotes what I want to read into it. I am trying to stay objective.
I understand what you are saying, and you are wrong. [Response 3] The portion of that docuмent that starts "as if....", which I quoted, is a complete thought that is legitimate to describe as being condemned by the Church. I am basically repeating myself, but I hope the different choice of words is not in vain.
I see no repetition between "Response 1, 2 and 3", indicated above in Blue.
Your "choice of words" is in vain for me, as I see no proof here of your claim that "a true Pope cannot err in faith or morals", maybe a hint, but not proof. And I don't think you have understood me, but I see no point in repeating myself (again).
-
We don't have to find a canonical heresy to say that a pope is not a true pope. As we see when papal infallibility was defined in 1870, it mentions that he will be prevented from "erring" against faith or morals. It doesn't say contradict or deny a previously defined dogma of the faith. To "err" means a mistake that harms faith or morals.
Additionally, "papal infallibility" is not the same as "Church infallibility". Papal infallibility is merely rare and solemn instances where the pope shines the entire Church infallibility on one act of his, in the name of the Church. The scope of Church infallibility, on the other hand, is thousands of times more common and frequent than papal infallibility.
There are quotes that solidly reveal just what I explained above:
St. Thomas Aquinas:
"it would be blasphemy to say that the Church does anything in vain."
..
Nado,
I believe this quote is being misused as well. The context can be found here : Indulgences (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5025.htm)
First, notice how in the previous paragraph St Thomas gives an even stronger statement : "Further, the universal Church cannot err; since .." St Thomas is talking about the universal Church. That sounds very similar to one of the conditions defined for Papal infallibility : "The Pope must be talking as universal pastor.. bind the universal Church..".
Was St Thomas talking about everything that the Church does or teaches, or did he have some qualifications or limitations in mind ? I believe that question was answered when the First Vatican Council defined the doctrine of Papal infallibility, including it's conditions and therefore also it's limitations.
IF the above quotes of St Thomas really meant that the Church cannot do anything in vain, or cannot err (without any qualifications), then I wonder where in that picture would you put a "Catholic in error" ? Is he outside of the Church because of his error ? Was his error not in vain ?
-
.. And, as I said, (as corollary) Catholics are obliged to internally assent to the content of encyclicals.
I completely agree, 100%. The problem I see is that we do not all understand these encyclicals the way the Church wants us to understand them. We often read different things and put different interpretations on them, we omit the context, forget essential qualifications and conditions, .. and we end up with different theories. A bit like each protestant reading the same Bible and claiming to be inspired by the same Holy Ghost, yet all end up with a different opinion.. !?
-
.. And, as I said, (as corollary) Catholics are obliged to internally assent to the content of encyclicals.
I completely agree, 100%. The problem I see is that we do not all understand these encyclicals the way the Church wants us to understand them. We often read different things and put different interpretations on them, we omit the context, forget essential qualifications and conditions, .. and we end up with different theories. A bit like each protestant reading the same Bible and claiming to be inspired by the same Holy Ghost, yet all end up with a different opinion.. !?
Perhaps that is your personal problem, but that is not a problem I have.
I'm happy for you, however, I do not have that benefit and will therefore try to tread with caution (and humility).
-
We don't have to find a canonical heresy to say that a pope is not a true pope. As we see when papal infallibility was defined in 1870, it mentions that he will be prevented from "erring" against faith or morals. It doesn't say contradict or deny a previously defined dogma of the faith. To "err" means a mistake that harms faith or morals.
Additionally, "papal infallibility" is not the same as "Church infallibility". Papal infallibility is merely rare and solemn instances where the pope shines the entire Church infallibility on one act of his, in the name of the Church. The scope of Church infallibility, on the other hand, is thousands of times more common and frequent than papal infallibility.
There are quotes that solidly reveal just what I explained above:
St. Thomas Aquinas:
"it would be blasphemy to say that the Church does anything in vain."
..
Nado,
I believe this quote is being misused as well. The context can be found here : Indulgences (http:///summa/5025.htm)
First, notice how in the previous paragraph St Thomas gives an even stronger statement : "Further, the universal Church cannot err; since .." St Thomas is talking about the universal Church. That sounds very similar to one of the conditions defined for Papal infallibility : "The Pope must be talking as universal pastor.. bind the universal Church..".
Was St Thomas talking about everything that the Church does or teaches, or did he have some qualifications or limitations in mind ? I believe that question was answered when the First Vatican Council defined the doctrine of Papal infallibility, including it's conditions and therefore also it's limitations.
IF the above quotes of St Thomas really meant that the Church cannot do anything in vain, or cannot err (without any qualifications), then I wonder where in that picture would you put a "Catholic in error" ? Is he outside of the Church because of his error ? Was his error not in vain ?
Nothing was misused with AF, and neither have I misused St. Thomas. I know very well that I got the quote where St. Thomas was talking about Indulgences, but it has nothing to do specifically with indulgences. It is a general principle applied to that particular. If you look when he used it, he was proving something by stating that very truth; a truth he didn't need to explain because he expected the reader to understand it and not question the truth of it. But you appear to be doing it anyway. And then you further go awry by conflating papal infallibility with the infallibility of the Church, even though I just addressed that error. Red flags all around.
Maybe that is why he did not mention the conditions or limitations of that truth. Can you honestly claim to read a quote like this one and understand it's correct meaning, like his audience would have understood it in a complete different era, in a different society, with a healthy Church hierarchy to teach them ?
Good on you, but I cannot claim such a feat. I will keep on searching and verifying whatever is thrown at me in these confusing times where good shepherds are few and far between.
-
Nado,
Can you please tell me what would you do if ever you found out your Parish/Chapel priest were preaching an error from the pulpit ?
Would you regard him as being part of the Church or not ?
Can you explain why your principle ("the Church cannot err") applies or does not apply ?
-
The thrice defined dogma that every Concilliar Pope has denied is: "There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church."
Where is the evidence? Please cite an official docuмent where we can find this formal rejection of EENS by the Conciliar Popes.
Just one more sample, among many others:
Ut unum sint, 62
And please don't come again with the excuse of invincible ignorance.
-
The thrice defined dogma that every Concilliar Pope has denied is: "There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church."
Where is the evidence? Please cite an official docuмent where we can find this formal rejection of EENS by the Conciliar Popes.
Just one more sample, among many others:
Ut unum sint, 62
And please don't come again with the excuse of invincible ignorance.
62. In the period following the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church has also, in different ways and with greater or lesser rapidity, restored fraternal relations with the Ancient Churches of the East which rejected the dogmatic formulations of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. All these Churches sent official observers to the Second Vatican Council; their Patriarchs have honoured us by their visits, and the Bishop of Rome has been able to converse with them as with brothers who, after a long time, joyfully meet again.
The return of fraternal relations with the Ancient Churches of the East witnesses to the Christian faith in situations which are often hostile and tragic. This is a concrete sign of how we are united in Christ in spite of historical, political, social and cultural barriers. And precisely in relation to Christology, we have been able to join the Patriarchs of some of these Churches in declaring our common faith in Jesus Christ, true God and true man. Pope Paul VI of venerable memory signed declarations to this effect with His Holiness Shenouda III, the Coptic Orthodox Pope and Patriarch,103 and with His Beatitude Jacoub III, the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch.104 I myself have been able to confirm this Christological agreement and draw on it for the development of dialogue with Pope Shenouda,105 and for pastoral cooperation with the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas.106
When the Venerable Patriarch of the Ethiopian Church, Abuna Paulos, paid me a visit in Rome on 11 June 1993, together we emphasized the deep communion existing between our two Churches: "We share the faith handed down from the Apostles, as also the same sacraments and the same ministry, rooted in the apostolic succession ... Today, moreover, we can affirm that we have the one faith in Christ, even though for a long time this was a source of division between us".107
More recently, the Lord has granted me the great joy of signing a common Christological declaration with the Assyrian Patriarch of the East, His Holiness Mar Dinkha IV, who for this purpose chose to visit me in Rome in November 1994. Taking into account the different theological formulations, we were able to profess together the true faith in Christ.108 I wish to express my joy at all this in the words of the Blessed Virgin: "My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord" (Lk 1:46).
Ok, this is about the relations with the Orthodox, but where is the "heretic" statement here?
Adolphus, do you even know what "heresy" actually consists of?
-
The thrice defined dogma that every Concilliar Pope has denied is: "There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church."
Where is the evidence? Please cite an official docuмent where we can find this formal rejection of EENS by the Conciliar Popes.
Just one more sample, among many others:
Ut unum sint, 62
And please don't come again with the excuse of invincible ignorance.
62. In the period following the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church has also, in different ways and with greater or lesser rapidity, restored fraternal relations with the Ancient Churches of the East which rejected the dogmatic formulations of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. All these Churches sent official observers to the Second Vatican Council; their Patriarchs have honoured us by their visits, and the Bishop of Rome has been able to converse with them as with brothers who, after a long time, joyfully meet again.
The return of fraternal relations with the Ancient Churches of the East witnesses to the Christian faith in situations which are often hostile and tragic. This is a concrete sign of how we are united in Christ in spite of historical, political, social and cultural barriers. And precisely in relation to Christology, we have been able to join the Patriarchs of some of these Churches in declaring our common faith in Jesus Christ, true God and true man. Pope Paul VI of venerable memory signed declarations to this effect with His Holiness Shenouda III, the Coptic Orthodox Pope and Patriarch,103 and with His Beatitude Jacoub III, the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch.104 I myself have been able to confirm this Christological agreement and draw on it for the development of dialogue with Pope Shenouda,105 and for pastoral cooperation with the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas.106
When the Venerable Patriarch of the Ethiopian Church, Abuna Paulos, paid me a visit in Rome on 11 June 1993, together we emphasized the deep communion existing between our two Churches: "We share the faith handed down from the Apostles, as also the same sacraments and the same ministry, rooted in the apostolic succession ... Today, moreover, we can affirm that we have the one faith in Christ, even though for a long time this was a source of division between us".107
More recently, the Lord has granted me the great joy of signing a common Christological declaration with the Assyrian Patriarch of the East, His Holiness Mar Dinkha IV, who for this purpose chose to visit me in Rome in November 1994. Taking into account the different theological formulations, we were able to profess together the true faith in Christ.108 I wish to express my joy at all this in the words of the Blessed Virgin: "My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord" (Lk 1:46).
Ok, this is about the relations with the Orthodox, but where is the "heretic" statement here?
Adolphus, do you even know what "heresy" actually consists of?
I do. Do you? I ask because you quoted some paragraphs in which the same heresy is repeated several times, but you seem not to have found it. Or maybe you believe that we, Catholics, have the same faith than those who deny the Holy Gosht proceeds from the Father and the Son and who deny the pope's authority.
-
Having talked to the ( almost unmovable ) Orthodox I can tell you this: they have their heads on straighter than liberal, modernist Vatican II Catholics. Especially when it comes to having an accurate view of the modern world and exactly who is most responsible for it's decay ( they were most affected by the ʝʊdɛօ-Bolshevik takeover of Russia-financed by Jacob Schiff and the Rothscuм empire ). They know the wisdom and necessity of Church-State unity, etc.
Most trads love their bells and smells on Sunday but talk to them about what's going on in the world and they usually regurgitate the Jew-approved version they heard on TV or read in their newspaper.
The Consecration will help the Western Church and the Orthodox. Our Lady of St. Petersburg ( ? maybe? this conversion is going to have to happen in some dramatic way ) will change everything. A Catholic monarch in Russia and one in France ( militant "bookends" in Europe ) would give us a chance to "correct and discipline" our enemies for a change. A lot of lies that the modern world is built on will crumble.
( Apologies all around in advance for any advanced speculation on any and all non-approved apparitions that may or m ay not happen in the future...regardless of whether it's a pious thought or not...) :nunchaku:
-
.. And, as I said, (as corollary) Catholics are obliged to internally assent to the content of encyclicals.
I completely agree, 100%. The problem I see is that we do not all understand these encyclicals the way the Church wants us to understand them. We often read different things and put different interpretations on them, we omit the context, forget essential qualifications and conditions, .. and we end up with different theories. A bit like each protestant reading the same Bible and claiming to be inspired by the same Holy Ghost, yet all end up with a different opinion.. !?
