Latest topics
» Rethink "Feeneyism"?
Fri Aug 11, 2017 6:02 pm by tornpage

» Brother Andre Marie MICM, the Prior at the St. Benedict Center does not correct Frs.Brian Harrison and Cekada,Bishops Sanborn,Pirvanus,Kelly and Fellay
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:24 pm by MRyan

» Revisiting Diocese/Parish Screening Policy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:03 pm by MRyan

» When sedes and trads can accept that Pius XII made a mistake then popes since John XXIII are no more in heresy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 3:08 pm by MRyan

» Doctrinal talks were conducted with Fr.Gleize on 'the other side'
Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:08 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Pope Benedict permitted Fr. Jean Marie Gleize to lead in doctrinal talks since he was a liberal ?
Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:59 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Padre Pio told Fr.Gabriel Amorth," It is Satan who has been introduced into the bosom of the Church and within a very short time will come to rule a false Church" -Bishop Richard Williamson
Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:14 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Mons. Brunero Gherardini misled the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and many traditionalists
Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Official statement from SSPX awaited : Fr.Gleize and other theologians have got it wrong
Sat Jun 24, 2017 10:10 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Andre Marie MICM too is teaching error : Bishop Sanborn cannot report at the Chancery office
Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:50 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Magsiterial Heresy ?
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:36 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Magisterium should apologise to the SSPX for the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:34 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Francis MICM made a mistake on Vatican Council II
Sat Sep 26, 2015 5:14 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Legion of Christ universities in Rome adapt to leftist laws
Fri May 22, 2015 7:53 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» CM, SSPX, MICM deny the Faith to please superiors
Thu May 21, 2015 4:44 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX and Church Militant are using the same liberal theology and are unaware of it
Wed May 20, 2015 9:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Michael Voris uses liberal theology and yet critcizes Michael Coren
Tue May 19, 2015 10:10 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Fr.John Zuhlsdorf condones Mass for suicide
Tue May 19, 2015 9:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Vatican Council II is traditional or liberal depending on how you interpret the Letter of the Holy Office
Mon May 18, 2015 5:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Church Militant unable to answer questions on extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Sun May 17, 2015 5:55 am by Lionel L. Andrades


Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  Lourdes on Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:42 pm

MRyan wrote:
Lourdes wrote:By the way, MRyan, what makes you think you're qualified to assess the pope(s) and the present condition of our church? You asked me, so now I am asking you.
Actually, that is not what I asked you. When you insulted every poster on this forum (who made a rebuttal to the sede argument) by dismissing each and every one of their responses as so much worthless trash, I asked you why you say you are not qualified to make a defense of your position (whatever it is), but you feel qualified to dismiss the arguments of others who refute the very position you say you do not hold.

You answered by basically saying you know BS when you read it, being blessed with a special perception and all ... just like Fr. Feeney.

You're not a sede, but you don't know why. What you do know is that every rebuttal to the sede position amounts to nothing more than "whitewashing, posturing, denial and excessive wordiness masking the fact that the alleged answer is no answer at all".

But, let's begin again:

Lourdes wrote:By the way, MRyan, what makes you think you're qualified to assess the pope(s) and the present condition of our church? You asked me, so now I am asking you.

Is that supposed to be some tongue-in-cheek attempt at humor? Are you actually asking me what makes me qualified to assess that the pope(s) are actually the pope(s)?

My only qualification is that I am a Catholic who believes that the divine institution of the papacy is permanent, perpetual and visible. I also take VCI, in its FIRST DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH OF CHRIST, at its infallible word when it solemnly declared:

For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that the holy and Blessed Peter, the Prince and chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, and lives, presides and judges to this day always in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome, which was founded by Him and consecrated by His Blood...The disposition made by Incarnate Truth (dispositio veritatis) therefore remains, and Blessed Peter, abiding in the rock's strength which he received (in accepta fortitudine petrae perseverans), has not abandoned the direction of the Church.”

Do you "doubt" any of that? Or is that one of the worthless "whitewashing, posturing, denial and excessive wordiness masking the fact that the alleged answer is no answer at all"?

Assessing the “present condition of the Church” is another question entirely, and very complicated … and I make no pretense at being “qualified” to assess her present condition, except to offer my opinion while affirming without hesitation that she is what she always has been, while I attempt to remain within the boundaries of the authority of the Church.

If you think that I am not troubled by this devastated vineyard, think again. I don’t have all the answers, but I know who and where the Pope is ... and that’s always a good start, don’t you think?




Listen, you high and mighty condescending jerk, I've had all I can take of you and your cat and mouse games here.

All you know how to do is insult people. Who would listen to one word you say? You are an obnoxious and nasty man who is probably nothing but a wimp in person. You goad people on and then when they react, you accuse them of all sorts of things. You accuse others of the very things you are.

I'm through with you. With someone like you, a person is damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Why anyone keeps someone like you on a forum is a mystery to me. You do more harm than good. I don't care how intelligent you are, you're nothing but a jerk.

Maybe some day the scales will fall from your eyes and you'll see yourself as others see you. Until then, there will always be a forum that you can go to and bully everyone that disagrees with you, or even bully anyone that agrees with you. You're not picky.


Lourdes

Posts : 156
Reputation : 162
Join date : 2011-02-19
Location : USA

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  MRyan on Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:55 pm

Listen, Lourdes, you need to stand by your own words, or knock off this pathetic exhibition.

You refuse to answer for your own insulting response, and can't even respond to my reasoned responses to your questions.

Poor, poor, misunderstood Lourdes, so hurt by being confronted by her own duplicity.

The Lourdes who says I'm a "high and mighty condescending jerk" ... that's the Lourdes I know ... everything else is a smokescreen.

avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  simple Faith on Thu Sep 15, 2011 5:02 pm

Bernadette wrote,
Greetings whoever you are! Could you explain what you mean by this statement? Specifically the words '...quickly loose the pretence of being a 'traditionalist'....are you saying that a traditionalist is only a Catholic who recognizes a pope as a true pope, regardless of the fact that he's teaching heresy, and participating in the destruction of the Chruch?
Greetings Bernadette, you introduced yourself by saying, ''I'm a traditional Roman Catholic named bernadette''. Now this may sound strange, but I thought a tradition had been well established (is 2000 years long enough to qualify as tradition?) that a Catholic accepted the validly elected Pope as the head of the Catholic Church. So please tell me, where is it in Catholic tradition that a lay-person has the authority to convict the Pope of heresy? And BTW, if I wish to leave my Catholic church and join your Catholic church, what is the procedure, do I just have to denouce the Pope and then make up own rules there after, or does your church have a 'head' or 'director' that I can take guidance from?
avatar
simple Faith

Posts : 164
Reputation : 179
Join date : 2011-01-19

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  Lourdes on Thu Sep 15, 2011 5:10 pm

MRyan wrote:Listen, Lourdes, you need to stand by your own words, or knock off this pathetic exhibition.

You refuse to answer for your own insulting response, and can't even respond to my reasoned responses to your questions.

Poor, poor, misunderstood Lourdes, so hurt by being confronted by her own duplicity.

The Lourdes who says I'm a "high and mighty condescending jerk" ... that's the Lourdes I know ... everything else is a smokescreen.


You can't stand the truth about yourself. And you should talk about pathetic exhibitions being the master of them.




Lourdes

Posts : 156
Reputation : 162
Join date : 2011-02-19
Location : USA

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  Allie on Thu Sep 15, 2011 5:29 pm

Lourdes,

With all due respect, I beg to differ with you on your opinion of Mike and also as to the fact that you do not want him on the forum. Is that really what you want, a forum where everyone agrees on everything and no one is challenged on anything?


Lourdes wrote:
Listen, you high and mighty condescending jerk, I've had all I can take of you and your cat and mouse games here.

All you know how to do is insult people. Who would listen to one word you say? You are an obnoxious and nasty man who is probably nothing but a wimp in person. You goad people on and then when they react, you accuse them of all sorts of things. You accuse others of the very things you are.
I for one would and have listened to what he has to say. He has been nothing but gracious with his time and energy when I have asked him questions online or via email. (many of my questions which I am sure were like talking to a kindergartner about shapes and colors, lol). I do not delude myself with thinking that I always know what everyone is talking about on here, much goes over my head. But I also realize that if I am going to put my 2cents in on any given topic, I better not get too offended if I am ignored or not treated with kid gloves in rebuttals. I think if we were all sitting looking at each other in the flesh things would be a bit more civil, but when you are really just talking to a computer screen, it is easy to get brash. Do you agree?

Lourdes wrote:
I'm through with you. With someone like you, a person is damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Why anyone keeps someone like you on a forum is a mystery to me. You do more harm than good. I don't care how intelligent you are, you're nothing but a jerk.
see the brashness I am talking about? You are probably a delightful person to have a cup of coffee or beer with, but online.....

Lourdes wrote:
Maybe some day the scales will fall from your eyes and you'll see yourself as others see you. Until then, there will always be a forum that you can go to and bully everyone that disagrees with you, or even bully anyone that agrees with you. You're not picky.

Sometimes I wonder if the emotion that Mike erupts out of people derives mostly from not wanting to have to answer to or really think about and possibly agree with what he is actually saying (as he mentioned before, the substance of his arguments) and so it makes it easy to latch onto the fact that he may not be particularly meek and "wimpy" in his responses and it stops any progress in true debate or dialog.

Now I know Mike is a big boy and he didn't need me defending him. But I just wanted to clarify that you do not speak for me when you level your own pretty vicious attacks against him.

Let's pray for him and for each other and not get so offended about everything.
God bless and guide you and Mr. Mike "wimpy" Ryan and everyone else on here.

and for M-Mark that we can get this thread back to OP (sorry)
avatar
Allie

Posts : 100
Reputation : 116
Join date : 2010-12-20
Location : southern Ohio, USA

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  Lourdes on Thu Sep 15, 2011 5:42 pm

Allie wrote:Lourdes,

With all due respect, I beg to differ with you on your opinion of Mike and also as to the fact that you do not want him on the forum. Is that really what you want, a forum where everyone agrees on everything and no one is challenged on anything?


Lourdes wrote:
Listen, you high and mighty condescending jerk, I've had all I can take of you and your cat and mouse games here.

All you know how to do is insult people. Who would listen to one word you say? You are an obnoxious and nasty man who is probably nothing but a wimp in person. You goad people on and then when they react, you accuse them of all sorts of things. You accuse others of the very things you are.
I for one would and have listened to what he has to say. He has been nothing but gracious with his time and energy when I have asked him questions online or via email. (many of my questions which I am sure were like talking to a kindergartner about shapes and colors, lol). I do not delude myself with thinking that I always know what everyone is talking about on here, much goes over my head. But I also realize that if I am going to put my 2cents in on any given topic, I better not get too offended if I am ignored or not treated with kid gloves in rebuttals. I think if we were all sitting looking at each other in the flesh things would be a bit more civil, but when you are really just talking to a computer screen, it is easy to get brash. Do you agree?

Lourdes wrote:
I'm through with you. With someone like you, a person is damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Why anyone keeps someone like you on a forum is a mystery to me. You do more harm than good. I don't care how intelligent you are, you're nothing but a jerk.
see the brashness I am talking about? You are probably a delightful person to have a cup of coffee or beer with, but online.....

