Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter  (Read 59246 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
« Reply #500 on: March 27, 2023, 05:10:13 AM »
If one is separated from the Body of the Church, then he is a non-Catholic.  How a non-Catholic who was formerly Catholic receives the Sacrament of Penance is that he renounces his heresy in the Sacrament of Penance and follows the direction of the priest.
Sorry, but this fails miserably since the Church does not permit non-Catholics to even enter the confessional.


Quote
Back to reply #231...
One who is not a Catholic cannot receive the Sacraments. The excommunicated Catholic can receive the Sacrament of Penance, whereby the censure can be removed, and the sin be forgiven. The Church first removes the censure, then forgives the sin...

May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you: and I, by His authority, absolve you from every bond of excommunication,
(suspension), and interdict, in so far as I am able and you are needful. Next, I absolve you from your sins, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
(The word suspensionis {suspension} is used only for clerics. A cleric may be suspended without being excommunicated; but, should he incur excommunication, he is suspended also.)..."



Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
« Reply #501 on: March 27, 2023, 05:48:04 AM »
Great point Stubborn.  What your comment reveals is that there is a difference between someone who has been baptized in the Church, or received into the Church after baptism, and a person that has never been a Catholic.  If a person that has been received into the Church falls into heresy, all he has to do is confess it to be reconciled with the Church.  The only exception is one who was declared a heretic by the Church.  In that case, he would also need to have the declaration lifted.

As long as the Catholic remains in external union with the Church, he remains a true member of the Church (one opinion), or at least a member in appearance only (second opinion). Those who hold the second opinion (e.g., Suarez, Cajetan, Franzeline, John of St. Thomas) admit that being a member in appearance only suffices to hold office in the Church and to retain jurisdiction. The point being, all admit that if a cleric falls into the sin of formal heresy and loses the faith, they will retain their office and jurisdiction as long as they remain externally united to the Church.
Well, this is the dilemma. 

The sedes, for obvious reasons, must incorporate "all heretics are non-members" into their doctrine. Yet despite the fact that we often see language in encyclicals etc. which suggests this, there is the above truth which, as such, cannot be denied. Only Catholics, members of the Church can receive the sacrament of penance. Period.

It is because this cannot be denied that like you, I opine the language we read in encyclicals etc. must pertain only to those who have never been Catholic, and also to those formally declared to be a heretic and excommunicated - but even among them there is the exception provided where the danger of death is imminent.

One thing that is certain, is the idea of the Church kicking out a sinner, any sinner, is altogether contrary to the Church's mission and purpose. St. Thomas says the primary purpose of excommunication is medicinal, whereas the sedes' idea of excommunication is primarily punishment.


Offline AnthonyPadua

  • Supporter
Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
« Reply #502 on: September 16, 2023, 05:15:33 AM »
"Blind obedience is not Catholic; nobody is exempt from responsibility for having obeyed man rather than God if he accepts orders from a higher authority, even a Pope, when these are contrary to the Will of God as it is known from certainty from Tradition. It is true that one cannot envisage such an eventuality when papal infallibility is engaged; but this happens only in a limited number of cases. It is an error to think that every word uttered by a Pope is infallible."
This would also apply to those who ignore infallible definitions such as the ones from Pope Eugene IV at Florence and Pope Siricius which deny any notion of BoD and BoB.

Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
« Reply #503 on: December 29, 2023, 04:29:31 PM »
The difference is huge:

Sedes reject the authority of the Roman Pontifff in principle.

Resistance (old SSPX) accept it in principle.
You’ve got to be joking.

Which group is constantly providing teachings of the Magisterium in defense of the rights of the Roman Pontiff over the universal Church to teach, rule and sanctify the faithful? 

almost never R&R. 

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
« Reply #504 on: December 29, 2023, 05:01:53 PM »
Yikes, this "obey God rather than man" stuff is scary non-Catholic thinking.  When a Pope teaching, he's acting as Christ's Vicar.  This is not about Jorge spewing nonsense on his pope-plane or in an interview with Scalfari, but about the man you claim to be the Vicar of Christ teaching with the authority of St. Peter, which is the authority of Christ.

So, is this an absolute statement?  Old Catholics decided they were obeying God rather than man in rejecting papal infallibility as contrary to Tradition.  Were they obeying God rather than man also?  If so, how can you find fault with them?  On what basis?

Let those who claim this maxim applies to Papal authority explain why the Old Catholics were wrong.  This should be interesting.