Perhaps that is your personal problem, but that is not a problem I have.
I'm happy for you, however, I do not have that benefit and will therefore try to tread with caution (and humility).
If you have that problem, you shouldn't be arguing your viewpoint in public.
I never looked at it that way : prudence and humility being a problem..
God Bless.
-
The thrice defined dogma that every Concilliar Pope has denied is: "There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church."
Where is the evidence? Please cite an official docuмent where we can find this formal rejection of EENS by the Conciliar Popes.
Just one more sample, among many others:
Ut unum sint, 62
And please don't come again with the excuse of invincible ignorance.
62. In the period following the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church has also, in different ways and with greater or lesser rapidity, restored fraternal relations with the Ancient Churches of the East which rejected the dogmatic formulations of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. All these Churches sent official observers to the Second Vatican Council; their Patriarchs have honoured us by their visits, and the Bishop of Rome has been able to converse with them as with brothers who, after a long time, joyfully meet again.
The return of fraternal relations with the Ancient Churches of the East witnesses to the Christian faith in situations which are often hostile and tragic. This is a concrete sign of how we are united in Christ in spite of historical, political, social and cultural barriers. And precisely in relation to Christology, we have been able to join the Patriarchs of some of these Churches in declaring our common faith in Jesus Christ, true God and true man. Pope Paul VI of venerable memory signed declarations to this effect with His Holiness Shenouda III, the Coptic Orthodox Pope and Patriarch,103 and with His Beatitude Jacoub III, the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch.104 I myself have been able to confirm this Christological agreement and draw on it for the development of dialogue with Pope Shenouda,105 and for pastoral cooperation with the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas.106
When the Venerable Patriarch of the Ethiopian Church, Abuna Paulos, paid me a visit in Rome on 11 June 1993, together we emphasized the deep communion existing between our two Churches: "We share the faith handed down from the Apostles, as also the same sacraments and the same ministry, rooted in the apostolic succession ... Today, moreover, we can affirm that we have the one faith in Christ, even though for a long time this was a source of division between us".107
More recently, the Lord has granted me the great joy of signing a common Christological declaration with the Assyrian Patriarch of the East, His Holiness Mar Dinkha IV, who for this purpose chose to visit me in Rome in November 1994. Taking into account the different theological formulations, we were able to profess together the true faith in Christ.108 I wish to express my joy at all this in the words of the Blessed Virgin: "My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord" (Lk 1:46).
Ok, this is about the relations with the Orthodox, but where is the "heretic" statement here?
Adolphus, do you even know what "heresy" actually consists of?
I do. Do you? I ask because you quoted some paragraphs in which the same heresy is repeated several times, but you seem not to have found it. Or maybe you believe that we, Catholics, have the same faith than those who deny the Holy Gosht proceeds from the Father and the Son and who deny the pope's authority.
I can see why the statement of sharing the same Faith in Christ with the Eastern Orthodox can be easily interpreted as an error (because of the filioque issue and the denial of the papal primacy). However, this is cited as a heretical example of denial of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus when the paragraph itself says nothing at all about salvation. Remember, we are trying to discern actual heresy here, not narrative error.
Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, (this means, a de fide doctrine). Still do not see the dogma of Faith that is being denied here.
-
The thrice defined dogma that every Concilliar Pope has denied is: "There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church."
Where is the evidence? Please cite an official docuмent where we can find this formal rejection of EENS by the Conciliar Popes.
Just one more sample, among many others:
Ut unum sint, 62
And please don't come again with the excuse of invincible ignorance.
62. In the period following the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church has also, in different ways and with greater or lesser rapidity, restored fraternal relations with the Ancient Churches of the East which rejected the dogmatic formulations of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. All these Churches sent official observers to the Second Vatican Council; their Patriarchs have honoured us by their visits, and the Bishop of Rome has been able to converse with them as with brothers who, after a long time, joyfully meet again.
The return of fraternal relations with the Ancient Churches of the East witnesses to the Christian faith in situations which are often hostile and tragic. This is a concrete sign of how we are united in Christ in spite of historical, political, social and cultural barriers. And precisely in relation to Christology, we have been able to join the Patriarchs of some of these Churches in declaring our common faith in Jesus Christ, true God and true man. Pope Paul VI of venerable memory signed declarations to this effect with His Holiness Shenouda III, the Coptic Orthodox Pope and Patriarch,103 and with His Beatitude Jacoub III, the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch.104 I myself have been able to confirm this Christological agreement and draw on it for the development of dialogue with Pope Shenouda,105 and for pastoral cooperation with the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas.106
When the Venerable Patriarch of the Ethiopian Church, Abuna Paulos, paid me a visit in Rome on 11 June 1993, together we emphasized the deep communion existing between our two Churches: "We share the faith handed down from the Apostles, as also the same sacraments and the same ministry, rooted in the apostolic succession ... Today, moreover, we can affirm that we have the one faith in Christ, even though for a long time this was a source of division between us".107
More recently, the Lord has granted me the great joy of signing a common Christological declaration with the Assyrian Patriarch of the East, His Holiness Mar Dinkha IV, who for this purpose chose to visit me in Rome in November 1994. Taking into account the different theological formulations, we were able to profess together the true faith in Christ.108 I wish to express my joy at all this in the words of the Blessed Virgin: "My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord" (Lk 1:46).
Ok, this is about the relations with the Orthodox, but where is the "heretic" statement here?
Adolphus, do you even know what "heresy" actually consists of?
I do. Do you? I ask because you quoted some paragraphs in which the same heresy is repeated several times, but you seem not to have found it. Or maybe you believe that we, Catholics, have the same faith than those who deny the Holy Gosht proceeds from the Father and the Son and who deny the pope's authority.
I can see why the statement of sharing the same Faith in Christ with the Eastern Orthodox can be easily interpreted as an error (because of the filioque issue and the denial of the papal primacy). However, this is cited as a heretical example of denial of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus when the paragraph itself says nothing at all about salvation. Remember, we are trying to discern actual heresy here, not narrative error.
Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, (this means, a de fide doctrine). Still do not see the dogma of Faith that is being denied here.
How about this? A truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son.
The Orthodox don't believe this.
And yet JP2 says that Catholics and Orthodox together profess the "common faith in Christ", the "one faith in Christ", the "true faith in Christ".
The dogma of Faith that is being denied is, in effect, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. JP2 is making it optional. He is saying that you can deny this truth of the Catholic Faith and still profess the same faith in Christ that a Catholic does.
-
Nado:
Your imprudence is the problem, because your personal trouble would oblige you to refrain from doing public harm.
Nado, I hope I do no public harm by calling you a dope. But Merry Christmas anyway. I do hope that the both of us make it to Heaven. :smirk:
-
Nado,
Can you please tell me what would you do if ever you found out your Parish/Chapel priest were preaching an error from the pulpit ?
Would you regard him as being part of the Church or not ?
Can you explain why your principle ("the Church cannot err") applies or does not apply ?
Simply, a parish priest doesn't teach the universal Church.
"A priest" and "the Church" are hardly synonymous.
Ok, so does the Pope teach the universal Church each and every time he opens his mouth or uses his pen ?
-
The thrice defined dogma that every Concilliar Pope has denied is: "There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church."
Where is the evidence? Please cite an official docuмent where we can find this formal rejection of EENS by the Conciliar Popes.
Just one more sample, among many others:
Ut unum sint, 62
And please don't come again with the excuse of invincible ignorance.
62. In the period following the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church has also, in different ways and with greater or lesser rapidity, restored fraternal relations with the Ancient Churches of the East which rejected the dogmatic formulations of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. All these Churches sent official observers to the Second Vatican Council; their Patriarchs have honoured us by their visits, and the Bishop of Rome has been able to converse with them as with brothers who, after a long time, joyfully meet again.
The return of fraternal relations with the Ancient Churches of the East witnesses to the Christian faith in situations which are often hostile and tragic. This is a concrete sign of how we are united in Christ in spite of historical, political, social and cultural barriers. And precisely in relation to Christology, we have been able to join the Patriarchs of some of these Churches in declaring our common faith in Jesus Christ, true God and true man. Pope Paul VI of venerable memory signed declarations to this effect with His Holiness Shenouda III, the Coptic Orthodox Pope and Patriarch,103 and with His Beatitude Jacoub III, the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch.104 I myself have been able to confirm this Christological agreement and draw on it for the development of dialogue with Pope Shenouda,105 and for pastoral cooperation with the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas.106
When the Venerable Patriarch of the Ethiopian Church, Abuna Paulos, paid me a visit in Rome on 11 June 1993, together we emphasized the deep communion existing between our two Churches: "We share the faith handed down from the Apostles, as also the same sacraments and the same ministry, rooted in the apostolic succession ... Today, moreover, we can affirm that we have the one faith in Christ, even though for a long time this was a source of division between us".107
More recently, the Lord has granted me the great joy of signing a common Christological declaration with the Assyrian Patriarch of the East, His Holiness Mar Dinkha IV, who for this purpose chose to visit me in Rome in November 1994. Taking into account the different theological formulations, we were able to profess together the true faith in Christ.108 I wish to express my joy at all this in the words of the Blessed Virgin: "My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord" (Lk 1:46).
Ok, this is about the relations with the Orthodox, but where is the "heretic" statement here?
Adolphus, do you even know what "heresy" actually consists of?
I do. Do you? I ask because you quoted some paragraphs in which the same heresy is repeated several times, but you seem not to have found it. Or maybe you believe that we, Catholics, have the same faith than those who deny the Holy Gosht proceeds from the Father and the Son and who deny the pope's authority.
I can see why the statement of sharing the same Faith in Christ with the Eastern Orthodox can be easily interpreted as an error (because of the filioque issue and the denial of the papal primacy). However, this is cited as a heretical example of denial of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus when the paragraph itself says nothing at all about salvation. Remember, we are trying to discern actual heresy here, not narrative error.
Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, (this means, a de fide doctrine). Still do not see the dogma of Faith that is being denied here.
How about this? A truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son.
The Orthodox don't believe this.
And yet JP2 says that Catholics and Orthodox together profess the "common faith in Christ", the "one faith in Christ", the "true faith in Christ".
The dogma of Faith that is being denied is, in effect, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. JP2 is making it optional. He is saying that you can deny this truth of the Catholic Faith and still profess the same faith in Christ that a Catholic does.
The statement then should be clearly read something as " The Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Father and the Son" or a public Catholic declaration that indeed, the Orthodox are correct and the Holy Ghost only proceeds from the Father. Nothing of this is ever found.
Otherwise what it followed, it is nothing but a "personal conclusion" one arrives by "connecting the dots".
Furthermore, in Canon Law a "heresy" does require a formal process and a declaratory sentence that includes appropriate warnings in order to determine "pertinacity" if the heretic does no amend and the loss of office occurs only after the heretic defies ecclesiastical warnings.
Canon 2314
S. 1. All Apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic:
1. Incur by that fact excommunication;
2. Unless they respect warnings, they are deprived of benefice, dignity, pension, office, or other duty that they have in the Church, they are declared infamous, and [if] clerics, with the warning being repeated, [they are] deposed;
3. If they give their names to non-Catholic sects or publicly adhere [to them], they are by that fact infamous, and with due regard for the prescription of Canon 188, n. 4. clerics, the previous warnings having been useless, are degraded.
-
.. And, as I said, (as corollary) Catholics are obliged to internally assent to the content of encyclicals.
I completely agree, 100%. The problem I see is that we do not all understand these encyclicals the way the Church wants us to understand them. We often read different things and put different interpretations on them, we omit the context, forget essential qualifications and conditions, .. and we end up with different theories. A bit like each protestant reading the same Bible and claiming to be inspired by the same Holy Ghost, yet all end up with a different opinion.. !?
Perhaps that is your personal problem, but that is not a problem I have.
I'm happy for you, however, I do not have that benefit and will therefore try to tread with caution (and humility).
If you have that problem, you shouldn't be arguing your viewpoint in public.
I never looked at it that way : prudence and humility being a problem..
God Bless.
Your humility is not the problem, because you admitted your trouble.
Your imprudence is the problem, because your personal trouble would oblige you to refrain from doing public harm.