Lourdes wrote:
Maybe some day the scales will fall from your eyes and you'll see yourself as others see you. Until then, there will always be a forum that you can go to and bully everyone that disagrees with you, or even bully anyone that agrees with you. You're not picky.

Sometimes I wonder if the emotion that Mike erupts out of people derives mostly from not wanting to have to answer to or really think about and possibly agree with what he is actually saying (as he mentioned before, the substance of his arguments) and so it makes it easy to latch onto the fact that he may not be particularly meek and "wimpy" in his responses and it stops any progress in true debate or dialog.

Now I know Mike is a big boy and he didn't need me defending him. But I just wanted to clarify that you do not speak for me when you level your own pretty vicious attacks against him.

Let's pray for him and for each other and not get so offended about everything.
God bless and guide you and Mr. Mike "wimpy" Ryan and everyone else on here.

and for M-Mark that we can get this thread back to OP (sorry)

Nor do you speak for me and others. It is apparent that you like him. That has already been made obvious.

Petty vicious attacks - that's rich Allie. And Mike? Never a petty vicious attack from him, right Allie?

Brashness - and he isn't? Allie?

Well, it is like being a mother I guess. She rarely looks at her child the way others see him.

I've already prayed for him, Allie. Last night in fact. Many prayers. But thanks for the suggestion anyway.




Lourdes

Posts : 156
Reputation : 162
Join date : 2011-02-19
Location : USA

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  simple Faith on Thu Sep 15, 2011 6:05 pm

Columba, I'm not sure if you missed my last post, (the one which stated, ''But Columba you seem to miss the point, it is not within your authority nor ability to 'prove' that Benedict XIV wrote anything heretical.'') or maybe you intend to respond to it in a new thread. We might have strayed off M-Mark's original topic anyway. Seems to have been a bit of collateral damage during this debate so far so we'll have to wait and see who makes it over to your new thread when you start it.
avatar
simple Faith

Posts : 164
Reputation : 179
Join date : 2011-01-19

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  Allie on Thu Sep 15, 2011 6:15 pm

Lourdes wrote: It is apparent that you like him. That has already been made obvious.
Yup, I've never tried to hide it.

Lourdes wrote:
Petty vicious attacks - that's rich Allie. And Mike? Never a petty vicious attack from him, right Allie?

Brashness - and he isn't? Allie?

I actually said "pretty" vicious attacks, not petty...if I had said petty I think that would have been a little more incindiary and that wasn't really my aim.

Lourdes wrote:
Well, it is like being a mother I guess. She rarely looks at her child the way others see him.
And like I say to my boys when they are fighting with each other- stay away from each other until you can treat each other the way you want to be treated. Another thing that is said around here "Two wrongs don't make a right", but again I'm back to my kindergarten stuff. sorry.

Lourdes wrote:
I've already prayed for him, Allie. Last night in fact. Many prayers. But thanks for the suggestion anyway.
excellent, and you are very welcome.



avatar
Allie

Posts : 100
Reputation : 116
Join date : 2010-12-20
Location : southern Ohio, USA

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  Missouri Mark on Thu Sep 15, 2011 6:45 pm

MRyan wrote:
Missouri Mark wrote: "Can a Catholic remain in good standing if he believes in the possibility of a papal claimant as not being a true pope, but he doesn't hold that belief as a matter of fact, but only personal opinion?"
Of course a Catholic can remain a “Catholic in good standing” if he believes in the possibility of a papal claimant as not being a true pope, but he doesn't hold that belief as a matter of fact, but only personal opinion”

Thankyou MRyan, I really appreciate your honesty

Missouri Mark

Posts : 21
Reputation : 30
Join date : 2011-02-22

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  columba on Thu Sep 15, 2011 7:32 pm

simple Faith wrote:Columba, I'm not sure if you missed my last post, (the one which stated, ''But Columba you seem to miss the point, it is not within your authority nor ability to 'prove' that Benedict XIV wrote anything heretical.'') or maybe you intend to respond to it in a new thread. We might have strayed off M-Mark's original topic anyway. Seems to have been a bit of collateral damage during this debate so far so we'll have to wait and see who makes it over to your new thread when you start it.

Strangely enough S-F, not only is it within my authority and ability; it's within every Catholics authority and ability to recognize heresy when they hear it. If that weren't the case, how could anyone ever know if they temselves were actual heritics are not?
For example, if you were to say to me that the Blessed Virgin was not assumed into heaven, I would know immediately that you were a heretic, and, the fact that you know the actual teaching of the Church regarding Our Lady's assumption would mean that you were a formal heritic as opposed to a material heretic.

And while on the subject; on what authority and with what ability do you Judge that BXVI is not a heretic? If you say that you judge so because you know Catholic teaching and can affirm that BXVI has never spoken heresy, then I too can equally judge for myself that he has by using the very same infallible judgment that you attribute to yourself. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander (as they say).

See you on the new thread soon.
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  Missouri Mark on Thu Sep 15, 2011 9:04 pm

MRyan wrote:
The question you haven’t asked, and one more relevant to this discussion, is whether there has ever been a legitimacy elected or sitting Pope who has ever lost his office through manifest heresy (prior, or subsequent to, his elevation).

The answer, as you might have guessed, is no.


MRyan, would it be wrong to assume 'Pope Honorius I' lost his office within the Church when he fell into heresy at some point while serving as Pope? In other words, are you saying a Pope can fall into heresy, make such heresy public in his role in guiding the faithful, and yet still remain Pope?

Missouri Mark

Posts : 21
Reputation : 30
Join date : 2011-02-22

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  bernadette on Fri Sep 16, 2011 12:06 am

simple Faith wrote:Bernadette wrote,
Greetings whoever you are! Could you explain what you mean by this statement? Specifically the words '...quickly loose the pretence of being a 'traditionalist'....are you saying that a traditionalist is only a Catholic who recognizes a pope as a true pope, regardless of the fact that he's teaching heresy, and participating in the destruction of the Chruch?
Greetings Bernadette, you introduced yourself by saying, ''I'm a traditional Roman Catholic named bernadette''. Now this may sound strange, but I thought a tradition had been well established (is 2000 years long enough to qualify as tradition?) that a Catholic accepted the validly elected Pope as the head of the Catholic Church. So please tell me, where is it in Catholic tradition that a lay-person has the authority to convict the Pope of heresy? And BTW, if I wish to leave my Catholic church and join your Catholic church, what is the procedure, do I just have to denouce the Pope and then make up own rules there after, or does your church have a 'head' or 'director' that I can take guidance from?

Thanks for the greeting...why of course tradition had been well established...for nearly 2000 years but not quite. The modernists have done away with tradition...or have you been in a cave for the last fifty years?

Who is the lay-person you refer to that has 'convicted' the pope (?) of heresy? Surely you aren't referring to me? I haven't convicted anyone...this pope and the other modernist era popes have quite simply, convicted themselves.

I would also suggest that you try to drop your vitriolic hatred towards those who hold fast to the traditions of the church...it appears that you and most of your NO ilk, possess a deeply rooted guilt for accepting and going along with the heresies espoused by the apostates....it is so silly...there are countless Protestant sects to choose from...why don't you take your heresies to one of the many heretical sects and remove yourself from inhabiting the Catholic Church under the guise of being Catholic all the while you espouse teachings that are contrary to the nearly two thousand year traditions of the church that you have been pretending to uphold? Because you pat the heretics on the back and believe that they are Catholic does not make them so....why don't you demand rather....a return to real tradition, and a driving out of the church the apostates that now run it?

By the way....you avoided answering my question...is a traditionalist only a Catholic who recognizes a pope as a true pope, regardless of the fact that he's teaching heresy, and participating in the destruction of the Chruch?

bernadette

Posts : 15
Reputation : 15
Join date : 2011-09-14

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  simple Faith on Fri Sep 16, 2011 10:32 am

Bernadette, You call yourself a 'traditionalist' but then you say, ''The modernists have done away with tradition...or have you been in a cave for the last fifty years?''
So I'll ask you once again as a 'true' traditionalit, where in the history of the Catholic church (any period during the past 2000 years will do just fine) has it been established that a 'lay-person' (yes, just like you) has the authority to, not just accuse a Pope of possible heresy, but rather to actully find him guilty of the same? Now if you can't answer that, by giving specific examples, then maybe it might be you that has done away with 'tradition' and intoduced a new 'modern' approach to the procedure for establishing how a Pope is found guilty of heresy. Please don't give the opt-out answer again that the Pope has convicted himself, just tell me where you or the likes of the Dimond brothers derive these 'special powers' from in the teachings and traditions of the Catholic Church.
Now back to the question you asked me,
By the way....you avoided answering my question...is a traditionalist only a Catholic who recognizes a pope as a true pope, regardless of the fact that he's teaching heresy, and participating in the destruction of the Chruch?
A very simple answer, yes, a 'traditionlist' has to recognize the Pope as a true Pope to be a Catholic. This is the oldest and most necessary 'tradition' of the Catholic church since its very foundation by Jesus. You remember, ...you are Peter and upon this rock, etc etc, or maybe we can just quietly forget about that little episode, in your new 'modernist' approach to who we should follow as Divinely appointed head and shepherd of the flock.
Oh BTW Bernadette , I don't think you answered my question,
who is the newly appointed leader of your 'traditional' church, I'd sure love to meet him. That is of course presuming that the 'tradition' that the Church will always have a 'visible' head is still part of your new 'modern' version of Catholicism.
avatar
simple Faith

Posts : 164
Reputation : 179
Join date : 2011-01-19

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  bernadette on Fri Sep 16, 2011 1:26 pm

"Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ"....I guess you never heard that one, right?

The trouble with you people...is that you sit on your hands and watch your church going down the drain...why? Because you are victims of papolotry...you have a man by the name of Ratzinger, sitting on the chair of Peter under the guise of a Catholic...but what has he done, you might ask? He's taught that which is contrary to the Catholic Faith...or perhaps you have forgotten that religious liberty and ecumenism have always been condemned by the church and the true popes before the joke Council Vat. II...show me one time in the history of the church before the joke council where a pope has prayed with heretics, pagans, and members of false religions...show me one time in the history of the church before the joke council where a pope has kissed the Koran, show me one time in the history of the church before joke council where the pope readies himself to give praise and recognition to a heretic such as Luther...the trouble with you false traditionalist's, better known as Neo-Catholics, is that you think the Church began with Vatican II...actually, the church that you entertain in your mind as still existing...ended with Vatican II.

My answer to your idiotic question...there is no 'newly appointed' leader of my traditional church, like I said before, I am a Roman Catholic...the chair of Peter is occupied by a heretic...by an apostate, raging liberal, modernist, phony "pope", and thanks to you and all of the rest of the stupid, duped, NO Catholics that bought into the papolotry business...we have to suffer the heretics until God sees fit to intervene.

I'll reiterate for you...I never convicted any of the false popes, I don't need to, they have all convicted themselves..is that simple fact too deep for you to grasp? Funny, you Protestantized Catholics are the biggest enemies of the Church...you have no back bone and no true love of your Faith...if you did...you wouldn't sit complacently by while the modernists destroy Christ's church...you'll have to answer for that someday.

bernadette

Posts : 15
Reputation : 15
Join date : 2011-09-14

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  Guest on Fri Sep 16, 2011 3:19 pm

Simple Faith wrote:
So I'll ask you once again as a 'true' traditionalit, where in the history of the Catholic church (any period during the past 2000 years will do just fine) has it been established that a 'lay-person' (yes, just like you) has the authority to, not just accuse a Pope of possible heresy, but rather to actully find him guilty of the same.

Hi SF I bet your glad to see me back! as I know the opinions in which I give during the Great Apostasy "make your blood boil."

I think what you're trying to ask in your above question is "what's your authority for making the judgment that the pope is a heretic?"

My answer would be: The authority that a Catholic has to determine that heretics are not members of the Church is Catholic dogma, which teaches us that those who depart from the faith are considered alien to the Church.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magistium."

Furthermore, before you come out with it, to say that adhering to this dogma is to engage in private interpretation, is to state positively what Pope St. Pius X condemned in his Syllabus Of Errors against the Modernists.

Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22: “The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from
Heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind
by a laborious effort prepared for itself.”- Condemned

Pope Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #54: “The dogmas, the sacraments, the hierarchy, as far as pertains both to the notion and to the reality, are nothing but interpretations and the evolution of Christian intelligence, which have increased and perfected the little germ latent in the Gospel." - Condemned


Simple Faith wrote:
So I'll ask you once again as a 'true' traditionalit, where in the history of the Catholic church (any period during the past 2000 years will do just fine) has it been established that a 'lay-person' (yes, just like you) has the authority to, not just accuse a Pope of possible heresy, but rather to actully find him guilty of the same.


In your last line there, I think you're asking how can a lay-person find the pope guilty of heresy if no one can judge the Holy See?
Understand first what this means. The teaching "No one can judge the Holy See" comes from the early Church. In the early Church, when a bishop was to blame for a crime, there would sometimes be a trial presided over by other bishops or by a patriarch of greater authority. These bishops would sit in judgment on the accused bishop. The Bishop of Rome, however, since he is the supreme bishop in the Church, cannot be subjected to any trial by other bishops or by other people.

Pope St. Nicholas, epistle, Proposueramus quidem, 865: “… Neither by Augustus, nor by all the clergy, nor by religious, nor by the people will the judge be judged… ‘The first seat will not be judged by anyone.’”

This is what “No one can judge the Holy See” means. It does not refer to recognizing a manifest heretic who claims to be the pope as one who is not a true pope.

Second, the Holy See has told us that no heretic can be accepted as the valid occupant of the Holy See (the Pope)! With the fullness of his authority, Pope Paul IV defined that anyone who has been promoted to the Papacy as a heretic is not a true and valid pope, and that he can be rejected as a warlock, heathen, publican and heresiarch.

Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;

(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;

(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;

(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.

7. Finally, by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We also enact, determine, define and decree: that any and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted or elevated if they had not previously deviated from the Faith, become heretics, incurred schism or provoked or committed any or all of these, be they members of anysoever of the following categories: (i) the clergy, secular and religious;

(ii) the laity;

(iii) the Cardinals, even those who shall have taken part in the election of this very Pontiff previously deviating from the Faith or heretical or schismatical, or shall otherwise have consented and vouchsafed obedience to him and shall have venerated him;

(iv) Castellans, Prefects, Captains and Officials, even of Our Beloved City and of the entire Ecclesiastical State, even if they shall be obliged and beholden to those thus promoted or elevated by homage, oath or security; shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs (the same subject persons, nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Roman Pontiff canonically entering).

10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation, re-introduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.

Given in Rome at Saint Peter's in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1559, 15th
February, in the fourth year of our Pontificate.

+ I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church…”


Simple Faith wrote:
You remember, ...you are Peter and upon this rock, etc etc, or maybe we can just quietly forget about that little episode, in your new 'modernist' approach to who we should follow as Divinely appointed head and shepherd of the flock.

The Church has understood and defined what Our Divine Savior spoke about in Matthew 16 and what you are referring to above as heretics being the gates of Hell:

Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553: “… we bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and Him who said the gates of Hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics)…”

Pope St. Leo IX, Sep. 2, 1053: "The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter... because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome."

St. Thomas Aquinas (1262): "Wisdom may fill the hearts of the faithful, and put to silence the dread folly of heretics, fittingly referred to as the gates of Hell." (Intro. To Catena Aurea.)


Notice that heretics are the gates of Hell. Heretics are not members of the Church. That’s why a heretic could never be a pope. The gates of Hell (heretics) could never have authority over the Church of Christ.

Simple Faith wrote:
who is the newly appointed leader of your 'traditional' church, I'd sure love to meet him. That is of course presuming that the 'tradition' that the Church will always have a 'visible' head is still part of your new 'modern' version of Catholicism..

The Church has existed for years without a pope, and does so every time a pope dies. The Church has experienced a papal interregnum (i.e. period without a pope) over 200 different times in Church history. The longest papal interregnum (before the Vatican II apostasy) was between Pope St. Marcellinus (296-304) and Pope St. Marcellus (308-309). It lasted for more than three and a half years. Further, theologians teach that the Church can exist for even decades without a pope.

Always keep in mind what Our Lord said in Matthew 7:15. Our Lord is speaking on the latar days here.

Matthew 7:15- “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”

All said and done Simple Faith, I will say... keep up the studying study I see you're starting catch on a bit Very Happy






Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  Saviorsheart on Fri Sep 16, 2011 3:26 pm

bernadette wrote: "Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ"....I guess you never heard that one, right?
Oh, come on. Where do you traditionalist catholics get this stuff from?
bernadette wrote:
you have a man by the name of Ratzinger, sitting on the chair of Peter under the guise of a Catholic...but what has he done, you might ask?
Ah ha! So you admit Ratzinger sits on the chair of Peter, therefore you are admitting he is the true Pope, lol.
bernadette wrote: show me one time in the history of the church before the joke council where a pope has prayed with heretics, pagans, and members of false religions
There is nothing wrong with praying with other religions .
bernadette wrote: ..show me one time in the history of the church before the joke council where a pope has kissed the Koran
Nothing wrong with showing respect towards the Muslim's holy book
bernadette wrote: show me one time in the history of the church before joke council where the pope readies himself to give praise and recognition to a heretic such as Luther
Martin Luther was a brilliant man who was correct on numerous issues, so the Pope is simply recognizing that fact.

bernadette wrote: the chair of Peter is occupied by a heretic...
You can't determine who is or is not a heretic

bernadette wrote:Funny, you Protestantized Catholics are the biggest enemies of the Church...
Today's Protestants are Catholics from what the church teaches, even though they may not have the fullness of the truth

I think the church taking a more liberal path in recent decades has been a good thing for the church. The veil has been lifted. Bernadette, your problem is that you are stuck in the past. This is the 21st century, not 1450 AD. Things change

Saviorsheart

Posts : 8
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2011-02-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  bernadette on Fri Sep 16, 2011 3:41 pm

Saviorsheart wrote:
bernadette wrote: "Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ"....I guess you never heard that one, right?
Oh, come on. Where do you traditionalist catholics get this stuff from?
bernadette wrote:
you have a man by the name of Ratzinger, sitting on the chair of Peter under the guise of a Catholic...but what has he done, you might ask?
Ah ha! So you admit Ratzinger sits on the chair of Peter, therefore you are admitting he is the true Pope, lol.
bernadette wrote: show me one time in the history of the church before the joke council where a pope has prayed with heretics, pagans, and members of false religions
There is nothing wrong with praying with other religions .
bernadette wrote: ..show me one time in the history of the church before the joke council where a pope has kissed the Koran
Nothing wrong with showing respect towards the Muslim's holy book
bernadette wrote: show me one time in the history of the church before joke council where the pope readies himself to give praise and recognition to a heretic such as Luther
Martin Luther was a brilliant man who was correct on numerous issues, so the Pope is simply recognizing that fact.

bernadette wrote: the chair of Peter is occupied by a heretic...
You can't determine who is or is not a heretic

bernadette wrote:Funny, you Protestantized Catholics are the biggest enemies of the Church...
Today's Protestants are Catholics from what the church teaches, even though they may not have the fullness of the truth

I think the church taking a more liberal path in recent decades has been a good thing for the church. The veil has been lifted. Bernadette, your problem is that you are stuck in the past. This is the 21st century, not 1450 AD. Things change

THE TRUTH NEVER CHANGES....

If what you say is the mindset of the majority of "Catholics" today...then the true church really has been reduced to a handful....and I don't want any part of your false and Protestanized Church.

You might as well say..."My Lord Jesus Christ, you are stuck in the past...Your dogmas no longer apply to the modern world". Have fun on Judgement day.

You are a raging apostate....

bernadette

Posts : 15
Reputation : 15
Join date : 2011-09-14

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  bernadette on Fri Sep 16, 2011 3:43 pm

One more thing....this statement by Saviorsheart is an astounding heresy:

"Today's Protestants are Catholics from what the church teaches, even though they may not have the fullness of the truth"

bernadette

Posts : 15
Reputation : 15
Join date : 2011-09-14

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  simple Faith on Fri Sep 16, 2011 4:03 pm

So then Bernadette, just let me sum up your response (minus all the dramatics) as I understand it.
1. The Church has no history or tradition concerning due process, natural justice or how a suspected heretic pope should be dealt with. No canonical conclusion is required, just the pronouncement of anyone who has a bone to pick.
2. The Church does not have a visible head or shepherd and doesn't reqire one for even if a new one was elected anyone could just as quickly dispose him with an accusation of heresy., so in the interim, we should just sit around waiting on the second coming.
All very traditional beliefs.
Sign me up quickly, sounds like a great church.
avatar
simple Faith

Posts : 164
Reputation : 179
Join date : 2011-01-19

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  bernadette on Fri Sep 16, 2011 5:32 pm

simple Faith wrote:So then Bernadette, just let me sum up your response (minus all the dramatics) as I understand it.
1. The Church has no history or tradition concerning due process, natural justice or how a suspected heretic pope should be dealt with. No canonical conclusion is required, just the pronouncement of anyone who has a bone to pick.
2. The Church does not have a visible head or shepherd and doesn't reqire one for even if a new one was elected anyone could just as quickly dispose him with an accusation of heresy., so in the interim, we should just sit around waiting on the second coming.
All very traditional beliefs.
Sign me up quickly, sounds like a great church.


Your attempt to be witty falls flat...Fatima for our times summed it all up very well for you...reread it, or if you haven't bothered to look, read it.

The Church today has been turned inside out....in other words...the modern heretics have maneuvered things so well, that it appears that they are the church, while the true church has been persecuted and driven out...but the gates of hell heretics will not and cannot prevail...it must be very depressing for the apostates to go to all the trouble to ruin the church all these years, and have to realize they will never be able to stamp out the true Church of Christ....that remnant that holds the true faith regardless of whether or not it is stylish enough for today's modern man.

bernadette

Posts : 15
Reputation : 15
Join date : 2011-09-14

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  columba on Fri Sep 16, 2011 5:52 pm

Saviorsheart, I think your merely trying to stir things up for the fun of it. You familiar with the term "trolling?"

Simple faith wrote:
so in the interim, we should just sit around waiting on the second coming.

Thta's not the exact way Our Lord put it but yes, "Watch and pray."

avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  Lourdes on Fri Sep 16, 2011 5:55 pm

columba wrote:Saviorsheart, I think your merely trying to stir things up for the fun of it. You familiar with the term "trolling?"

Simple faith wrote:
so in the interim, we should just sit around waiting on the second coming.