Thanks for pointing out the splinter in my eye, but I'm a bit slow and don't get it yet. Am I being imprudent for trying to tread with caution, in public, and by not jumping to the same conclusion that you have jumped to ? After providing arguments from history that the Church always treads with caution and extreme patience in accusing someone of being a pertinaceous heretic, unlike many modern day sedevacantists ? Am I being imprudent for checking out quotes that are thrown at me, for verifying their context and true meaning, for asking questions and for requesting more proof ?
I wonder what the public harm is in this ? It certainly is a novel definition for the vice of imprudence..
-
..Otherwise what it followed, it is nothing but a "personal conclusion" one arrives by "connecting the dots"..
I think this is the crux of the whole issue : all these instances make the culprits 'suspect of heresy', yet none of them are a clear, direct and pertinaceous denial of a dogma.
-
The thrice defined dogma that every Concilliar Pope has denied is: "There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church."
Where is the evidence? Please cite an official docuмent where we can find this formal rejection of EENS by the Conciliar Popes.
Just one more sample, among many others:
Ut unum sint, 62
And please don't come again with the excuse of invincible ignorance.
62. In the period following the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church has also, in different ways and with greater or lesser rapidity, restored fraternal relations with the Ancient Churches of the East which rejected the dogmatic formulations of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. All these Churches sent official observers to the Second Vatican Council; their Patriarchs have honoured us by their visits, and the Bishop of Rome has been able to converse with them as with brothers who, after a long time, joyfully meet again.
The return of fraternal relations with the Ancient Churches of the East witnesses to the Christian faith in situations which are often hostile and tragic. This is a concrete sign of how we are united in Christ in spite of historical, political, social and cultural barriers. And precisely in relation to Christology, we have been able to join the Patriarchs of some of these Churches in declaring our common faith in Jesus Christ, true God and true man. Pope Paul VI of venerable memory signed declarations to this effect with His Holiness Shenouda III, the Coptic Orthodox Pope and Patriarch,103 and with His Beatitude Jacoub III, the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch.104 I myself have been able to confirm this Christological agreement and draw on it for the development of dialogue with Pope Shenouda,105 and for pastoral cooperation with the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas.106
When the Venerable Patriarch of the Ethiopian Church, Abuna Paulos, paid me a visit in Rome on 11 June 1993, together we emphasized the deep communion existing between our two Churches: "We share the faith handed down from the Apostles, as also the same sacraments and the same ministry, rooted in the apostolic succession ... Today, moreover, we can affirm that we have the one faith in Christ, even though for a long time this was a source of division between us".107
More recently, the Lord has granted me the great joy of signing a common Christological declaration with the Assyrian Patriarch of the East, His Holiness Mar Dinkha IV, who for this purpose chose to visit me in Rome in November 1994. Taking into account the different theological formulations, we were able to profess together the true faith in Christ.108 I wish to express my joy at all this in the words of the Blessed Virgin: "My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord" (Lk 1:46).
Ok, this is about the relations with the Orthodox, but where is the "heretic" statement here?
Adolphus, do you even know what "heresy" actually consists of?
I do. Do you? I ask because you quoted some paragraphs in which the same heresy is repeated several times, but you seem not to have found it. Or maybe you believe that we, Catholics, have the same faith than those who deny the Holy Gosht proceeds from the Father and the Son and who deny the pope's authority.
I can see why the statement of sharing the same Faith in Christ with the Eastern Orthodox can be easily interpreted as an error (because of the filioque issue and the denial of the papal primacy). However, this is cited as a heretical example of denial of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus when the paragraph itself says nothing at all about salvation. Remember, we are trying to discern actual heresy here, not narrative error.
Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, (this means, a de fide doctrine). Still do not see the dogma of Faith that is being denied here.
How about this? A truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son.
The Orthodox don't believe this.
And yet JP2 says that Catholics and Orthodox together profess the "common faith in Christ", the "one faith in Christ", the "true faith in Christ".
The dogma of Faith that is being denied is, in effect, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. JP2 is making it optional. He is saying that you can deny this truth of the Catholic Faith and still profess the same faith in Christ that a Catholic does.
The statement then should be clearly read something as " The Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Father and the Son" or a public Catholic declaration that indeed, the Orthodox are correct and the Holy Ghost only proceeds from the Father. Nothing of this is ever found.
Otherwise what it followed, it is nothing but a "personal conclusion" one arrives by "connecting the dots".
Furthermore, in Canon Law a "heresy" does require a formal process and a declaratory sentence that includes appropriate warnings in order to determine "pertinacity" if the heretic does no amend and the loss of office occurs only after the heretic defies ecclesiastical warnings.
Canon 2314
S. 1. All Apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic:
1. Incur by that fact excommunication;
2. Unless they respect warnings, they are deprived of benefice, dignity, pension, office, or other duty that they have in the Church, they are declared infamous, and [if] clerics, with the warning being repeated, [they are] deposed;
3. If they give their names to non-Catholic sects or publicly adhere [to them], they are by that fact infamous, and with due regard for the prescription of Canon 188, n. 4. clerics, the previous warnings having been useless, are degraded.
What "personnal conclusion" do you come to, Cantarella, from JP2's statement, which is only one of many other such statements as Adolphus pointed out.
Are you insisting that heresies be stated clearly and unequivocally, presented in bold, underlined and with arrows pointing? What half-intelligent heretic would would make his heresies so obvious?
Come on, explain what conclusion you come to from JP2's claims that the Orthodox, who deny that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, share a "common faith", "true faith", and "one faith" in Christ with Catholics.
In your own words.
-
awkward:
Come on, explain what conclusion you come to from JP2's claims that the Orthodox, who deny that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, share a "common faith", "true faith", and "one faith" in Christ with Catholics.
I understand that baptism in the Orthodox Church is seen as valid by the Church. Furthermore, I understand, one may attend Orthodox religious services if no Catholic Mass is available. Orthodox priests are validly ordained, I understand. What is more, so I'm told, an in extremis condition allows for the administration of Last Rites by an Orthodox priest. Orthodox marriages are recognized by the Church, as well. So what I'm getting at, I guess, is that we do share some kind of a "common faith" on some level, don't we? I invite correction from all but Nado, Adolphus, or any other sede nut on this forum. Thank you. :rolleyes:
-
Nado,
Can you please tell me what would you do if ever you found out your Parish/Chapel priest were preaching an error from the pulpit ?
Would you regard him as being part of the Church or not ?
Can you explain why your principle ("the Church cannot err") applies or does not apply ?
Simply, a parish priest doesn't teach the universal Church.
"A priest" and "the Church" are hardly synonymous.
Ok, so does the Pope teach the universal Church each and every time he opens his mouth or uses his pen ?
I can hardly believe you are asking this seriously, but then I know you are infected with ex-cathedrism. The answer is, of course not. When the Pope does something official for the Church at large, then it is the Church doing it.
Instructing the ignorant is a spiritual work of mercy. Good on you for trying Nado.
Anyway, there is a reason I am asking what seems like stupid questions to you (apart from me being really stupid anyway that is).
You have stated that a priest can teach error, but remain inside the Church, because he would not be 'teaching the universal Church'. You also admit that the Pope does not always teach the universal Church every time he says or writes something. Logic tells me that therefore he too (like the priest) can err when he is not teaching the universal Church, and still remain inside the Chuch and remain Pope. Correct ?
So, if a priest/bishop/pope can err in faith and morals, but the Church cannot err, not even apart from ex cathedra, how do we distinguish between a priest/bishop/pope teaching (and erring) and the universal Church teaching (and erring therefore not being the true Church anymore) ?
-
..Otherwise what it followed, it is nothing but a "personal conclusion" one arrives by "connecting the dots"..
I think this is the crux of the whole issue : all these instances make the culprits 'suspect of heresy', yet none of them are a clear, direct and pertinaceous denial of a dogma.
Perhaps they are too crafty to make "clear, direct and pertinaceous denials of dogma". Why would they want to make their heresies so obvious? They would only give themselves away?
-
awkward: Come on, explain what conclusion you come to from JP2's claims that the Orthodox, who deny that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, share a "common faith", "true faith", and "one faith" in Christ with Catholics.
I understand that baptism in the Orthodox Church is seen as valid by the Church. Furthermore, I understand, one may attend Orthodox religious services if no Catholic Mass is available. Orthodox priests are validly ordained, I understand. What is more, so I'm told, an in extremis condition allows for the administration of Last Rites by an Orthodox priest. Orthodox marriages are recognized by the Church, as well. So what I'm getting at, I guess, is that we do share some kind of a "common faith" on some level, don't we? I invite correction from all but Nado, Adolphus, or any other sede nut on this forum. Thank you. :rolleyes:
Oops, I was about to address your points. But then I reread your nasty final sentence. :ape:
-
..Otherwise what it followed, it is nothing but a "personal conclusion" one arrives by "connecting the dots"..
I think this is the crux of the whole issue : all these instances make the culprits 'suspect of heresy', yet none of them are a clear, direct and pertinaceous denial of a dogma.
Perhaps they are too crafty to make "clear, direct and pertinaceous denials of dogma". Why would they want to make their heresies so obvious? They would only give themselves away?
I have no doubt this is a real possibility, but only God can read the mind and heart. We cannot rely on our judgement of their motives and guilt.
When I see how extremely patient and careful the Church has been in the past, how long she tried giving her members the benefit of the doubt, how much she tolerated without resorting to condemnations, I wonder how we can justify acting differently ?
No doubt, many (or most) of the VII clergy have been really, really bad. But what criteria can we use to call someone a heretic, or even to consider him/her outside of the Church ?
-
.. And, as I said, (as corollary) Catholics are obliged to internally assent to the content of encyclicals.
I completely agree, 100%. The problem I see is that we do not all understand these encyclicals the way the Church wants us to understand them. We often read different things and put different interpretations on them, we omit the context, forget essential qualifications and conditions, .. and we end up with different theories. A bit like each protestant reading the same Bible and claiming to be inspired by the same Holy Ghost, yet all end up with a different opinion.. !?
Perhaps that is your personal problem, but that is not a problem I have.
I'm happy for you, however, I do not have that benefit and will therefore try to tread with caution (and humility).
If you have that problem, you shouldn't be arguing your viewpoint in public.
I never looked at it that way : prudence and humility being a problem..
God Bless.
Your humility is not the problem, because you admitted your trouble.
Your imprudence is the problem, because your personal trouble would oblige you to refrain from doing public harm.
Thanks for pointing out the splinter in my eye, but I'm a bit slow and don't get it yet. Am I being imprudent for trying to tread with caution, in public, and by not jumping to the same conclusion that you have jumped to ? After providing arguments from history that the Church always treads with caution and extreme patience in accusing someone of being a pertinaceous heretic, unlike many modern day sedevacantists ? Am I being imprudent for checking out quotes that are thrown at me, for verifying their context and true meaning, for asking questions and for requesting more proof ?
I wonder what the public harm is in this ? It certainly is a novel definition for the vice of imprudence..
You humbly pointed out your own splinter to us. I am giving the morality based upon your problem. If you have admitted trouble understanding Church docuмents, then you should not be involved in pushing your opinions publicly on doctrine. (You don't merely ask questions).
When I referred to the 'problem' of immediately and correctly understanding Church docuмents, I used the word 'we', indicating that it is a challenge to some degree for most (if not all) people on earth, including you. Unless of course you have infused knowledge, which I don't think is the case. Asking questions and putting forward arguments and counter arguments is a valid way of learning. Blindly taking one's word for it has never been my strength and hopefully never will be.
We don't need to judge pertinacity in order to immediately avoid, and warn others about, objective dangers to the faith.
Indeed, we can 'avoid, and warn others about, objective dangers to the faith' without declaring the culprit a heretic and outside of the Church. It is called R&R. It is only when one wants to go a step further and declare someone a heretic and outside of the Church, that pertinacity comes into the equation.
-
..Otherwise what it followed, it is nothing but a "personal conclusion" one arrives by "connecting the dots"..
I think this is the crux of the whole issue : all these instances make the culprits 'suspect of heresy', yet none of them are a clear, direct and pertinaceous denial of a dogma.
Perhaps they are too crafty to make "clear, direct and pertinaceous denials of dogma". Why would they want to make their heresies so obvious? They would only give themselves away?