Thta's not the exact way Our Lord put it but yes, "Watch and pray."



Didn't He also ask whether He would find any faith left when He returns?

Lourdes

Posts : 156
Reputation : 162
Join date : 2011-02-19
Location : USA

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  MRyan on Fri Sep 16, 2011 6:49 pm

Missouri Mark wrote:
MRyan wrote:
The question you haven’t asked, and one more relevant to this discussion, is whether there has ever been a legitimacy elected or sitting Pope who has ever lost his office through manifest heresy (prior, or subsequent to, his elevation).

The answer, as you might have guessed, is no.
MRyan, would it be wrong to assume 'Pope Honorius I' lost his office within the Church when he fell into heresy at some point while serving as Pope? In other words, are you saying a Pope can fall into heresy, make such heresy public in his role in guiding the faithful, and yet still remain Pope?
Yes, it "would be wrong to assume 'Pope Honorius I' lost his office within the Church when he fell into heresy at some point while serving as Pope" -- because he never fell into manifest heresy.

It is true, however, that Honorius was condemned by a council for heresy, but the Pope who ratified the council qualified the “heresy” as a moral failure for not being more diligent in squashing the Monothelite heresy when he had the opportunity. His crime was more one of negligence and of seeking political appeasement rather than any willful denial of a dogma. He may also have been confused over the use of terms. Bishop Hefele, in vol. 5 of his History of the Councils of the Church, in commenting on the Letter of Pope Honorius to Sergius, wrote the following:

“Thus there remains the result… that it must be admitted that he did not deny the human will generally, but only the corrupt human will in Christ; but although orthodox in his thought, he did not sufficiently see through the Monothelite tendency of Sergius and expressed himself in such a way as to be misunderstood, so that his letters, especially the first, seemed to confirm Monothelitism, and thereby practically helped onward the heresy (p. 56).”
Horace Mann in his The Lives of the Popes in the Middle Ages (16 volumes, 1925), in an attempt to understand the appellation “heretic” as applied to Pope Honorius, said this:

“It has indeed been contended that the Council may not have anathematized Honorius in the same sense as it did Pyrrhus and Sergius. For it must be observed that the word heretic did not always denote one who ‘knowlingly and willingly’ taught error. It sometimes, as Bolgeni has conclusively shown, was applied to such as favoured error in any way. And it would certainly seem, from the edict which Constantine issued at the close of the council, regarding the observance of its decrees, that when the council included Honorius in its anathemas, it only did so in the sense of his having favoured the spread of Monothelism by his letters to Sergius. The edict speaks of Honorius as ‘a confirmer of the heresy and as one who was not consistent with himself.’”
And isn't it interesting that Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio declares "that if ever ... a Sovereign Pope, had, before their elevation to the Cardinalcy or Pontificate, deviated from the Catholic Faith [i.e., "favoured error in any way"] or fallen into some heresy, the promotion or elevation - even if it had taken place with the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals - is invalid and null".

So a Pope can be declared to an anti-pope based solely on the appearance of heresy? Sure, no wonder the sede's are having a field day with their private declarations of this and that "anti-pope". Gee, do you think the Church needs to confirm any of these apparent "deviations from the Catholic faith", or of having "favoured error in any way" as actual manifest and obstinate heresies before some ticked-off sede armed with Cum ex kicks him out of office by saying the Pope "excommunicated himself"?

Pope Leo II clarified the matter of Honorius in a letter to the Spanish bishops. This from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

To the Spanish bishops he explains his meaning: "With Honorius, who did not, as became the Apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence."
And:

"St. Agatho died before the conclusion of the council. The new pope, Leo II, had naturally no difficulty in giving to the decrees of the council the formal confirmation which the council asked from him, according to custom. The words about Honorius in his letter of confirmation, by which the council gets its ecumenical rank, are necessarily more important than the decree of the council itself: "We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius,...and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted." (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm)
In other words, Honorius did not teach heresy -- but was negligent in allowing it to persist.

Suffice it to say Pope Honorius I was not a heretic, and the truth of VCI, Pastor Aeternus, remains infallibly in tact:

“knowing fully that this See of Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error, according to the divine promise of the Lord Our Saviour made to the Prince of His disciples’… this gift, then, of truth and never-failing faith was conferred by Heaven upon Peter and his successors in this Chair.”
Sorry for the lengthy response - but I think you get the gist.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  columba on Fri Sep 16, 2011 7:46 pm

Mike, this is more telling than if Honoius had been a total apostate. The fact that he was condemned for heresy (and a mild one at that considering the circumstances) just goes to show that even if it is allowed that his condemnation was for negligence, that negligence alone was seen as a form of heresy and worthy of condemnation of the highest order. The fact that his hersey/negligence had practically no effect or impact on the faith of the Catholic people at the time (as it was more to do with an understanding of a theological concept) and was mostly way above their heads, and, that it was 40 yrs after his death that his condemnation took place, it would seem to me that the Church, in taking such a hard-line stance on something so minor bodes even more ominous for what is being allowed to go unchallenged today without as much as a raised eyebrow from the powers that be.

Furthermore, the very fact that a Pope would declare another Pope a heretic also proves that it was never held in the early Church that a reigning Pope could not be a heretic. Our recent Popes couldn't shake a stick at Pope Honorius. They make him look like a martyr who received punishment way beyond the seriouness of his offence.
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Sedevacantism, OK as opinion not fact??

Post  George Brenner on Fri Sep 16, 2011 8:22 pm

Salute to Bernadette and Fatima of Our Day,

We live in perilious times. Defenders of the Faith are much needed. The Holy Spirit will safeguard our Catholic Faith; even thru the Vatican II decades of continous scandal. The Heresy concerns will be remedied if necessary and proven in due time by Holy Mother Church. All of the official teachings we must believe are still on the books and always will be. The Gates of Hell will not prevail as many have said but right now Satan is having a field day. Prayer to St Michael where are you. We must say this prayer every day.

I would encourage everyone to Google Cardinal Arinze. You will hear him speak on Altar Girls, abortion, whether one should attend Protestant Services , along with many other interesting topics.

Then google, Father Reginald Foster , the Popes Latinist for many years, just down the Hall from the Popes. In particular watch his interview with Bill Maher, I wrote letters on this one. Totally indefensible!
No one should ever attack Our Catholic but it is our moral duty to defend against those that attack, give scandal and undermine our faiths reverence and Holiness.

Stay strong and be certain Our Faith has been and is being attacked from within
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  DeSelby on Fri Sep 16, 2011 9:19 pm

[quote="MRyan"]
DeSelby wrote:
columba wrote:No. My doubts concern the fact that someone who promoted heretical viewpoints (and who's name once appeared on list of suspected heretics) has, -despite a church ruling to the contrary- been elected Pope.

...and has never clearly and unambiguously repudiated or clarified said viewpoints either, which justice alone would demand if he no longer held them, or if they could be clarified; and has in fact come out with even more, at least troubling, viewpoints, some even handily published in book form to go on to become international bestsellers...

Not even the anti-popes or the legitimate but personally immoral popes said anything remotely doctrinally unsound, as far as I understand the matter. St. Peter's faults were merely human weaknesses.

MRyan wrote:Then you don't understand the matter very well, and are a poor student of history.

As to the second part, hey, you actually gave me some credit. I'll simply show you my other cheek.

However, I will say that, in this instance, you are a poor corrector of errors and a poor teacher of history; for I do not see anywhere in your post my supposed historical errors corrected.

MRyan wrote:Tell us why justice demands Pope Benedict XVI's controversial or misunderstood musings as a theologian need to be "clarified"? Did he not clarify his "viewpoints" on transubstantiation and original sin, and many other subjects, for example, as Christ's true Vicar? Shouldn't that be the only measure by which the Pope is "judged" - his official magisterial teachings?

Because they cause confusion. And they are readily available in this day and age.

As to the second and third questions, that would be a good topic to go into at more depth.

MRyan wrote:Must the Pope be put on the defensive by responding to those who accuse him of heresy, "suspicion of heresy", etc? Do you really believe that anything he says by way of clarification will satisfy these same naysayers?

I would say that it would depend on the credibility of the allegations. For example, Ian Paisley denouncing Pope John Paul II as the Antichrist? No. Ian Paisley would think that any pope is the Antichrist, even if the pope was the most traditional pope imaginable. His problem is with the papacy itself. Etc. A women's ordination group accusing Benedict of heresy because he won't allow she-priests? No. Etc.

But what about when the suspicion or accusation is not so ridiculous?

And, yes, some people could be satisfied by clarification or recantation.

MRyan wrote:That's being a bit naive, don't you think?

Depends.

Waiting for an infiltrator to denounce himself as an infiltrator would be a bit naive, for example.
avatar
DeSelby

Posts : 211
Reputation : 231
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  DeSelby on Fri Sep 16, 2011 9:51 pm

columba wrote:Mike, this is more telling than if Honoius had been a total apostate. The fact that he was condemned for heresy (and a mild one at that considering the circumstances) just goes to show that even if it is allowed that his condemnation was for negligence, that negligence alone was seen as a form of heresy and worthy of condemnation of the highest order. The fact that his hersey/negligence had practically no effect or impact on the faith of the Catholic people at the time (as it was more to do with an understanding of a theological concept) and was mostly way above their heads, and, that it was 40 yrs after his death that his condemnation took place, it would seem to me that the Church, in taking such a hard-line stance on something so minor bodes even more ominous for what is being allowed to go unchallenged today without as much as a raised eyebrow from the powers that be.

Excellent points. Who among the laity would have even known of it?


MRyan wrote:And isn't it interesting that Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio declares "that if ever ... a Sovereign Pope, had, before their elevation to the Cardinalcy or Pontificate, deviated from the Catholic Faith [i.e., "favoured error in any way"] or fallen into some heresy, the promotion or elevation - even if it had taken place with the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals - is invalid and null".

Did Honorius deviate before election? If no, I don't see the relevance of your highlighted points here.
avatar
DeSelby

Posts : 211
Reputation : 231
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  bernadette on Fri Sep 16, 2011 10:28 pm

George Brenner wrote:Salute to Bernadette and Fatima of Our Day,

We live in perilious times. Defenders of the Faith are much needed. The Holy Spirit will safeguard our Catholic Faith; even thru the Vatican II decades of continous scandal. The Heresy concerns will be remedied if necessary and proven in due time by Holy Mother Church. All of the official teachings we must believe are still on the books and always will be. The Gates of Hell will not prevail as many have said but right now Satan is having a field day. Prayer to St Michael where are you. We must say this prayer every day.

I would encourage everyone to Google Cardinal Arinze. You will hear him speak on Altar Girls, abortion, whether one should attend Protestant Services , along with many other interesting topics.

Then google, Father Reginald Foster , the Popes Latinist for many years, just down the Hall from the Popes. In particular watch his interview with Bill Maher, I wrote letters on this one. Totally indefensible!
No one should ever attack Our Catholic but it is our moral duty to defend against those that attack, give scandal and undermine our faiths reverence and Holiness.