I have no doubt this is a real possibility, but only God can read the mind and heart. We cannot rely on our judgement of their motives and guilt.
When I see how extremely patient and careful the Church has been in the past, how long she tried giving her members the benefit of the doubt, how much she tolerated without resorting to condemnations, I wonder how we can justify acting differently ?
No doubt, many (or most) of the VII clergy have been really, really bad. But what criteria can we use to call someone a heretic, or even to consider him/her outside of the Church ?
We don't need to judge pertinacity in order to immediately avoid, and warn others about, objective dangers to the faith.
Correct, that's what R&R does. But that is not what the discussion is about, It is about the line between 'suspect of heresy' and 'pertinacious heresy'.
-
nado:
Never mind "common faith"; they do have heresies, and the Church has stated that the Orthodox are not Christians.
Oh really? Please cite scripture and verse. Are not the Orthodox to be included among our "separated brethren?" But enough! Just refer us all to a dogmatic statement from a recognized catechism of the Church, or some other recognized authority within the Church to the effect. Mind you, nado, I think you're a fanatic and a nut- but nevetheless, a statement from a pope, a genuine Council of the Church, a papal encyclical, a letter, anything acceptable to all confessing and practicing Catholics which would indicate clearly and unambiguously that "the Orthodox are not Christians."
-
Nobody said,
.......that is not what the discussion is about, It is about the line between 'suspect of heresy' and 'pertinacious heresy'.
Here is one of many quotes by John Paul II referring to universal salvation. Does it cross the line?
In his zeal for mission, the Bishop should be seen as the servant and witness of hope. Mission is the sure index of our faith in Christ and his love for us: men and women of all times are thereby inspired to a new life motivated by hope. In proclaiming the Risen Lord, Christians present the One who inaugurates a new era of history and announce to the world the good news of a complete and universal salvation which contains in itself the pledge of a new world in which pain and injustice will give way to joy and beauty. At the beginning of a new millennium marked by a clearer awareness of the universality of salvation and a realization that the Gospel daily needs to be proclaimed anew, the Synodal Assembly raised an appeal that our commitment to mission should not be lessened but rather expanded, through ever more profound missionary cooperation.
Pastores gregis, para 65.
Do Christians announce to the world "the good news of a complete and universal salvation"?
Is this millenium marked by "a clearer awareness of the universality of salvation"? Or is this an example of the Modernist heresy of the development of doctrine?
Perhaps the line that Nobody refers to is a false one. If it looks like a dog, barks like a dog and wags its tail like a dog, the chances are it's a dog. Heresy is heresy. The relevant question is - do the above statements by JP2 fall into that category or not?
-
Nobody said,
.......that is not what the discussion is about, It is about the line between 'suspect of heresy' and 'pertinacious heresy'.
Here is one of many quotes by John Paul II referring to universal salvation. Does it cross the line?
In his zeal for mission, the Bishop should be seen as the servant and witness of hope. Mission is the sure index of our faith in Christ and his love for us: men and women of all times are thereby inspired to a new life motivated by hope. In proclaiming the Risen Lord, Christians present the One who inaugurates a new era of history and announce to the world the good news of a complete and universal salvation which contains in itself the pledge of a new world in which pain and injustice will give way to joy and beauty. At the beginning of a new millennium marked by a clearer awareness of the universality of salvation and a realization that the Gospel daily needs to be proclaimed anew, the Synodal Assembly raised an appeal that our commitment to mission should not be lessened but rather expanded, through ever more profound missionary cooperation.
Pastores gregis, para 65.
Do Christians announce to the world "the good news of a complete and universal salvation"?
Is this millenium marked by "a clearer awareness of the universality of salvation"? Or is this an example of the Modernist heresy of the development of doctrine?
Perhaps the line that Nobody refers to is a false one. If it looks like a dog, barks like a dog and wags its tail like a dog, the chances are it's a dog. Heresy is heresy. The relevant question is - do the above statements by JP2 fall into that category or not?
It seems to me that if he had used the word "redemption" instead of "salvation" the whole meaning would change.
-
Sorry nado, no cigar. You dug up a papal statement alright. But at no place in it does Leo XIII say explicitly, or even imply implicitly, that the Orthodox are not Christians. Have I told you recently, nado, that much of your commentary is wildly irresponsible? Merry Christmas. :cowboy:
-
awkward: Come on, explain what conclusion you come to from JP2's claims that the Orthodox, who deny that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, share a "common faith", "true faith", and "one faith" in Christ with Catholics.
I understand that baptism in the Orthodox Church is seen as valid by the Church. Furthermore, I understand, one may attend Orthodox religious services if no Catholic Mass is available. Orthodox priests are validly ordained, I understand. What is more, so I'm told, an in extremis condition allows for the administration of Last Rites by an Orthodox priest. Orthodox marriages are recognized by the Church, as well. So what I'm getting at, I guess, is that we do share some kind of a "common faith" on some level, don't we? I invite correction from all but Nado, Adolphus, or any other sede nut on this forum. Thank you. :rolleyes:
You are confusing sacraments with the faith of the ministers. A priest could become a heretic and even an atheist, but that would not make him to loose the priesthood. He will be priest for eternity, no matter what. Therefore, such a priest could administer some sacraments which would be valid. That, of course, does not mean that we would share some kind of a common faith...
-
Nobody said,
.......that is not what the discussion is about, It is about the line between 'suspect of heresy' and 'pertinacious heresy'.
Here is one of many quotes by John Paul II referring to universal salvation. Does it cross the line?
In his zeal for mission, the Bishop should be seen as the servant and witness of hope. Mission is the sure index of our faith in Christ and his love for us: men and women of all times are thereby inspired to a new life motivated by hope. In proclaiming the Risen Lord, Christians present the One who inaugurates a new era of history and announce to the world the good news of a complete and universal salvation which contains in itself the pledge of a new world in which pain and injustice will give way to joy and beauty. At the beginning of a new millennium marked by a clearer awareness of the universality of salvation and a realization that the Gospel daily needs to be proclaimed anew, the Synodal Assembly raised an appeal that our commitment to mission should not be lessened but rather expanded, through ever more profound missionary cooperation.
Pastores gregis, para 65.
Do Christians announce to the world "the good news of a complete and universal salvation"?
Is this millenium marked by "a clearer awareness of the universality of salvation"? Or is this an example of the Modernist heresy of the development of doctrine?
Perhaps the line that Nobody refers to is a false one. If it looks like a dog, barks like a dog and wags its tail like a dog, the chances are it's a dog. Heresy is heresy. The relevant question is - do the above statements by JP2 fall into that category or not?
No, this is not about "Universal Salvation" in the heretical sense in which any pagan can be heir of Heaven. This is actually dealing with the "Missionary Spirit in the Episcopal Ministry" meaning that Bishops have the duty to evangelize, spread the good news and work for the salvation of all mankind. There is no heresy here and has absolutely nothing to do with the heretical "Universal Salvation" that has its roots in "Invincible Ignorance" and ends up in the Assisi Prayers. This is why it is extremely important to actually read the context of each docuмent instead of sentences in isolation.
The first part of this paragraph reads:
Missionary Spirit in the Episcopal Ministry
65. As members of the Episcopal College, Bishops are consecrated not just for a single Diocese but for the salvation of all mankind.274 This teaching of the Second Vatican Council was recalled by the Synod Fathers in order to emphasize the fact that each Bishop needs to be conscious of the missionary character of his pastoral ministry. All his pastoral activity should be marked by a missionary spirit capable of awakening and maintaining among the faithful a zeal for the spread of the Gospel. It is the duty of the Bishop to bring about, promote and direct missionary activities and initiatives in his Diocese, including the provision of financial support.275
As was stated in the Synod Hall, it is no less important for him to encourage the missionary dimension in his own particular Church by promoting, in accordance with different situations, fundamental values such as the acknowledgement of one's neighbour, respect for cultural diversity and a healthy interaction between different cultures. On the other hand, the increasingly multicultural character of cities and societies, especially as a result of international migration, is creating new situations which present a particular missionary challenge.
During the Synod there were also interventions which raised certain issues about the relationship between Diocesan Bishops and missionary Religious Congregations, and which stressed the need for deeper reflection in this regard. At the same time, there was an acknowledgement of the wealth of experience which a particular Church can receive from Congregations of consecrated life, as a means of keeping the missionary dimension alive among the faithful.
-
Nobody said,
.......that is not what the discussion is about, It is about the line between 'suspect of heresy' and 'pertinacious heresy'.
Here is one of many quotes by John Paul II referring to universal salvation. Does it cross the line?
In his zeal for mission, the Bishop should be seen as the servant and witness of hope. Mission is the sure index of our faith in Christ and his love for us: men and women of all times are thereby inspired to a new life motivated by hope. In proclaiming the Risen Lord, Christians present the One who inaugurates a new era of history and announce to the world the good news of a complete and universal salvation which contains in itself the pledge of a new world in which pain and injustice will give way to joy and beauty. At the beginning of a new millennium marked by a clearer awareness of the universality of salvation and a realization that the Gospel daily needs to be proclaimed anew, the Synodal Assembly raised an appeal that our commitment to mission should not be lessened but rather expanded, through ever more profound missionary cooperation.
Pastores gregis, para 65.
Do Christians announce to the world "the good news of a complete and universal salvation"?
Is this millenium marked by "a clearer awareness of the universality of salvation"? Or is this an example of the Modernist heresy of the development of doctrine?
No, it does not cross the line between 'suspect of heresy' and 'pertinacious heresy'.
Perhaps the line that Nobody refers to is a false one. If it looks like a dog, barks like a dog and wags its tail like a dog, the chances are it's a dog.
Yes, the chances are it is a dog. But the Church does not work with chances, and she certainly does not consider one a heretic on the chance that he is one, no matter how big that chance is. That is where the difference between 'suspect of heresy' (chances) and 'pertinacious heresy' (certitude) comes into the picture.
Do you agree there is a difference between 'suspect of heresy' and 'pertinacious heresy' ?
Heresy is heresy. The relevant question is - do the above statements by JP2 fall into that category or not?
Not according to the Church. She does make distinctions (formal, material, suspect, pertinacious..). I know, it is annoying those little details, but please don't blame me for that, it's the Church's 'fault'.
-
Nobody said,
.......that is not what the discussion is about, It is about the line between 'suspect of heresy' and 'pertinacious heresy'.
Here is one of many quotes by John Paul II referring to universal salvation. Does it cross the line?
In his zeal for mission, the Bishop should be seen as the servant and witness of hope. Mission is the sure index of our faith in Christ and his love for us: men and women of all times are thereby inspired to a new life motivated by hope. In proclaiming the Risen Lord, Christians present the One who inaugurates a new era of history and announce to the world the good news of a complete and universal salvation which contains in itself the pledge of a new world in which pain and injustice will give way to joy and beauty. At the beginning of a new millennium marked by a clearer awareness of the universality of salvation and a realization that the Gospel daily needs to be proclaimed anew, the Synodal Assembly raised an appeal that our commitment to mission should not be lessened but rather expanded, through ever more profound missionary cooperation.
Pastores gregis, para 65.
Do Christians announce to the world "the good news of a complete and universal salvation"?
Is this millenium marked by "a clearer awareness of the universality of salvation"? Or is this an example of the Modernist heresy of the development of doctrine?
Perhaps the line that Nobody refers to is a false one. If it looks like a dog, barks like a dog and wags its tail like a dog, the chances are it's a dog. Heresy is heresy. The relevant question is - do the above statements by JP2 fall into that category or not?
It seems to me that if he had used the word "redemption" instead of "salvation" the whole meaning would change.
But he didn't, did he? He used the word "salvation", and so the meaning of his statement is clear, no matter how Cantarella and Nobody try to spin it and deny it.
JP2 is preaching the "good news of complete and universal salvation".
-
How about this?
Going back in mind and heart to her mystical experience that was completely focused on the Redeemer's Passion, you are dedicated to discerning on the face of the Church reflections of the holiness of Christ, Redeemer of man, now for ever "clad in a robe dipped in blood" (Apoc, 19,13), the everlasting, invincible guarantee of universal salvation.
JP2's address to the Abbess General of the Order of the Most Holy Saviour of St Bridget. (para 1)
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2002/october/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20021003_ss-salvatore-s-brigida_en.html
More universal salvation?