Stay strong and be certain Our Faith has been and is being attacked from within

Thank you for that, George Brenner....I watched a video of Fr.(?) Reginald Foster and Bill Maher...shocking, scandalous, shameful, anti-Catholic, horror-ridden, depressing, blasphemous, and beyond belief....In the past, I've never given Bill Maher so much as the benefit of even a passing thought...so for me to witness the destructive crap (pardon my language) that he does is not only sickening, but distressing and it gives me an empty feeling in my stomach and soul...this "Fr." Reginald Foster is clearly of the devil and Maher is Satan reincarnated......the Church has become the seat of the anti-Christ....is there anyone left who will defend Our Lord and His church....?

bernadette

Posts : 15
Reputation : 15
Join date : 2011-09-14

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  DeSelby on Fri Sep 16, 2011 11:49 pm

George Brenner wrote:Then google, Father Reginald Foster , the Popes Latinist for many years, just down the Hall from the Popes. In particular watch his interview with Bill Maher, I wrote letters on this one. Totally indefensible!
No one should ever attack Our Catholic but it is our moral duty to defend against those that attack, give scandal and undermine our faiths reverence and Holiness.

Stay strong and be certain Our Faith has been and is being attacked from within

George, welcome to the forum.

Reginald Foster is indeed a satanic joke. According to http://www.adoremus.org/DEW998.html he once said, "I'm a naturalist, I'm a nudist. I like to say Mass in the nude, too. If God doesn't like that sorry."

My question for you is: Did you ever get any letters back? I'm assuming you wrote to someone in the hierarchy?

avatar
DeSelby

Posts : 211
Reputation : 231
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  DeSelby on Sat Sep 17, 2011 12:01 am

And Bernadette, a welcome to you as well.
avatar
DeSelby

Posts : 211
Reputation : 231
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  Missouri Mark on Sat Sep 17, 2011 12:14 am

MRyan wrote:
Suffice it to say Pope Honorius I was not a heretic,...

Wait a sec here, the Roman Catholic Church condemned Pope Honorius as a heretic and excommunicated him, but you don't accept what the Church has determined???

Missouri Mark

Posts : 21
Reputation : 30
Join date : 2011-02-22

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  simple Faith on Sat Sep 17, 2011 4:43 am

WOW, just when I thought things coudn't get any better we have the second coming of 'Fatima of our times'. (Looks like those sedes are parachucting in reinforcements).
Welcome back Fatima and good to see you haven't lost your gift for posting the longest possible quotes. Just hope you and Mryan don't go head to head, otherwise I'll have to connect my laptop to the big screen.
Anyway, Fatima wrote,
I think what you're trying to ask in your above question is "what's your authority for making the judgment that the pope is a heretic?"
Correct, but just like Columba and bernadette you either miss or ignore the main point. I'm asking by what authority do you pronounce the Pope a heretic. You show in your quotes that the possibility of a pope falling into heresy has been considered by the church but nowhere do you state how the act of heresy should be determined. Surely if such a most serious accusation is made, natural justice or due process would demand that the accused is afforded the opportunity of rebuttal and defence? Even the most primitive legal system would permit this. Agreed?
I know you state that no-one has the authority to judge the pope but that presumes the pope is a validly elected pope, which you (and the rest of the sede mob) clearly state he is not and never was. So by following your own argument to its natural conclusion there is no reason that the imposter pope cannot be tried by competent responsible members of the hierarchy (just as St. Paul reproved St. Peter to his face), possiblly by a General Council of 'true' Catholics. as I said in an earlier post:
''For if a formal accusation of heresy was to be made then a canonical conclusion would be required, not just the guilty pronouncement of "Heretic" by Columba (I can now add Bernadette and Fatima). To reach a canocical conclusion logically requires canonical terms and definitions. A heretic is not merely one who rejects anything related to the Catholic faith but one who "pertinaciously denies or doubts a truth of divine and Catholic faith" (Canon 1325 § 2). Further pertinacity must be proven and not simply supposed, since for this reason does the church often has recourse to monitions (Canon 2223 § 4) and inquiries (Canon 1939) in order to admonish those suspected of heresy.
So forgive me Fatima if I don't join the sede Lynch mob just yet.
Fatima, you go on to state that the Church has had many periods when the seat was temporarily vacant over the centuries ''papal interregnum'' (I always find a little bit of Latin helps give a little bit of crediblity to a post), the longest period being a couple of years (never 50 years). However you fail to mention that during all these periods of papal interregnum, the Holy See was, without exception (sine exceptione), administered by the Cardinal Camerlengo until a new pope was elected. During the interregnum, it is the Camerlengo who is responsible for the government of the Church.
So we see that the Church always has a visible head and shepherd at any given time and that there is no need for guess work.
So back to my original question, who will formally accuse, investigate, put on trial, condemn and then convict the Pope on the charges of heresy?
avatar
simple Faith

Posts : 164
Reputation : 179
Join date : 2011-01-19

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  simple Faith on Sat Sep 17, 2011 8:33 am

Columba wrote,
Is talking of martyrdom far fetched? I don't think so. Just present yourself for Holy Communion at a good liberal NO church and receive on the tongue while kneeling. That look of scorn you get from the priest and the rebuffs from some fellow brothers and sisters for having acted "holier than thou," will serve as a mild fore-taste and warning of what's in store for you when you really do upset them.
I suggest ''That look of scorn you get from the priest and the rebuffs from some fellow brothers and sisters ..'' is more fancied than real. But if you do want to sample just a little taste of what martyrdom might taste like then just come on to a 'traditional' forum with the audacity to defend the Holy Father.

BTW columba I'm still waiting for a reply as to the proper procedure for convicting one of heresy.
avatar
simple Faith

Posts : 164
Reputation : 179
Join date : 2011-01-19

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  columba on Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:43 am

simple Faith wrote:Columba wrote,
Is talking of martyrdom far fetched? I don't think so. Just present yourself for Holy Communion at a good liberal NO church and receive on the tongue while kneeling. That look of scorn you get from the priest and the rebuffs from some fellow brothers and sisters for having acted "holier than thou," will serve as a mild fore-taste and warning of what's in store for you when you really do upset them.
I suggest ''That look of scorn you get from the priest and the rebuffs from some fellow brothers and sisters ..'' is more fancied than real. But if you do want to sample just a little taste of what martyrdom might taste like then just come on to a 'traditional' forum with the audacity to defend the Holy Father.

BTW columba I'm still waiting for a reply as to the proper procedure for convicting one of heresy.

Sorry but they are not more fancied than real. On several occassions I was by-passed by the priest because I was kneeling and twice I was asked to stand up which I refused to do.
I've gotten into the "holier than thou" debates more times than I've been to a licit Mass.
BTW,. Forums aren't martyrdom. Everyone can hide quite comfortably behind their anonymity while refusing to answer those questions that expose the weakness of their position. For instance, I aked you to explain by what authority and competence do you privately judge between heresy and orthodoxy and thus aquit the Pope of all charges?

To your question, as to the proper procedure for convicting one of heresy.
I told you I sit on the fence, therefore I haven't convicted anyone. I'm aware that a certain Pope is suspected of heresy and that there is much evidence to uphold the charge. In the same way when a priest is accused/suspected of pediophilia I do not judge his guilt (unless of course I caught him in the very act) but rather I wait for the proper authorities to bring him to trial. In the meantime I would take common sense precautions and keep my children away from the suspect til such times that his innocence has been proven. In the interim there would still be many other priests (I hope) I could trust with my children.
In the same way, while I await the charges of heresy against BXVI to be properly investigated, I feel it my duty to be wary of his words and actions lest he later be found guilty as charged while I, have in the meantime already lost my soul by converting to Islam as another means/road to salvation as taught to me by the now convicted Pope. I would have all eternity to bemoan my stupidity for having followed his obviously suspect prior teachings that any serious Cathoilic could have deduced for himself and, foolish also for having entrusted myself to the guidence of those who had worshiped him and (with their itching ears) clung to every word he said.

I still may not have to wait for the due process of law to be completed. There's a good chance I could catch him in the very act come October.
However, I thank the Lord that I still have enough good and sound saint Popes to take my guidence from in the meantime.
Now answer me this S-F. Am I being wise or foolish? How would you in your own fallible thinking advise me to proceed? Is your guidence superior to mine? Remember it's my soul we're putting on the line here.



avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  columba on Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:55 am

PS.
Simple Faith, before you accuse me of dramatics concerning my hypothetical coversion to Islam, may I remind you that I can actually loose my soul for believing that other faiths are a means of salvation without me actually having to convert to one of them. One who denies even one dogma of the faith is guilty of denying them all.
Thought I best make that clear. Continue.
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

RE: Sedevacantism-OK-as-opinion-not fact

Post  George Brenner on Sat Sep 17, 2011 10:50 am

Re: Letter sent to Hierarchy regarding Fr. Reginald Foster

I had written letters two years ago in being part of large group nationwide that tried to stop our current pro abortion president from speaking at commencement at a Catholic? University. Our bishop even publically rebuked the university president. He should have stopped the visit by authority of his office.

Then just last year the Father Reginald Foster was honored at the same Catholic University.

In answer to a previous post let me share with you the words of that letter. You can verify what I speak of by simply watching on you tube: http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/91901-vatican-priest-reginald-foster-interviewed-by-bill-maher-in-religulous/

In compliance with Our forum rules, I will leave out names of people or places.

Dear______________

______________________ Specific introduction


I love our Catholic faith. I am a sinner and know that the spiritual health of our soul is of the utmost importance in our goal to get to Heaven.
I along with others are very disturbed that this year once again like last year that _
on the date of _________ at their commencement they will be committing a terrible moral error in judgement. How can they possibly publically honor and give a degree to Father Reginald Foster... One who calls the Blessed trinity, Blessed Mother and the angels and saints simply mini gods. He says that Hell is a bunch of nonsense. He openly ridicules Christians and says we will must live and die with our stupid religious ideas. He shows no reference. He laughs off wearing the Roman collar and acts proud of it .He also at times says Mass in the nude and says that if Jesus does not like it then is too bad. You can watch and read these statements yourself {You tube link with Bill Maher}.

I do not care how much latin he knows and how witty or great a teacher that he is claimed to be;the fact is that he is undermining our Faith and this should not be tolerated.
Why we now put him up on a pedestal and WHY has he been allowed to work in the hallways of the Vatican as the Popes latinist for so so many years?

At what point will God & Jesus & the Holy Spirit say to these and other continous scandles .... Enough !

We are all accountable to defend our Faith and thus this letter.

In charity and the love of our One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, I end by saying

Please pray for me,

Me

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So did I hear back in person or by any form of contact... NO !!!!
BUT, many events happened in the months following which were by no means a coincidence. I wish I could share them with you but without names or specfics they would greatly loose their meaning.

Douay Rheims
Matthew 18:20
" Where where there are two or three gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them"

And where ther are three, then four , then five, Then________________
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  columba on Sat Sep 17, 2011 2:47 pm

Hi George,
The youtube link is no longer available due to copyright infringement.
Would liked to have seen that. (On second thoughts, maybe not).
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Sedevanantisn OK as Opinion but not fact

Post  George Brenner on Sat Sep 17, 2011 8:15 pm

Colomba,

Try :

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBkQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DExElEMpJN3M&ei=4DZ1TvWiH-TgsQKdhsyLBQ&usg=AFQjCNE_61j7UUXG1weskUXaPYqnViTSSA

Connected for me; if not just google Father Reginald Foster and Bill Mayer/you tube

JMJ,

George

avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  MRyan on Mon Sep 19, 2011 3:55 pm

DeSelby wrote:
columba wrote:Mike, this is more telling than if Honoius had been a total apostate. The fact that he was condemned for heresy (and a mild one at that considering the circumstances) just goes to show that even if it is allowed that his condemnation was for negligence, that negligence alone was seen as a form of heresy and worthy of condemnation of the highest order. The fact that his hersey/negligence had practically no effect or impact on the faith of the Catholic people at the time (as it was more to do with an understanding of a theological concept) and was mostly way above their heads, and, that it was 40 yrs after his death that his condemnation took place, it would seem to me that the Church, in taking such a hard-line stance on something so minor bodes even more ominous for what is being allowed to go unchallenged today without as much as a raised eyebrow from the powers that be.
Excellent points. Who among the laity would have even known of it?
For over 300 years the Church had been ravaged by every possible heresy concerning the two Natures of Christ and their unity in One Divine Person. To call this some "minor" issue is preposterous.

Pope St. Agotho's statement in his letter to the Emperor (read at the Council) tells us precisely why this was a major issue:

Wherefore the predecessors of Apostolic memory of my littleness, learned in the doctrine of the Lord, ever since the prelates of the Church of Constantinople have been trying to introduce into the immaculate Church of Christ an heretical innovation, have never cease to exhort and warn them with many prayers, that they should, at least by silence, desist from the heretical error of the depraved dogma, lest they make the beginning of a split in the unity of the Church, by asserting one will, and one operation of the two natures in the one Jesus Christ our Lord….”
And, with the confusing (but not heretical) "one will" statement of Pope Honorius to Sergius, "the prelates of the Church of Constantinople" would continue to try "to introduce into the immaculate Church of Christ an heretical innovation".

So it does not matter how many of the Faithful in the East succumbed to the heresy - heresy is heresy ... and a few centuries later the majority of the East would make its break with "Old Rome" (the same term the Council of Constantinople used in it's illicit condemnation of Honorius, while referring to itself as "New Rome" ... the seeds of schism were already being planted).

Actually, columba's points are far from being excellent; just the opposite, unless columba actually believes (as he appears he does) that the false accusations against a pope for being a “total apostate” or a manifest heretic somehow contributes to the protection of doctrine and the general welfare of the Church. The zeal to extinguish heresy does not excuse false accusations of manifest heresy against a pope; not yesterday, and not today.

The Church would come to define heresy in a very precise canonical sense so as to avoid theses types of reckless "interpretations" where silence, negligence, misunderstanding and carelessness are confused with manifest heresy and the loss of Catholic faith.

Furthermore, Protestants, sede-spleenists and rad-trads would come to use the case of Honorius to “prove” that the See of Peter had been stained with error by asserting that “The Church” (in the illicit condemnation of a pope by a Council) had condemned Honorious as a heretic (in the canonical sense) for denying a dogma of the faith, when it (“the Church”) did no such thing since the Pope who ratified the Council made it clear that Honorious was not guilty of manifest heresy. In fact, the Council’s declaration, and the subsequent “official” condemnations unwittingly served to promote several other heresies:

1) That the authority of a Council is higher than the authority of the Pope. False; not a single pope ever charged Honorius I with being a heretic or with heresy, not Pope John IV, not Agatho and not Leo II (each of whom exonerated Honorious of any charge of doctrinal error, and instead declared just the opposite).

2) That an ecumenical council has the power to judge any Pope. False; the First Vatican Council emphatically declared: “Wherefore they err from the right path of truth who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council, as to an authority higher than that of the Roman pontiff.”

3) That one pope can judge another pope. False; the pope has no judge but God alone. The only way that a "pope" can be judged is if he is NOT the pope, but an imposter; as is the case of the 44 or so imposters who were condemned by the Church, each of whom illicitly usurped the office while a valid pope was already elected or still reigning, sometimes in exile. Never in the history of the Church has there been a case of an “antipope” being elevated to the Chair without there being an already existing true pope.

4) That the Church can “excommunicate” a valid pope. False; the pope is above canon law and has no judge but God alone.

5) That the powers of Papal Primacy reside in the Office(s) of the Papacy, and not in the public person of the Pope who only assumes the power and divinely bestowed prerogatives when he performs specific acts. False, our Lord conferred the full, immediate and universal powers of Primacy directly upon and IN the person of Peter (VCI).

Case in point, columba should praise Pope Steven VI for being so diligent in protecting the doctrine of jurisdiction by his posthumous excommunication and judgment of Pope Formosus (891-896), even if this charge (for having illicitly transferred his Bishopric) was never proven.

By the vitriol we have witnessed against the person of Peter on this forum, one can imagine that false traditionalists such as Columba, Jehanne and Bernadette would love to see a future Pope hold a synod at which the body of Pope JPII is dug up, clad in papal vestments, seated on a throne and then “judged” to be unworthy of the pontificate, that he had never been Pope, that all his measure and acts were annulled, and all the orders conferred by him were invalid, including his consecrations of [modernist] bishops, which in turn of course, also meant the priests ordained by these bishops. After having had the three fingers used in consecrations cut off, and the papal vestments torn from his body torn off, his body would be thrown into the Tiber.

Or, perhaps Jehanne would have his body burned at the stake while he has a marshmallow roast.

But then, following historical precedent, a subsequent Pope would have him restored to a place of honor and annul the decisions of the papal synod; only to be followed by another Pope who reaffirmed all the actions against JPII in the original synod.

Of course, Pope Formosus would eventually be restored to his place of honor as a valid Pope; which only goes to prove that all of Pope Stephen’s actions were illicit and that he had no authority to “judge” his predecessor (in his capacity as Pope).

The point is, Pope Formosus was validly elected and recognized by the whole Church as Christ’s true Vicar, and neither Stephen VI nor Sergius III had the authority or the power to depose their predecessor - which is why the Church recognizes him as a true pope, and why all those false traditionalists who “wait” in judgment of Pope JPII and Benedict XVI for a subsequent pope to condemn them as heretics is just an heretical excuse for refusing communion with the pope(s) by fabricating heresies against them.

But, columba, in the case of pope Formosus, can say thank goodness Pope Steven VI, in his intemperate but righteous zeal for protecting the faith, took the doctrine of jurisdiction seriously, the faith was preserved, the end justifies the means, and the false traditionalists can commiserate with Protestants by taking delight in these scandalous and illicit actions, seen as icing on the cake for a false and failed Papacy.

In fact, as one false traditionalist on this forum recently said:

Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ"....I guess you never heard that one, right?
The trouble with you people...is that you sit on your hands and watch your church going down the drain...why? Because you are victims of papolotry...you have a man by the name of Ratzinger, sitting on the chair of Peter under the guise of a Catholic...
Yes, we had heard of that bit of loony idiocy; and it is a complete and heretical fabrication. In fact, if by “Rome” is meant the See of Rome (the See of Peter) it is blasphemous to attribute these heretical words to our Blessed Mother. Not for nothing did the Church prohibit anyone from publishing or even reciting these unapproved “revelations” (a prohibition that, as far as I know, has never been rescinded; but hey, that won’t stop the Jack Chick styled false traditionalists who feed the “Whore of Babylon” propaganda).

I wonder if the false traditionalists ever heard of this bit of papolotry:

If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (St. Cyprian of Carthage, circa 251 A.D.)
Or this:

The first see [today], therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it (Pope Damasus I, Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).
Or this:

Because the statement of our Lord Jesus Christ, when He said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church," etc., cannot be set aside; this, which is said, is proved by the results; for in the Apostolic See religion has always been preserved without spot.... In which (See) is set the perfect and true solidity of the Christian religion. (from the "Formula of Pope Hormisdas", AD 519)
Or this:

This Apostolic Church never turned away from the way of truth nor held any kind of error. This is the rule of faith. All who wish to please God must study to conform the Apostolic rule of the primitive faith founded on the rock Peter, and kept by him from error." (St. Pope Agatho, AD 680; Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess p 276)
Or this:

"The eternal Father, who will never abandon his flock up to the close of the age, so loved obedience, as the Apostle testifies, that to make expiation for the sin of disobedience of the first parent, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death. … As we read in another place, the person who abandons the teaching of the Roman pontiff cannot be within the church; for, on the authority of Augustine and Gregory, obedience alone is the mother and protector of all virtues, it alone possessing the reward of faith. Therefore, on the teaching of the same Peter, we ought to be careful that what has been introduced in due season and for sound reasons by our predecessors the Roman pontiffs, especially in sacred councils, for the defense of obedience of this kind, of ecclesiastical authority and freedom, and of the apostolic see, should be duly discharged by our effort, devotion and diligence and be brought to the desired conclusion." (Fifth Lateran Council)
Or this:

As the hinge while remaining immovable opens and closes the door, so Peter and his successors have free judgment over all the Church, since no one should remove their status because 'the highest See is judged by no one.' (Pope St. Leo IX, 1053 A.D.)
Or this:

"It is evident that the judgment of the Apostolic See, than which there is no authority greater, may be rejected by no one, nor is it lawful for anyone to pass judgement on its judgement." (Pope Nicholas I, 9th century A.D.)
Or how about this blatant papolatry:

If any one shall despise the dogmatic decisions, injunctions, interdicts, sanctions or decrees which have been wisely published by the one who presides over the Apostolic See on behalf of the Catholic faith, ecclesiastical discipline, the correction of the faithful, the punishment of the wicked, or the forbidding of present or future evils, let him be anathema. (Pope St. Nicholas I)
Or this:

We need fear little that the See of Peter may ever fall because the impregnable foundation of his Church was laid by Christ the Lord; however We must not cease to defend its authority. (INTER PRAECIPUAS; Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI on Biblical Societies, 8 May 1844)
Or this:

"[On] this See of Peter...rests the entire structure of our most holy religion." (Pope Pius IX, "Qui Pluribus", 1846)
Or this:

All who defend the faith should aim to implant deeply in your faithful people the virtues of piety, veneration, and respect for this supreme See of Peter. Let the faithful recall the fact that Peter, Prince of Apostles is alive here and rules in his successors, and that his office does not fail even in an unworthy heir. Let them recall that Christ the Lord placed the impregnable foundation of his Church on this See of Peter and gave to Peter himself the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. Christ then prayed that his faith would not fail, and commanded Peter to strengthen his brothers in the faith. Consequently the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, holds a primacy over the whole world and is the true Vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christians." (Pope Pius IX, "Nostis et Nobiscum ", 1849)
Or this:

"This gift, then, of truth and never-failing faith was conferred by Heaven upon Peter and his successors in this Chair, that they might perform their high office for the salvation of all; that the flock of Christ, kept away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished with the pasture of heavenly doctrine; that, the occasion of schism being removed, the whole Church might be kept one, and resting in its foundation, might stand firm against the gates of hell." (VCI)

Or this:

...that this See of Saint Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error, according to the divine promise of the Lord Our Saviour made to the Prince of His disciples: 'I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not; and being once converted confirm thy brethren.' … This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation. (VCI)
Or this:

Blessed Peter, the Prince and chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, and lives, presides and judges to this day, always, in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome….The disposition made by Incarnate Truth (dispositio veritatis) therefore remains, and Blessed Peter, abiding in the rock’s strength which he received ([/i]in accepta fortitudine petrae perseverans[/i]), has not abandoned the direction of the Church.” (VCI)
Or this:

"In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must not be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy. ... Wherefore it belongs to the Pope to judge authoritatively what things the sacred oracles contain, as well as what doctrines are in harmony, and what in disagreement, with them; and also, for the same reason, to show forth what things are to be accepted as right, and what to be rejected as worthless; what it is necessary to do and what to avoid doing, in order to attain eternal salvation. For, otherwise, there would be no sure interpreter of the commands of God, nor would there be any safe guide showing man the way he should live." (Pope Leo XIII, "Sapientiae Christianae", 1890)
Or this bit of papolotry:

To determine, however, which are the doctrines divinely revealed belongs to the teaching Church, to whom God has entrusted the safekeeping and interpretation of His utterances. But the supreme teacher in the Church is the Roman Pontiff. Union of minds, therefore, requires, together with a perfect accord in the one faith, complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself. This obedience should, however, be perfect, because it is enjoined by faith itself, and has this in common with faith, that it cannot be given in shreds; nay, were it not absolute and perfect in every particular, it might wear the name of obedience, but its essence would disappear. (Pope Leo XIII, "Sapientiae Christianae", 1890)
Pope Leo XIII is of course referring to that obedience owed to the public person of Peter, and not necessarily to the pope as a private doctor or theologian (such as the case with John XXII and with Benedict XVI’s troubling private musings on eschatology and the salvation of the Jews).