-
And this?
St. Paul underscored this salvific value in regard to Christ's obedience. If sin came into the world through an act of disobedience, universal salvation was obtained by the Redeemer's obedience: "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous"
General Audience, Dec 7, 1994. 'Religious Offer Their Own Wills to God'.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19941207en.html
-
He certainly brings up the notion of universal salvation fairly consistently.
-
Nado, you are delightfully pathetic. Merry Christmas. May God bless you, that is, after He has got you under some kind of control. :laugh1:
-
..It seems to me that if he had used the word "redemption" instead of "salvation" the whole meaning would change.
But he didn't, did he? He used the word "salvation", and so the meaning of his statement is clear, no matter how Cantarella and Nobody try to spin it and deny it.
JP2 is preaching the "good news of complete and universal salvation".
I wish I could find a sedevacantist who who has the courage and decency to stick to the argument and reasoning based on Church teaching, rather than resort sooner or later to personal opinion and emotional garbage.
The questions was : "Is there in the Church's opinion a difference between someone who is suspect of heresy and someone who is a pertinacious heretic ? And if yes, what are the criteria to be used to make this distinction ?"
Unless you can answer that question and prove that your opinion and conclusions are fully backed up by the Church and in conformity with the Church's thinking, all your examples and word plays are completely and utterly useless. Yes, if you are very clever you may even succeed in making your opponent look silly and stupid, but what good would it do if you did not have the truth behind you ? You would only make the Church look silly and stupid, and you would risk your own salvation.
Stick to what the Church teaches and ignore public opinion !
-
Nado,
Can you please tell me what would you do if ever you found out your Parish/Chapel priest were preaching an error from the pulpit ?
Would you regard him as being part of the Church or not ?
Can you explain why your principle ("the Church cannot err") applies or does not apply ?
Simply, a parish priest doesn't teach the universal Church.
"A priest" and "the Church" are hardly synonymous.
Ok, so does the Pope teach the universal Church each and every time he opens his mouth or uses his pen ?
I can hardly believe you are asking this seriously, but then I know you are infected with ex-cathedrism. The answer is, of course not. When the Pope does something official for the Church at large, then it is the Church doing it.
Instructing the ignorant is a spiritual work of mercy. Good on you for trying Nado.
Anyway, there is a reason I am asking what seems like stupid questions to you (apart from me being really stupid anyway that is).
You have stated that a priest can teach error, but remain inside the Church, because he would not be 'teaching the universal Church'. You also admit that the Pope does not always teach the universal Church every time he says or writes something. Logic tells me that therefore he too (like the priest) can err when he is not teaching the universal Church, and still remain inside the Chuch and remain Pope. Correct ?
So, if a priest/bishop/pope can err in faith and morals, but the Church cannot err, not even apart from ex cathedra, how do we distinguish between a priest/bishop/pope teaching (and erring) and the universal Church teaching (and erring therefore not being the true Church anymore) ?
Where is Nado ? I though it was going to be easy for him to answer my stupid question ?
-
..It seems to me that if he had used the word "redemption" instead of "salvation" the whole meaning would change.
But he didn't, did he? He used the word "salvation", and so the meaning of his statement is clear, no matter how Cantarella and Nobody try to spin it and deny it.
JP2 is preaching the "good news of complete and universal salvation".
I wish I could find a sedevacantist who who has the courage and decency to stick to the argument and reasoning based on Church teaching, rather than resort sooner or later to personal opinion and emotional garbage.
The questions was : "Is there in the Church's opinion a difference between someone who is suspect of heresy and someone who is a pertinacious heretic ? And if yes, what are the criteria to be used to make this distinction ?"
Unless you can answer that question and prove that your opinion and conclusions are fully backed up by the Church and in conformity with the Church's thinking, all your examples and word plays are completely and utterly useless. Yes, if you are very clever you may even succeed in making your opponent look silly and stupid, but what good would it do if you did not have the truth behind you ? You would only make the Church look silly and stupid, and you would risk your own salvation.
Stick to what the Church teaches and ignore public opinion !
For goodness sake, stop being hysterical and read this. You might learn something.
http://www.sedevacantist.com/pertinacity.html
-
..It seems to me that if he had used the word "redemption" instead of "salvation" the whole meaning would change.
But he didn't, did he? He used the word "salvation", and so the meaning of his statement is clear, no matter how Cantarella and Nobody try to spin it and deny it.
JP2 is preaching the "good news of complete and universal salvation".
I wish I could find a sedevacantist who who has the courage and decency to stick to the argument and reasoning based on Church teaching, rather than resort sooner or later to personal opinion and emotional garbage.
The questions was : "Is there in the Church's opinion a difference between someone who is suspect of heresy and someone who is a pertinacious heretic ? And if yes, what are the criteria to be used to make this distinction ?"
Unless you can answer that question and prove that your opinion and conclusions are fully backed up by the Church and in conformity with the Church's thinking, all your examples and word plays are completely and utterly useless. Yes, if you are very clever you may even succeed in making your opponent look silly and stupid, but what good would it do if you did not have the truth behind you ? You would only make the Church look silly and stupid, and you would risk your own salvation.
Stick to what the Church teaches and ignore public opinion !
For goodness sake, stop being hysterical and read this. You might learn something.
http://www.sedevacantist.com/pertinacity.html
Yes, sedevacantist John Daly represents the teaching authority of the Church... Very reliable source :rolleyes:. Why not start reading actual sources of the highest Magisterial authority, instead of sede propaganda of dubious reputation that only seeks gullible and bitter souls in order to take them outside the Church?
-
..It seems to me that if he had used the word "redemption" instead of "salvation" the whole meaning would change.
But he didn't, did he? He used the word "salvation", and so the meaning of his statement is clear, no matter how Cantarella and Nobody try to spin it and deny it.
JP2 is preaching the "good news of complete and universal salvation".
I wish I could find a sedevacantist who who has the courage and decency to stick to the argument and reasoning based on Church teaching, rather than resort sooner or later to personal opinion and emotional garbage.
The questions was : "Is there in the Church's opinion a difference between someone who is suspect of heresy and someone who is a pertinacious heretic ? And if yes, what are the criteria to be used to make this distinction ?"
Unless you can answer that question and prove that your opinion and conclusions are fully backed up by the Church and in conformity with the Church's thinking, all your examples and word plays are completely and utterly useless. Yes, if you are very clever you may even succeed in making your opponent look silly and stupid, but what good would it do if you did not have the truth behind you ? You would only make the Church look silly and stupid, and you would risk your own salvation.
Stick to what the Church teaches and ignore public opinion !
For goodness sake, stop being hysterical and read this. You might learn something.
http://www.sedevacantist.com/pertinacity.html
Yes, sedevacantist John Daly represents the teaching authority of the Church. Very reliable source :rolleyes:. Why not start reading actual sources of the highest Magisterial authority, instead of sede propaganda of dubious reputation that only seek gullible bitter souls in order to take them outside the Church?
As I have said multiple times (which you ignore), no sedevacantist represents anyone else except himself. I have found John Daly wrong on many things and have opposed him. It boils down to, listen to the argument for its own merits and stop playing games with people as if they represent a whole group. It is cheap and ignorant.
Yes, the unicorn from the other thread means you were speaking lunacy.
How old are you, Nado?
Perhaps I am judging your non-sense posts too rashly because I think I am talking with an adult...but you are not really?
-
Nado,
Can you please tell me what would you do if ever you found out your Parish/Chapel priest were preaching an error from the pulpit ?
Would you regard him as being part of the Church or not ?
Can you explain why your principle ("the Church cannot err") applies or does not apply ?
Simply, a parish priest doesn't teach the universal Church.
"A priest" and "the Church" are hardly synonymous.
Ok, so does the Pope teach the universal Church each and every time he opens his mouth or uses his pen ?
I can hardly believe you are asking this seriously, but then I know you are infected with ex-cathedrism. The answer is, of course not. When the Pope does something official for the Church at large, then it is the Church doing it.
Instructing the ignorant is a spiritual work of mercy. Good on you for trying Nado.
Anyway, there is a reason I am asking what seems like stupid questions to you (apart from me being really stupid anyway that is).
You have stated that a priest can teach error, but remain inside the Church, because he would not be 'teaching the universal Church'. You also admit that the Pope does not always teach the universal Church every time he says or writes something. Logic tells me that therefore he too (like the priest) can err when he is not teaching the universal Church, and still remain inside the Chuch and remain Pope. Correct ?
So, if a priest/bishop/pope can err in faith and morals, but the Church cannot err, not even apart from ex cathedra, how do we distinguish between a priest/bishop/pope teaching (and erring) and the universal Church teaching (and erring therefore not being the true Church anymore) ?
Where is Nado ? I though it was going to be easy for him to answer my stupid question ?
Well, I tell ya. It has only been about 20 hours, and now you are talking about me in third-person. You are also suggesting that I said an answer would be "easy" when I did not say that. And, your own message you refer to, it puts words in my mouth that you are asking a "stupid" question, when I did not say that. You distort everything and admit you have a hard time understanding Church docuмents. Now I find you don't know the difference between an act of "the Church" and the act of "a bishop". Sometimes people are so lost on fundamentals that it is not an easy thing to instruct them without lengthy thought or a teaching degree. You have gotten yourself into a persona pickle.
A good sermon, but.. still no answer to my question ?
-
..It seems to me that if he had used the word "redemption" instead of "salvation" the whole meaning would change.
But he didn't, did he? He used the word "salvation", and so the meaning of his statement is clear, no matter how Cantarella and Nobody try to spin it and deny it.
JP2 is preaching the "good news of complete and universal salvation".
I wish I could find a sedevacantist who who has the courage and decency to stick to the argument and reasoning based on Church teaching, rather than resort sooner or later to personal opinion and emotional garbage.
The questions was : "Is there in the Church's opinion a difference between someone who is suspect of heresy and someone who is a pertinacious heretic ? And if yes, what are the criteria to be used to make this distinction ?"
Unless you can answer that question and prove that your opinion and conclusions are fully backed up by the Church and in conformity with the Church's thinking, all your examples and word plays are completely and utterly useless. Yes, if you are very clever you may even succeed in making your opponent look silly and stupid, but what good would it do if you did not have the truth behind you ? You would only make the Church look silly and stupid, and you would risk your own salvation.
Stick to what the Church teaches and ignore public opinion !
For goodness sake, stop being hysterical and read this. You might learn something.
http://www.sedevacantist.com/pertinacity.html
Yes, sedevacantist John Daly represents the teaching authority of the Church. Very reliable source :rolleyes:. Why not start reading actual sources of the highest Magisterial authority, instead of sede propaganda of dubious reputation that only seek gullible bitter souls in order to take them outside the Church?
As I have said multiple times (which you ignore), no sedevacantist represents anyone else except himself. I have found John Daly wrong on many things and have opposed him. It boils down to, listen to the argument for its own merits and stop playing games with people as if they represent a whole group. It is cheap and ignorant.
Yes, the unicorn from the other thread means you were speaking lunacy.
How old are you, Nado?
Perhaps I am judging your non-sense posts too rashly because I think I am talking with an adult...but you are not really?
If you say it is child's play, then go to the thread about manifest heresy and attempt to methodically and logically dismantle my explanation about pertinacity and a pope. Then you will get the feel for how old I am and how ignorant you are. You just dropped the ball on that one.
No. I am patiently waiting for more sedevacantists to provide the definition which I will debunk; but valiant Nado with child-like confidence is the only one that has dared. Nice try! I assure you, I don't ever get involved into any discussion that I am not totally certain I will win, not because I am better but because I have the truth of the Holy Catholic Church on my side, which does not err. Everything fits perfectly like a mathematical puzzle.
-
..It seems to me that if he had used the word "redemption" instead of "salvation" the whole meaning would change.
But he didn't, did he? He used the word "salvation", and so the meaning of his statement is clear, no matter how Cantarella and Nobody try to spin it and deny it.
JP2 is preaching the "good news of complete and universal salvation".
I wish I could find a sedevacantist who who has the courage and decency to stick to the argument and reasoning based on Church teaching, rather than resort sooner or later to personal opinion and emotional garbage.
The questions was : "Is there in the Church's opinion a difference between someone who is suspect of heresy and someone who is a pertinacious heretic ? And if yes, what are the criteria to be used to make this distinction ?"