Or this papolotry:

The Church Always Visible … It was necessary that a government of this kind, since it belongs to the constitution and formation of the Church, as its principal element - that is as the principle of unity and the foundation of lasting stability - should in no wise come to an end with St. Peter, but should pass to his successors from one to another. 'There remains, therefore, the ordinance of truth, and St. Peter, persevering in the strength of the rock which he had received, hath not abandoned the government of the Church which had been confided to him' (S. Leo M. sermo iii., cap. 3). (Pope Leo XIII, "Satis Cognitum", 1896)
Or this:

But as this heavenly doctrine was never left to the arbitrary judgment of private individuals, but, in the beginning delivered by Jesus Christ, was afterwards committed by Him exclusively to the Magisterium already named, so the power of performing and administering the divine mysteries, together with the authority of ruling and governing, was not bestowed by God on all Christians indiscriminately, but on certain chosen persons. (Pope Leo XIII, "Satis Cognitum", 1896)
Or this:

'What is the it?' (writes Origen). 'Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church or the Church? The expression indeed is ambiguous, as if the rock and the Church were one and the same. I indeed think that this is so, and that neither against the rock upon which Christ builds His Church nor against the Church shall the gates of Hell prevail' (Origenes, Comment. in Matt., tom. xii., n. ii). The meaning of this divine utterance is, that, notwithstanding the wiles and intrigues which they bring to bear against the Church, it can never be that the Church committed to the care of Peter shall succumb or in any wise fail. 'For the Church, as the edifice of Christ who has wisely built 'His house upon a rock,' cannot be conquered by the gates of Hell, which may prevail over any man who shall be off the rock and outside the Church, but shall be powerless against it'. (Pope Leo XIII, "Satis Cognitum", 1896)
Or this:

And since all Christians must be closely united in the communion of one immutable faith, Christ the Lord, in virtue of His prayers, obtained for Peter that in the fulfilment of his office he should never fall away from the faith. "But I have asked for thee that thy faith fail not" (Luke xxii., 32), and He furthermore commanded him to impart light and strength to his brethren as often as the need should arise: "Confirm thy brethren". He willed then that he whom He had designated as the foundation of the Church should be the defence of its faith. … "[b]You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held" (St. Augustine, Sermo cxx., n. 13). (Pope Leo XIII, "Satis Cognitum", 1896)

And again, from Satis Cognitum:

In the same way Maximus the Abbot teaches that obedience to the Roman Pontiff is the proof of the true faith and of legitimate communion. Therefore if a man does not want to be, or to be called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this or that man...but let him hasten before all things to be in communion with the Roman See. If he be in communion with it, he should be acknowledged by all and everywhere as faithful and orthodox. He speaks in vain who tries to persuade me of the orthodoxy of those who, like himself, refuse obedience to his Holiness the Pope of the most holy Church of Rome: that is to the Apostolic See." [/color]
Or this:

"Above all, it is absolutely necessary that the Supreme Head, that is, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, be visible to the eyes of all, since it is He who gives effective direction to the work which all do in common in a mutually helpful way towards the attainment of the proposed end. ... For Peter in virtue of his primacy is only Christ's Vicar; so that there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisibly, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through him who is His representative on earth. After His glorious Ascension into heaven this Church rested not on Him alone, but on Peter, too, its visible foundation stone. " (Pope Pius XII, "Mystici Corporis Christi", 1943)
Tell us, columba, where is the visible Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, whose visibility to the faithful is an “absolutely necessary” when you can sit on your “fence” and raise doubts that the “alleged” visible Vicar on earth is the legitimate successor to St. Peter?

You and bernadette are two peas of the same heretical pod; and your “doctrines” represent the spectacle of a false tradition that has the audacity to call itself “traditional”.

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:And isn't it interesting that Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio declares "that if ever ... a Sovereign Pope, had, before their elevation to the Cardinalcy or Pontificate, deviated from the Catholic Faith [i.e., "favoured error in any way"] or fallen into some heresy, the promotion or elevation - even if it had taken place with the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals - is invalid and null".
Did Honorius deviate before election? If no, I don't see the relevance of your highlighted points here.
That’s because you are blind. Regardless of when the alleged “heresy” occurred, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio makes it clear that even if a validly elected claimant to the papacy (with the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals) “deviated from the Catholic Faith” (relevancy: this no different than having “favoured error in any way”), his elevation to the papacy is “invalid and null”.

In point of fact, the formal charges against Pope Formosus included “transmigrating sees in violation of canon law (a “heresy” against the doctrine of jurisdiction), of perjury, and of serving as a bishop while actually a layman”; and “usurping the universal Roman See”. In other words, he was charged as a Bishop for having “deviated from the catholic faith” prior to his elevation to the papacy.

Do you see some “relevancy” NOW? Its bad enough when a couple of former popes believed they had the authority to “judge” their predecessors, but it is sheer spectacle when the false traditionalists usurp this same “authority” with their specious charges that this or that or a whole series of popes excommunicated themselves and either lost their office, or were never popes to begin with (“who me, I didn’t ‘excommunicate’ the pope, the pope excommunicated himself”).




avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  columba on Mon Sep 19, 2011 4:47 pm

Mike do you derliberately make your posts so lengthy in order to prevent a detailed reply?
I've read the lot and will respond to what has caught my attention.
Pope Honorius you say was accused of usurping the papacy. This was proved later not to have been the case but the charge of heresy against him (contray to what you've said) was in fact upheld by a Pope and not just a council. (I'll supply the details later). However I would like to deal with following first

columba wrote:
If my interpretation of Church teaching is correct then many souls who believe themselves Catholic are in fact not, and this (according to my understanding) places their souls in grave danger. So if I stay on the fence (or even eventually come down on the opposite side as you), in the Vatican II understanding of things I can still be saved through my explicit/implicit desire to adhere to the truth even if hampered by my poor understanding of Church teaching. No matter where I pitch my tent it will be like, heads I win, tails I win. If you consider my ignorance culpable, then I would ask you to give this mere layman the same benefit of doubt as you do the theologian and intellectual Benedict the XVI.

Mryan wrote:
And such mockery and contempt for the teachings of the Church is what I expected. Go ahead and feign “ignorance” as a “win-win” as if this is some sort of game; real funny, that.

True to form Mike. Rather than admit that this is the logical conclusion of your argument, you prefer your usual accusations of mockery and game-playing rather than address the obvious implications of the “Pope is always right” attitude.
I presented you a plausible outcome of adhering unquestionably to the post-conciliar mindset of which the current Pope is chief promulgator. If you think my conclusions are far-fetched then the spirit of new-age utopianism may well have taken hold of you.

Do you think that all threats to the faith are a thing of the past? I know for sure that the Mormons, Jehovah’s, Baptists and many other diabolical sects are still as active as ever and are quite willing to pound the beat, door to door in their attempt to bring as many souls as they can with them to hell.

If then (as our Church now teaches) these too have within their own belief system the seeds of salvation and can (as BXVI assures us) be another road to salvation, why should the nominal Catholic, already badly infected with modernism put up any resistance to their specious arguments if (as BXVI assures us) these too can get the same reward as Catholics without laboring as we do. Our duty then (as BXVI again assures us) is not to complain like those laborers who though called at an early hour, received the same reward as those who labored only in the last hour. A complete novel interpretation I may add (according to St Thomas) of that particular gospel parable. These diabolical evangelists can now use the Pope's own words to break down resistance to the claim that only Catholics can be saved.

If you feel what I say is mockery and game-playing then show me. To skip over it with an accusation (intended no doubt to show that my comments are not worthy of consideration) is to avoid the unpalatable truth that the new ecu-mania is in fact a subtle form of heresy. Could a group of lapsed Catholics turn up at Assisi and offer their false worship to the true God? Could a group of sedevacantists turn up and have the TLM offered for peace? If not, what's become of this new gospel of acceptance and tolerance? You criticize those who believe the Pope holds and promotes heterodox views and yet I don't think you yourself will be at Assisi nor even at your local interdenominational service on that day. If not, Why not? I'm showing you where I see inconsistencies in your arguments. If you can show me that there are none, I'll listen.
The current Pope is contributing to the current crisis of faith (and confidence) as well as to the credibility of our Church in the eyes of the world.

Having just defended myself against this particular charge of "game playing," I wish to convict myself of a real instance of the same in the “Taking the Catholic Test” thread which I started a couple of days ago. I have to confess that I was indulging in such game playing on that thread and I regret having done so. It was not appropriate and has trivialized some very important issues. I apologize and ask you all to ignore that thread and I will take certain points from it and place them in a new thread for serious discussion. Treating of things related to the faith in a less than dignified way could well be in violation of the second commandment. My apologies again.

avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  simple Faith on Mon Sep 19, 2011 5:27 pm

We need fear little that the See of Peter may ever fall because the impregnable foundation of his Church was laid by Christ the Lord; however We must not cease to defend its authority. (INTER PRAECIPUAS; Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI on Biblical Societies, 8 May 1844)
Mryan, as stated in the above quote, ''We must not cease to defend its authority.'', I think in this regard you can never be accused of falling short in your defence of the Holy Father or his Church and I'm sure for that you will be well rewarded. I appreciate your dedication and time given over to this important task. I know you can have a short fuse, but this I can also understand, especially when the attacks against the Pope come from within his own Church. Even Peter used his sword to cut off the ear of one of those who threatened Jesus, and I hope, that just as Jesus then ''touched his ear and healed him'', that those who question the validity of the Holy See, will listen and have their ear healed.
Keep up the good work.
avatar
simple Faith

Posts : 164
Reputation : 179
Join date : 2011-01-19

Back to top Go down

Sedevacantism Ok as opinion, But not fact

Post  George Brenner on Mon Sep 19, 2011 6:01 pm

Columba wrote,

The current Pope is contributing to the current crisis of faith (and confidence) as well as to the credibility of our Church in the eyes of the world.
_____________________________________________________________________

Reply from George,

That there is currently a crisis in Our Catholic Church is is a given fact beyond words or denial. I believe your words as I quoted above are accurate. We must fight for our faith but never violate, deny or question the following:

Ex Cathedra: "...... Further , We declare , say define and pronunce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff" Pope Boniface VIII, 1302 UNAM SANCTUM. Luke 10,16- Romans 13,2

Both your statement and the Ex Cathedra pronunciation are not in conflict with each other. If I could spend five minutes with our Pope, I would beg for his blessing but with utmost respect would not hesitate to discuss the current crisis in our Church and the loss of Faith, confusion and lack of direction occuring world wide.. Stay strong in the Faith, Columba as we all must !