Unless you can answer that question and prove that your opinion and conclusions are fully backed up by the Church and in conformity with the Church's thinking, all your examples and word plays are completely and utterly useless. Yes, if you are very clever you may even succeed in making your opponent look silly and stupid, but what good would it do if you did not have the truth behind you ? You would only make the Church look silly and stupid, and you would risk your own salvation.
Stick to what the Church teaches and ignore public opinion !
For goodness sake, stop being hysterical and read this. You might learn something.
http://www.sedevacantist.com/pertinacity.html
Yes, I did come across that a while ago. Funny enough, it was an article written by this same author that cured me from my SV 'temptations'.
Anyway, since you already learned what pertinacious means, you should be able to finally answer my question : "Is there in the Church's opinion a difference between someone who is suspect of heresy and someone who is a pertinacious heretic ? And if yes, what are the criteria to be used to make this distinction ?"
Why do sedes at some point say : "Your question is sooo silly. What ?! You don't know the answer ? Come on, you can't even get the fundamentals right.. etc..." WITHOUT answering that simple, stupid question ???
Come on, be done with this nonsense and just give me the answer, and nothing but the answer. Thanks in advance.
-
A pertinacious heretic is someone who obstinately and with full knowledge holds an opinion that is contrary to a truth of the Faith.
:geezer:
-
Why do you people waste so much time and energy " debunking" people ( sedes ) who aren't even reading your answers? A better question would be: why do you care so much if they are sedes?
-
A pertinacious heretic is someone who obstinately and with full knowledge holds an opinion that is contrary to a truth of the Faith.
:geezer:
Exactly!
-
Why do you people waste so much time and energy " debunking" people ( sedes ) who aren't even reading your answers? A better question would be: why do you care so much if they are sedes?
When you say "sedes", do you mean sedeplenists or sedevacantists?
-
Anyway, since you already learned what pertinacious means, you should be able to finally answer my question : "Is there in the Church's opinion a difference between someone who is suspect of heresy and someone who is a pertinacious heretic ? And if yes, what are the criteria to be used to make this distinction ?"
I will answer that. Someone suspect of heresy is someone to morally be cautious of...such as when a mother warns her son about the neighborhood boy who tells dirty jokes...she says, "Don't play with him!"
This is incorrect. According to 1917 Code of Canon Law, Suspicion of Heresy falls on (see VI.):
-
Anyway, since you already learned what pertinacious means, you should be able to finally answer my question : "Is there in the Church's opinion a difference between someone who is suspect of heresy and someone who is a pertinacious heretic ? And if yes, what are the criteria to be used to make this distinction ?"
I will answer that. Someone suspect of heresy is someone to morally be cautious of...such as when a mother warns her son about the neighborhood boy who tells dirty jokes...she says, "Don't play with him!"
And, a pertinacious heretic is a person that is excluding from communion in the Church officially, because of the danger of association.
Sorry Nado, but for someone who prides himself on having no problem understanding Church teaching and arguing in public with others about it, you certainly came up with a poor and confusing answer.
You have given some vague idea of the practical consequences of 'suspect of heresy' and 'pertinacious heresy', but certainly not a hint of the definition or criteria to be used in determining in which category a person falls in.
-
A pertinacious heretic is someone who obstinately and with full knowledge holds an opinion that is contrary to a truth of the Faith.
:geezer:
I think that's a fair answer.
Now the tricky part is : "According to Church teaching, how can we know that someone falls into that category ? What are the required symptoms, procedures, criteria, warnings, trials, witnesses, timeframes and/or authorities ?"
In other words, how does it work in real life ?
Please be assured that I am not trying to shoot anyone down or trip them up. I have serious questions and am looking for serious answers, and if the answers are convincing enough, I will adjust my opinion accordingly.
-
Anyway, since you already learned what pertinacious means, you should be able to finally answer my question : "Is there in the Church's opinion a difference between someone who is suspect of heresy and someone who is a pertinacious heretic ? And if yes, what are the criteria to be used to make this distinction ?"
I will answer that. Someone suspect of heresy is someone to morally be cautious of...such as when a mother warns her son about the neighborhood boy who tells dirty jokes...she says, "Don't play with him!"
This is incorrect. According to 1917 Code of Canon Law, Suspicion of Heresy falls on (see VI.):
Thanks Cantarella. I was surprised to see the following clearly spelled out as a reason for being 'suspect of heresy' : "..or who take active part in the Divine worship of non-Catholics, as forbidden by Canon 1258 (Canon 2316)."
I wonder whether Assisi I, II and II fall in this category. I would think it does. That certainly would be taking the wind out of the sede sails, since they often use this as an argument to convince anyone that JPII and B16 are heretics.
-
No. I am patiently waiting for more sedevacantists to provide the definition which I will debunk; but valiant Nado with child-like confidence is the only one that has dared. Nice try! I assure you, I don't ever get involved into any discussion that I am not totally certain I will win.
Thanks for admitting it. I know that you drop the ball when you have no rebuttal!
The pinnacle of my "sedevacantist" presentation is in the thread with your name on it. If you don't want to get involved....yes, I do understand you feel you cannot win there.
Dear me, Cantarella. You've given yourself away. You don't get involved in any discussion that you are not totally certain you will win.
Cantarella, this explains why you back away from any point made against your position. It explains why you ride roughshod over every argument that does not suit you. It explains why you ignore, deflect and slide over each and every question that you cannot properly answer. And it explains why you are so ready to hurl insults at people in such an aggressive manner.
Nado, congratulations for spotting this. You have patiently and persistently kept up your side of the debate, often in the face of quite appalling, personal counter attacks. And now Cantarella has revealed her true motives - to win arguments at all costs.
-
No. I am patiently waiting for more sedevacantists to provide the definition which I will debunk; but valiant Nado with child-like confidence is the only one that has dared. Nice try! I assure you, I don't ever get involved into any discussion that I am not totally certain I will win.
Thanks for admitting it. I know that you drop the ball when you have no rebuttal!
The pinnacle of my "sedevacantist" presentation is in the thread with your name on it. If you don't want to get involved....yes, I do understand you feel you cannot win there.
Dear me, Cantarella. You've given yourself away. You don't get involved in any discussion that you are not totally certain you will win.
Cantarella, this explains why you back away from any point made against your position. It explains why you ride roughshod over every argument that does not suit you. It explains why you ignore, deflect and slide over each and every question that you cannot properly answer. And it explains why you are so ready to hurl insults at people in such an aggressive manner.
Nado, congratulations for spotting this. You have patiently and persistently kept up your side of the debate, often in the face of quite appalling, personal counter attacks. And now Cantarella has revealed her true motives - to win arguments at all costs.
:facepalm:
Cantarella is saying she will not argue if she is wrong. If nada practiced the same thing, she would never post at all.
-
No. I am patiently waiting for more sedevacantists to provide the definition which I will debunk; but valiant Nado with child-like confidence is the only one that has dared. Nice try! I assure you, I don't ever get involved into any discussion that I am not totally certain I will win.
Thanks for admitting it. I know that you drop the ball when you have no rebuttal!
The pinnacle of my "sedevacantist" presentation is in the thread with your name on it. If you don't want to get involved....yes, I do understand you feel you cannot win there.
Dear me, Cantarella. You've given yourself away. You don't get involved in any discussion that you are not totally certain you will win.
Cantarella, this explains why you back away from any point made against your position. It explains why you ride roughshod over every argument that does not suit you. It explains why you ignore, deflect and slide over each and every question that you cannot properly answer. And it explains why you are so ready to hurl insults at people in such an aggressive manner.
Nado, congratulations for spotting this. You have patiently and persistently kept up your side of the debate, often in the face of quite appalling, personal counter attacks. And now Cantarella has revealed her true motives - to win arguments at all costs.
:facepalm:
Cantarella is saying she will not argue if she is wrong. If nada practiced the same thing, she would never post at all.
Cantarella said - "I don't ever get involved into any discussion that I am not totally certain I will win."
She did not say that she will not argue if she is wrong. She said nothing about being wrong, or right. According to her own words, her criteria for getting involved in a discussion is whether or not she will win.
-
No. I am patiently waiting for more sedevacantists to provide the definition which I will debunk; but valiant Nado with child-like confidence is the only one that has dared. Nice try! I assure you, I don't ever get involved into any discussion that I am not totally certain I will win.
Thanks for admitting it. I know that you drop the ball when you have no rebuttal!
The pinnacle of my "sedevacantist" presentation is in the thread with your name on it. If you don't want to get involved....yes, I do understand you feel you cannot win there.
Dear me, Cantarella. You've given yourself away. You don't get involved in any discussion that you are not totally certain you will win.
Cantarella, this explains why you back away from any point made against your position. It explains why you ride roughshod over every argument that does not suit you. It explains why you ignore, deflect and slide over each and every question that you cannot properly answer. And it explains why you are so ready to hurl insults at people in such an aggressive manner.
Nado, congratulations for spotting this. You have patiently and persistently kept up your side of the debate, often in the face of quite appalling, personal counter attacks. And now Cantarella has revealed her true motives - to win arguments at all costs.
:facepalm:
Cantarella is saying she will not argue if she is wrong. If nada practiced the same thing, she would never post at all.
Cantarella said - "I don't ever get involved into any discussion that I am not totally certain I will win."
She did not say that she will not argue if she is wrong. She said nothing about being wrong, or right. According to her own words, her criteria for getting involved in a discussion is whether or not she will win.
She said "I don't ever get involved into any discussion that I am not totally certain I will win." - if nada practiced the same thing, she would never post at all.
Make sense to you now?
-
No. I am patiently waiting for more sedevacantists to provide the definition which I will debunk; but valiant Nado with child-like confidence is the only one that has dared. Nice try! I assure you, I don't ever get involved into any discussion that I am not totally certain I will win.
Thanks for admitting it. I know that you drop the ball when you have no rebuttal!
The pinnacle of my "sedevacantist" presentation is in the thread with your name on it. If you don't want to get involved....yes, I do understand you feel you cannot win there.
Dear me, Cantarella. You've given yourself away. You don't get involved in any discussion that you are not totally certain you will win.
Cantarella, this explains why you back away from any point made against your position. It explains why you ride roughshod over every argument that does not suit you. It explains why you ignore, deflect and slide over each and every question that you cannot properly answer. And it explains why you are so ready to hurl insults at people in such an aggressive manner.
Nado, congratulations for spotting this. You have patiently and persistently kept up your side of the debate, often in the face of quite appalling, personal counter attacks. And now Cantarella has revealed her true motives - to win arguments at all costs.
:facepalm:
Cantarella is saying she will not argue if she is wrong. If nada practiced the same thing, she would never post at all.
Cantarella said - "I don't ever get involved into any discussion that I am not totally certain I will win."
She did not say that she will not argue if she is wrong. She said nothing about being wrong, or right. According to her own words, her criteria for getting involved in a discussion is whether or not she will win.
She said "I don't ever get involved into any discussion that I am not totally certain I will win." - if nada practiced the same thing, she would never post at all.
Make sense to you now?
What makes sense to me is Cantarella's clear-cut statement coupled with my own experience of engaging with her in debate. If you will look at the rest of my post, you will remember that I also said this -
Cantarella, this explains why you back away from any point made against your position. It explains why you ride roughshod over every argument that does not suit you. It explains why you ignore, deflect and slide over each and every question that you cannot properly answer. And it explains why you are so ready to hurl insults at people in such an aggressive manner.
This is drawn from my experience of engaging in debate with Cantarella. You might have noticed that Nado makes a similar point -
Thanks for admitting it. I know that you drop the ball when you have no rebuttal!
In my own experience, Cantarella is always ready to thump the table with her own points. But when a counter-argument is given that she cannot answer she runs, or she sweeps the argument aside, or she side-steps it. And now she has admitted that she doesn't ever get involved in discussions that she is not totally certain she will win.
It is clearly pointless trying to discuss anything with Cantarella. She will simply dismiss, ignore, pour scorn on any counter-argument that she cannot win against.
Now where's the HIDE button.
-
No. I am patiently waiting for more sedevacantists to provide the definition which I will debunk; but valiant Nado with child-like confidence is the only one that has dared. Nice try! I assure you, I don't ever get involved into any discussion that I am not totally certain I will win.
Thanks for admitting it. I know that you drop the ball when you have no rebuttal!
The pinnacle of my "sedevacantist" presentation is in the thread with your name on it. If you don't want to get involved....yes, I do understand you feel you cannot win there.
Dear me, Cantarella. You've given yourself away. You don't get involved in any discussion that you are not totally certain you will win.
Cantarella, this explains why you back away from any point made against your position. It explains why you ride roughshod over every argument that does not suit you. It explains why you ignore, deflect and slide over each and every question that you cannot properly answer. And it explains why you are so ready to hurl insults at people in such an aggressive manner.
Nado, congratulations for spotting this. You have patiently and persistently kept up your side of the debate, often in the face of quite appalling, personal counter attacks. And now Cantarella has revealed her true motives - to win arguments at all costs.
:facepalm:
Cantarella is saying she will not argue if she is wrong. If nada practiced the same thing, she would never post at all.
Cantarella said - "I don't ever get involved into any discussion that I am not totally certain I will win."
She did not say that she will not argue if she is wrong. She said nothing about being wrong, or right. According to her own words, her criteria for getting involved in a discussion is whether or not she will win.
She said "I don't ever get involved into any discussion that I am not totally certain I will win." - if nada practiced the same thing, she would never post at all.
Make sense to you now?
What makes sense to me is Cantarella's clear-cut statement coupled with my own experience of engaging with her in debate. If you will look at the rest of my post, you will remember that I also said this -
Cantarella, this explains why you back away from any point made against your position. It explains why you ride roughshod over every argument that does not suit you. It explains why you ignore, deflect and slide over each and every question that you cannot properly answer. And it explains why you are so ready to hurl insults at people in such an aggressive manner.
This is drawn from my experience of engaging in debate with Cantarella. You might have noticed that Nado makes a similar point -
Thanks for admitting it. I know that you drop the ball when you have no rebuttal!
In my own experience, Cantarella is always ready to thump the table with her own points. But when a counter-argument is given that she cannot answer she runs, or she sweeps the argument aside, or she side-steps it. And now she has admitted that she doesn't ever get involved in discussions that she is not totally certain she will win.
It is clearly pointless trying to discuss anything with Cantarella. She will simply dismiss, ignore, pour scorn on any counter-argument that she cannot win against.
Now where's the HIDE button.
For lack of a better argument about the topic in hand, Nado and AkwardCustomer in their rush to counter-attack an already won discussion focus stubbornly on my post and actually miss the very important second part of it. What I said was "I don't ever get involved into any discussion that I am not totally certain I will win... because I have the truth of the Holy Catholic Church on my side, which does not err. Everything fits perfectly like a mathematical puzzle.
Why did you cut my statement off, Nado?
I do not ever "run" from the discussions. If you feel like I ignore you, then it is because of the following reasons:
1) You express yourself as an illiterate barbarian and start your posts addressing me with impolite insults for which I have zero tolerance. (here right there is the reason I ignore 95% of sedevacantists, by the way).
2) You are no longer making any sense, start speaking lunacy, or ask the same question twice or thrice.
3) Time is limited. There is a chance that I just genuinely did not read your posts.
-
No. I am patiently waiting for more sedevacantists to provide the definition which I will debunk; but valiant Nado with child-like confidence is the only one that has dared. Nice try! I assure you, I don't ever get involved into any discussion that I am not totally certain I will win.
Thanks for admitting it. I know that you drop the ball when you have no rebuttal!
The pinnacle of my "sedevacantist" presentation is in the thread with your name on it. If you don't want to get involved....yes, I do understand you feel you cannot win there.
Dear me, Cantarella. You've given yourself away. You don't get involved in any discussion that you are not totally certain you will win.
Cantarella, this explains why you back away from any point made against your position. It explains why you ride roughshod over every argument that does not suit you. It explains why you ignore, deflect and slide over each and every question that you cannot properly answer. And it explains why you are so ready to hurl insults at people in such an aggressive manner.
Nado, congratulations for spotting this. You have patiently and persistently kept up your side of the debate, often in the face of quite appalling, personal counter attacks. And now Cantarella has revealed her true motives - to win arguments at all costs.
:facepalm:
Cantarella is saying she will not argue if she is wrong. If nada practiced the same thing, she would never post at all.
Cantarella said - "I don't ever get involved into any discussion that I am not totally certain I will win."
She did not say that she will not argue if she is wrong. She said nothing about being wrong, or right. According to her own words, her criteria for getting involved in a discussion is whether or not she will win.
She said "I don't ever get involved into any discussion that I am not totally certain I will win." - if nada practiced the same thing, she would never post at all.
Make sense to you now?
What makes sense to me is Cantarella's clear-cut statement coupled with my own experience of engaging with her in debate. If you will look at the rest of my post, you will remember that I also said this -
Cantarella, this explains why you back away from any point made against your position. It explains why you ride roughshod over every argument that does not suit you. It explains why you ignore, deflect and slide over each and every question that you cannot properly answer. And it explains why you are so ready to hurl insults at people in such an aggressive manner.
This is drawn from my experience of engaging in debate with Cantarella. You might have noticed that Nado makes a similar point -
Thanks for admitting it. I know that you drop the ball when you have no rebuttal!
In my own experience, Cantarella is always ready to thump the table with her own points. But when a counter-argument is given that she cannot answer she runs, or she sweeps the argument aside, or she side-steps it. And now she has admitted that she doesn't ever get involved in discussions that she is not totally certain she will win.
It is clearly pointless trying to discuss anything with Cantarella. She will simply dismiss, ignore, pour scorn on any counter-argument that she cannot win against.
Now where's the HIDE button.
I have seen no evidence that Cantarella ignores serious arguments.
I think it makes sense not to argue if you are not certain about your own position. That does not mean you can't discuss (or raise counter arguments) though, which is quite different from arguing.
Even if your accusations were true, the same could be said of most sedes. I have still two genuine questions in this thread that so far remain unanswered and ignored, after many diversion tactics and reminders.
It would serve your cause more if you were to refrain from personal attacks and stick to the arguments.
-
During the Great Western Schism (1378-1418) the Pope was not visible to the faithful for 40 years. Three men claimed to be Pope. During that state of uncertainty and material schism, the Pope is not visible to the Church, nor is he able to exercise his divine power over it. The clouds which kept the true Pope from the eyes of the true Church, having dissipated, revealed the true Pope to the Church. History repeats itself. When the clouds again dissipate, God will reveal to us the true Pope.
Yes, but then just as in any legitimate interregnum, the bishops hold the keys. These bishops must be visible. If all the valid bishops are dead (which inevitable happens with a prolonged sede-vacante), then the keys are lost and there is no longer a visible magisterium. To say these bishops can be invisible is heresy, so where are they?
-
It is not true that the true Pope wasn't visible during GWS. Acc to van Pastor, a compromise was reached at the Council and as a result Catholics are free( since GWS was only political) to acknowledge either the Fr or It Pope of the time. So everybody was right. The unelected v2 anti- popes are not GWS
This is supported by the Catholic Dictionary which says that the Fr popes are not anti-popes( Sorry fr Radecki).
And the 3 men claiming to be Pope were only at the end. There are about 8 others as well. :reporter:
-
During the Great Western Schism (1378-1418) the Pope was not visible to the faithful for 40 years. Three men claimed to be Pope. During that state of uncertainty and material schism, the Pope is not visible to the Church, nor is he able to exercise his divine power over it. The clouds which kept the true Pope from the eyes of the true Church, having dissipated, revealed the true Pope to the Church. History repeats itself. When the clouds again dissipate, God will reveal to us the true Pope.
Yes, but then just as in any legitimate interregnum, the bishops hold the keys. These bishops must be visible. If all the valid bishops are dead (which inevitable happens with a prolonged sede-vacante), then the keys are lost and there is no longer a visible magisterium. To say these bishops can be invisible is heresy, so where are they?
Cantarella invented this.
There is nothing essential to the Church's constitution for there to be any diocesan bishops. On Pentecost, and for some time thereafter, there were no dioceses. There certainly must be visible bishops, but they don't have to be appointed to dioceses.
As long as there are clergy citizens of Rome, there is the possibility of electing a bishop to the Roman diocese. The books say nothing about incardination or jurisdiction being needed merely to show a wish who they would like to have as their bishop. Laymen even participated in election at one time.
That person accepting the election there (if he has the Faith) has the universal jurisdiction to appoint men to dioceses around the world.
Nado, your ignorance is exhausting.
I am reading 1 out of 10 of your posts now.
The magisterium still existed. The magisterium must always exist but the magisterium has ended according to sede pet theory because all the bishops committed mass apostasy. Yes, the Church can still have magisterial teaching without a Pope in legit inter-regnums because it resides with the bishops, but in the sede world, where all lunacies are possible, there is no longer need of bishops...or cardinals...or priests....We are an invisible Church. We can reasonably expect an indefinite sede - vacante that ends up with a couple of archangels placing the tiara on the new Pope. Why not?
-
Nado,
It is clear that you continuously 'miss the ball' and you are just making yourself and the group you try to represent look foolish.
Why not practice a little bit of humility and stop arguing about things that go above your head.
Peter 5:5 In like manner, ye young men, be subject to the ancients. And do you all insinuate humility one to another: for God resisteth the proud, but to the humble he giveth grace.
-
just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world, even as he had been sent by the Father, in like manner it was his will that in his Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.
"Shepherds and teachers" [pastores et doctores] means bishops who have received power to rule and teach, who have been sent and obtained their share in the power of the keys from Peter's hands. Such bishops will exist until the end of time, and the formal Apostolic succession depends on it. Apostolic succession requires the actual succession to an episcopal see, in an unbroken line going back to St. Peter and the Apostles. Any theology manual, and even the CE, will tell you this, the form of Apostolic succession is the governing power or jurisdiction, represented in Scripture and Tradition by the "keys".
"Rome was, more evidently than ever, the sole source of pastoral power. We, then, both priests and people, have a right to know whence our pastors have received their power. From whose hand have they received the keys? If they claim our obedience without having been sent by the bishop of Rome ... they have not been sent, they are not pastors. Thus it is that the divine Founder of the Church, who willed that she should be a city seated on a mountain, gave her visibility; it was an essential requisite; for since all were called to enter her pale, all must be able to see her. But He was not satisfied with this. He moreover willed that the spiritual power exercised by her pastors should come from a visible source, so that the faithful might have a sure means of verifying the claims of those who were to guide them in His name.
Apostolic and Petrine succession are interlinked. What both of you are proposing, Nado and Lepanto again, that there need be no more such bishops in the Church, is heterodox, it is directly opposed to the dogmatic statement of Vatican I above, and the explanation by Gueranger and other theologians.
-
The loss of jurisdiction means the loss of Apostolicity, which is one of the marks of the Church. Holy orders are simply not enough; one needs jurisdiction as well. With the loss of Apostolicity the Church loses the other marks (unity, catholicity, holiness). The Roman Pontiff is the perpetual principle of Unity, through which apostolicity continues, as infallibly declared in Vatican I Council. The jurisdiction granted by Jesus Christ to Peter and the Apostles has been handed down by the successors of St. Peter in all generations. This is what Vatican I means when it says the Popes shall reign in perpetuity.
Thus during a Papal interregnum (when a sede vacante is possible) ordinary jurisdiction continues through the Church herself. Some misguided people would say "oh, the Church supplies jurisdiction", but that is not accurate. Supplied jurisdiction comes about through a confusion due to a particular law, and it flows from the Church's ordinary jurisdiction. If a whole generation has had no Pope, then Ordinary jurisdiction has been lost, which means there cannot be supplied jurisdiction, meaning the gates of hell would have prevailed against the Church.
What sedes propose is a complete new religion, not different from a Protestant sect.
-
Teaching doesn't require jurisdiction. And, there is such a thing as supplied jurisdiction in extreme circuмstances. This, plus the fact that traditionalist bishops have a visible lineage, means there is nothing against the Vatican Council.
This is false, only the local Ordinary can grant this faculty. As Miaskiwicz says, … the Code is very specific in stating that the pastor cannot validly grant the faculty of preaching in the parish to any one who does not possess the right to do so either by law, or ex officio, or by the delegation of the Ordinary of the place. (p.229). The Church would not supply.
-
Teaching doesn't require jurisdiction. And, there is such a thing as supplied jurisdiction in extreme circuмstances. This, plus the fact that traditionalist bishops have a visible lineage, means there is nothing against the Vatican Council.
This is false, only the local Ordinary can grant this faculty. As Miaskiwicz says, … the Code is very specific in stating that the pastor cannot validly grant the faculty of preaching in the parish to any one who does not possess the right to do so either by law, or ex officio, or by the delegation of the Ordinary of the place. (p.229). The Church would not supply.
And this is something in which many —if not all— traditionalist priests have failed. And this includes SSPX, neo-SSPX and the so-called resistance priests as well.
-
The loss of jurisdiction means the loss of Apostolicity, which is one of the marks of the Church. Holy orders are simply not enough; one needs jurisdiction as well. With the loss of Apostolicity the Church loses the other marks (unity, catholicity, holiness). The Roman Pontiff is the perpetual principle of Unity, through which apostolicity continues, as infallibly declared in Vatican I Council. The jurisdiction granted by Jesus Christ to Peter and the Apostles has been handed down by the successors of St. Peter in all generations. This is what Vatican I means when it says the Popes shall reign in perpetuity.
Thus during a Papal interregnum (when a sede vacante is possible) ordinary jurisdiction continues through the Church herself. Some misguided people would say "oh, the Church supplies jurisdiction", but that is not accurate. Supplied jurisdiction comes about through a confusion due to a particular law, and it flows from the Church's ordinary jurisdiction. If a whole generation has had no Pope, then Ordinary jurisdiction has been lost, which means there cannot be supplied jurisdiction, meaning the gates of hell would have prevailed against the Church.
What sedes propose is a complete new religion, not different from a Protestant sect.
When you write sedes, do you refer to sedeplenists or to sedevacantists or to sedeprivationists?
-
The loss of jurisdiction means the loss of Apostolicity, which is one of the marks of the Church. Holy orders are simply not enough; one needs jurisdiction as well. With the loss of Apostolicity the Church loses the other marks (unity, catholicity, holiness). The Roman Pontiff is the perpetual principle of Unity, through which apostolicity continues, as infallibly declared in Vatican I Council. The jurisdiction granted by Jesus Christ to Peter and the Apostles has been handed down by the successors of St. Peter in all generations. This is what Vatican I means when it says the Popes shall reign in perpetuity.
Thus during a Papal interregnum (when a sede vacante is possible) ordinary jurisdiction continues through the Church herself. Some misguided people would say "oh, the Church supplies jurisdiction", but that is not accurate. Supplied jurisdiction comes about through a confusion due to a particular law, and it flows from the Church's ordinary jurisdiction. If a whole generation has had no Pope, then Ordinary jurisdiction has been lost, which means there cannot be supplied jurisdiction, meaning the gates of hell would have prevailed against the Church.
What sedes propose is a complete new religion, not different from a Protestant sect.
When you write sedes, do you refer to sedeplenists or to sedevacantists or to sedeprivationists?
Evidently, the reference is to sedevacantists. :rolleyes:
"Sedeplenism" is simply the default Catholic position. What a novel term!
-
Epikeia is just that, where one sees an ecclesiastical law, in an extraordinary circuмstance, is a hindrance which the author of it did not intend. There is also the principle of a doubtful law does not bind.
Again,
"Epikeia" as found in canon 209 provides jurisdiction in cases of common error or doubt for the benefit of the faithful, in cases where it is missing. This is NOT a replacement for jurisdiction nor a free pass for doing whatever one wants with the Ecclesiastical Law.
First of all, Epikeia "does not render an incompetent agent habitually competent". Thus for example, an invalidly elected bishop will never be the true bishop unless and until he is elected in the proper manner or has the matter sanated by the Holy See.
Secondly, the Church supplies only those things which are pertinent to the state and conditions of persons. It is actually used in extremely rare cases.
We have gone this road before but Nado is stubborn. :fryingpan:
-
It's Christmas week, I'm not in the mood for getting into a doctrinal fight, but I must point out that the error that has been made in this thread is objectively quite serious. As for the quote, it is exact, here's a more complete citation, if someone wants to examine the context, from an online source. Formal Apostolic succession requires being sent by the Pope, it requires the actual succession to an episcopal see, just like the Petrine succession requires an unbroken line of successors from St. Peter to the present day. One becomes a member of the episcopal college through the pontifical institution. Pastors or shepherds refer to those with power to rule and teach, which is what ordinary power of jurisdiction is. This power is received by pastors upon their "being sent" i.e. receiving a mission from the universal Pastor, the Supreme Pontiff.
210. The bishops are the successors of the Apostles and are placed by Divine law over the individual churches, which they govern with ordinary authority under the authority of the Roman Pontiff. They are freely appointed by the Pope ... 213. Every candidate to the episcopate, even those elected, presented or designated by the civil government, needs the canonical provision or institution in order to be the lawful bishop of a vacant diocese. The only one to institute a bishop is the Roman Pontiff.
formal succession consists in the fact that these substituted persons truly enjoy authority derived from the Apostles and received from him who is able to communicate it. For someone to be made a successor of the Apostles and pastor of the Church, the power of order — which is always validly conferred by virtue of ordination — is not enough; the power of jurisdiction is also required, and this is conferred not by virtue of ordination but by virtue of a mission received from him to whom Christ has entrusted the supreme power over the universal Church.
So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world [39], even as he had been sent by the Father [40], in like manner it was his will that in his church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.
In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecuм20.htm
Merry Christmas to all.
-
Epikeia is just that, where one sees an ecclesiastical law, in an extraordinary circuмstance, is a hindrance which the author of it did not intend. There is also the principle of a doubtful law does not bind.
Again,
"Epikeia" as found in canon 209 provides jurisdiction in cases of common error or doubt for the benefit of the faithful, in cases where it is missing. This is NOT a replacement for jurisdiction nor a free pass for doing whatever one wants with the Ecclesiastical Law.
First of all, Epikeia "does not render an incompetent agent habitually competent". Thus for example, an invalidly elected bishop will never be the true bishop unless and until he is elected in the proper manner or has the matter sanated by the Holy See.
Secondly, the Church supplies only those things which are pertinent to the state and conditions of persons. It is actually used in extremely rare cases.
We have gone this road before but Nado is stubborn. :fryingpan:
No, Noda is not stubborn, I'm stubborn, Nado is permanently contrary for the sake of being permanently contrary.
Nado uses epikeia as though it is a shield against truth.
-
Epikeia is just that, where one sees an ecclesiastical law, in an extraordinary circuмstance, is a hindrance which the author of it did not intend. There is also the principle of a doubtful law does not bind.
Again,
"Epikeia" as found in canon 209 provides jurisdiction in cases of common error or doubt for the benefit of the faithful, in cases where it is missing. This is NOT a replacement for jurisdiction nor a free pass for doing whatever one wants with the Ecclesiastical Law.
First of all, Epikeia "does not render an incompetent agent habitually competent". Thus for example, an invalidly elected bishop will never be the true bishop unless and until he is elected in the proper manner or has the matter sanated by the Holy See.
Secondly, the Church supplies only those things which are pertinent to the state and conditions of persons. It is actually used in extremely rare cases.
We have gone this road before but Nado is stubborn. :fryingpan:
Never heard that before. Supplied Jurisdiction was always if a person is in danger of death: until the apostasy overwhelmed the minds of men!
It doesn't just pertain to danger of death. Here is a quote from A Catholic Dictionary before the apostasy:
"In the case of a common error or a positive and probable doubt, either of law or of fact, the Church supplies the necessary jurisdiction, in both the external and internal forum, to make the act valid."
Yes, but supplied jurisdiction comes from the authority which is wielded by the Pope, and held by the Church (Bishops) during interregnums and these Bishops must be visible, but sedes simply do not know who these are.
"Supplied jurisdiction" cannot work if there is no visible, living, Magisterium to supply it. Contrary to sedes' claims, Our Lord promised the visible Magisterium to exist forever and is that visible magisterium which supplies the jurisdiction.
-
Epikeia is just that, where one sees an ecclesiastical law, in an extraordinary circuмstance, is a hindrance which the author of it did not intend. There is also the principle of a doubtful law does not bind.
Again,
"Epikeia" as found in canon 209 provides jurisdiction in cases of common error or doubt for the benefit of the faithful, in cases where it is missing. This is NOT a replacement for jurisdiction nor a free pass for doing whatever one wants with the Ecclesiastical Law.
First of all, Epikeia "does not render an incompetent agent habitually competent". Thus for example, an invalidly elected bishop will never be the true bishop unless and until he is elected in the proper manner or has the matter sanated by the Holy See.
Secondly, the Church supplies only those things which are pertinent to the state and conditions of persons. It is actually used in extremely rare cases.
We have gone this road before but Nado is stubborn. :fryingpan:
Never heard that before. Supplied Jurisdiction was always if a person is in danger of death: until the apostasy overwhelmed the minds of men!
It doesn't just pertain to danger of death. Here is a quote from A Catholic Dictionary before the apostasy:
"In the case of a common error or a positive and probable doubt, either of law or of fact, the Church supplies the necessary jurisdiction, in both the external and internal forum, to make the act valid."
Yes, but supplied jurisdiction comes from the authority which is wielded by the Pope, and held by the Church (Bishops) during interregnums and these Bishops must be visible, but sedes simply do not know who these are.
"Supplied jurisdiction" cannot work if there is no visible, living, Magisterium to supply it. Contrary to sedes' claims, Our Lord promised the visible Magisterium to exist forever and is that visible magisterium which supplies the jurisdiction.
I have already answered this, but will do so again.
It is automatically supplied by the Church. That means that Christ, as the Head of the Church, automatically supplies the necessary jurisdiction to make the act valid. It has nothing to do with contacting anyone, or whether there is an interregnum or not.
I had also given a full definition of Magisterium, and it shows that it is visible, and includes the sedevacantists.
More Ad Hoc Fallacies... :rolleyes: Sedevacantists use ad hoc reasoning to the point of inventing a whole new religion no different from an invisible Calvinist sect.
Nado is just making everything up and everyone can see it. Sorry Nado, your definitions are not in accord to the Catholic Church's teaching.
-
It is automatically supplied by the Church. That means that Christ, as the Head of the Church, automatically supplies the necessary jurisdiction to make the act valid.
Nado, you really don't understand what you are writing about. Let me explain it to you by quoting Miaskiewicz "Jurisdictional power was conferred by Christ upon the Church. From this source the Roman Pontiff has ever drawn the plenitude of this power. And having drawn from Christ, the Church, through the Pope, has traditionally conferred upon her subjects a share in that power by means of legitimate commission." Hence, Christ is the remote source and the Pope the proximate source of jurisdiction. And in this case the law can be seen as an 'immediate source' in that it supplies "executive power of governance" (Can. 144 §1).
Further:
"... the Church, or more properly the Supreme Pontiff, from whom all jurisdiction emanates and from whom all common law has its origin, supplies the necessary jurisdiction." (Miaskiewicz, p.28)
"When the Church, or more specifically the Roman Pontiff, is said to supply jurisdiction in any case whatsoever, be it in common error or in doubt, it is readily understood that the Pope acts in virtue of the plenitude of the jurisdictional power Christ entrusted to his person." (ibid. p.197)
"If it is said that the Church supply, it has to be understood of the Superiors of the Church, or rather of her supreme prince the Roman Pontiff, whence proceedes all jurisdiction and from which comes the common law; it is supplied a iure that is, by common law or by the author of the common law." (Wernz-Vidal, Vol. II, num 379)
"In factual or legal common error and in positive and probable doubt of law or of fact, the Church supplies executive power of governance for both the external and internal forum." (Can. 144 §1)
-
Here is proof of what I have already described.
No it isn't. You simply don't understand what Miaskiewicz has written.
-
Supplied Jurisdiction was always if a person is in danger of death: until the apostasy overwhelmed the minds of men!
Technically, this isn't true. It is not a supplied jurisdiction, but an extraordinary grant by another canon - which actually demonstrates that supplied jurisdiction doesn't gives carte blanche the power to do anything... e.g. for a priest to start erecting Pius unions and Third Orders...