Were you able to view the video of Fr. Foster.

Either latter today or tommorrow I plan on posting My Profession of Faith followed by my opinions on matters very important to me. I will Post this under The No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church Header.

avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  DeSelby on Mon Sep 19, 2011 7:18 pm

Before I go into anything I just want to point out to the forum (and perhaps to MRyan) that this portion of MRyan's last post is misleading. . .

MRyan wrote:
columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:And isn't it interesting that Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio declares "that if ever ... a Sovereign Pope, had, before their elevation to the Cardinalcy or Pontificate, deviated from the Catholic Faith [i.e., "favoured error in any way"] or fallen into some heresy, the promotion or elevation - even if it had taken place with the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals - is invalid and null".
Did Honorius deviate before election? If no, I don't see the relevance of your highlighted points here.
That’s because you are blind....

. . . since I was the one who wrote "Did Honorius deviate before election? If no, I don't see the relevance of your highlighted points here." Therefore the "That’s because you are blind" comment is in reference to myself, and NOT Columba; my name is missing from the quote structure for some reason so it appears that it is Columba who is being accused of blindness, but for something that I said.

Okay. Continue... Very Happy
avatar
DeSelby

Posts : 211
Reputation : 231
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  MRyan on Mon Sep 19, 2011 7:39 pm

columba wrote:Mike do you derliberately make your posts so lengthy in order to prevent a detailed reply?
Not at all; I've been preoccupied with other more important business, but have been checking in to see what the sede-spleenists and the false traditionalists have been up to, and decided to swat as much of this nonsense away as I could in one fell swoop.

If you want to respond in small bites, that's fine - I'd prefer that anyway.

columba wrote:
I've read the lot and will respond to what has caught my attention.
Pope Honorius you say was accused of usurping the papacy. This was proved later not to have been the case but the charge of heresy against him (contray to what you've said) was in fact upheld by a Pope and not just a council. (I'll supply the details later). However I would like to deal with following first
You're terribly confused. It was Pope Formosus who was falsely accused by Stephen VI and Sergius III of usurping the papacy, and not Pope Honorius. Why don’t you try again before you totally muck this up.

columba wrote:
If my interpretation of Church teaching is correct then many souls who believe themselves Catholic are in fact not, and this (according to my understanding) places their souls in grave danger. So if I stay on the fence (or even eventually come down on the opposite side as you), in the Vatican II understanding of things I can still be saved through my explicit/implicit desire to adhere to the truth even if hampered by my poor understanding of Church teaching. No matter where I pitch my tent it will be like, heads I win, tails I win. If you consider my ignorance culpable, then I would ask you to give this mere layman the same benefit of doubt as you do the theologian and intellectual Benedict the XVI.
Mryan wrote: And such mockery and contempt for the teachings of the Church is what I expected. Go ahead and feign “ignorance” as a “win-win” as if this is some sort of game; real funny, that.
True to form Mike. Rather than admit that this is the logical conclusion of your argument, you prefer your usual accusations of mockery and game-playing rather than address the obvious implications of the “Pope is always right” attitude.

I presented you a plausible outcome of adhering unquestionably to the post-conciliar mindset of which the current Pope is chief promulgator. If you think my conclusions are far-fetched then the spirit of new-age utopianism may well have taken hold of you.
You did not present anything “plausible”, you made a game of this by conflating an alleged unquestionable allegiance to “the post-conciliar mindset of which the current Pope is chief promulgator” (one cannot “promulgate" a “mindset”) with your fence-riding thesis that this same Pope may not be Christ’s true Vicar (an imposter) since he may have fallen from the Catholic faith prior to his uncontested elevation to the papacy. And to tie it all together you mockingly plead “invincible ignorance" as your “win-win” for salvation.

Good luck with that.

columba wrote: Do you think that all threats to the faith are a thing of the past? I know for sure that the Mormons, Jehovah’s, Baptists and many other diabolical sects are still as active as ever and are quite willing to pound the beat, door to door in their attempt to bring as many souls as they can with them to hell.
The threats to the faith, like the poor, the sede-spleenists and the rad-trads, will always be with us. That was a pretty silly question. But you confuse practice with doctrine as if the “chief promulgator” of “the post-conciliar mindset” has taught (as Pope) that these same Mormons, Jehovah’s and Baptists do not have the obligation of seeking the truth of the Catholic Faith, or that they can be saved apart from Faith in Jesus Christ or apart from the Church.

columba wrote: If then (as our Church now teaches) these too have within their own belief system the seeds of salvation and can (as BXVI assures us) be another road to salvation, why should the nominal Catholic, already badly infected with modernism put up any resistance to their specious arguments if (as BXVI assures us) these too can get the same reward as Catholics without laboring as we do.
The seeds of salvation come from and through the Church; and never has the Church taught that other “belief systems” can be “another road to salvation”; in fact, Cardinal Ratzinger and the CDF were quite clear in teaching that:

Indeed, some prayers and rituals of the other religions may assume a role of preparation for the Gospel, in that they are occasions or pedagogical helps in which the human heart is prompted to be open to the action of God.87 One cannot attribute to these, however, a divine origin or an ex opere operato salvific efficacy, which is proper to the Christian sacraments. Furthermore, it cannot be overlooked that other rituals, insofar as they depend on superstitions or other errors (cf. 1 Cor 10:20-21), constitute an obstacle to salvation. (Dominus Iesus)

But, we are used to your distortions, loose and private interpretations and logical fallacies – so none of this is surprising.

columba wrote:Our duty then (as BXVI again assures us) is not to complain like those laborers who though called at an early hour, received the same reward as those who labored only in the last hour. A complete novel interpretation I may add (according to St Thomas) of that particular gospel parable. These diabolical evangelists can now use the Pope's own words to break down resistance to the claim that only Catholics can be saved.
Oh what in the blue blazes is this bit of nonsense?

columba wrote:If you feel what I say is mockery and game-playing then show me.
I just did.

columba wrote:To skip over it with an accusation (intended no doubt to show that my comments are not worthy of consideration) is to avoid the unpalatable truth that the new ecu-mania is in fact a subtle form of heresy.
A “subtle form of heresy”? Let your speech be yea, yea, or no no, and stop with these subtle insinuations. Is that like "subtle apostasy" and "subtle communicatio in sacris"?

How about a "subtle antipope"?

Ecumenism is a policy, is it not a doctrine. In its present form, does it carry risks? Absolutely. In fact, it is in a certain sense separate from the doctrine of conversion and the “ecumenism of return”, which is more clearly spelled out in Ad gentes, Redemptoris missio and Dominus Iesus.

However, even Ut unum sint, On commitment to Ecumenism teaches:

Moreover, ecumenical cooperation is a true school of ecumenism, a dynamic road to unity. Unity of action leads to the full unity of faith: "Through such cooperation, all believers in Christ are able to learn easily how they can understand each other better and esteem each other more, and how the road to the unity of Christians may be made smooth" … The Second Vatican Council made it clear that elements present among other Christians can contribute to the edification of Catholics: "Nor should we forget that whatever is wrought by the grace of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of our separated brothers and sisters can contribute to our own edification. Whatever is truly Christian never conflicts with the genuine interests of the faith; indeed, it can always result in a more ample realization of the very mystery of Christ and the Church". Ecumenical dialogue, as a true dialogue of salvation, will certainly encourage this process, which has already begun well, to advance towards true and full communion.
And, in seeking dialogue with the Orthodox Churches, for example:

As far as the formulation of revealed truths is concerned, the Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae states: "Even though the truths which the Church intends to teach through her dogmatic formulas are distinct from the changeable conceptions of a given epoch and can be expressed without them, nevertheless it can sometimes happen that these truths may be enunciated by the Sacred Magisterium in terms that bear traces of such conceptions. In view of this, it must be stated that the dogmatic formulas of the Church's Magisterium were from the very beginning suitable for communicating revealed truth, and that as they are they remain for ever suitable for communicating this truth to those who interpret them correctly". In this regard, ecumenical dialogue, which prompts the parties involved to question each other, to understand each other and to explain their positions to each other, makes surprising discoveries possible. Intolerant polemics and controversies have made incompatible assertions out of what was really the result of two different ways of looking at the same reality. Nowadays we need to find the formula which, by capturing the reality in its entirety, will enable us to move beyond partial readings and eliminate false interpretations.
Certainly, the Church has embarked on a new approach; but, is it the best, the most prudent or the most effective approach? Good and legitimate questions. Does it carry the risk of inadvertently promoting a false ecumenism, a false syncretism and religious pluralism? Of course, but the Church seems to be aware of these risks and has decided to plow-on nonetheless.

Could a group of lapsed Catholics turn up at Assisi and offer their false worship to the true God?
Maybe they have. I think I spotted one or two of them holding a potted plant.

Could a group of sedevacantists turn up and have the TLM offered for peace? If not, what's become of this new gospel of acceptance and tolerance?
The Church has been very tolerant by not excommunicating the lot of them. Not that they would recognize the excommunication, or anything. But, as you know, tolerance is in, anathemas are out. Perhaps they could show up as a group with the Old Catholics since neither recognizes the validity or legitimacy of the Pope. Care to join them? Perhaps they could lend you a small fence with which to straddle.

You criticize those who believe the Pope holds and promotes heterodox views and yet I don't think you yourself will be at Assisi nor even at your local interdenominational service on that day. If not, Why not? I'm showing you where I see inconsistencies in your arguments. If you can show me that there are none, I'll listen.
There is no inconsistency in my argument. You, like bernadette, confuse practice and policy with doctrine. As a practice, I am not required to participate in such, and I am not required to refrain from considering such practices rash, imprudent and even scandalous.

However, you will not find accusations such as “apostasy”, “blasphemy” and “heresy” in my speech, because there is none in the actions of the popes. If you want to take me on in this, feel free. I’ve been down this road before, especially with the 1st Assisi go-around where the intentions of JPII were made abundantly clear, and that there would be no “false syncretism” or “joint-worship”. And there was none, despite the false accusations and outright lies of the sede-spleenists and the rad-trads.

The current Pope is contributing to the current crisis of faith (and confidence) as well as to the credibility of our Church in the eyes of the world.
This may be tue to a point; but there is no dounbt that the current Pope is contributing to your crisis faith and confidence. I am not troubled by it in the sense you are. But, he is committed … and his ways are not your ways; though you are mistaken if you think he is not Christ’s true Vicar who to this day lives and acts in the person of Peter, and has not abandoned the guidance of His Church. We all want the perfect pope … this one isn’t bad at all … I think I’ll keep him.

Having just defended myself against this particular charge of "game playing," I wish to convict myself of a real instance of the same in the “Taking the Catholic Test” thread which I started a couple of days ago. I have to confess that I was indulging in such game playing on that thread and I regret having done so. It was not appropriate and has trivialized some very important issues. I apologize and ask you all to ignore that thread and I will take certain points from it and place them in a new thread for serious discussion. Treating of things related to the faith in a less than dignified way could well be in violation of the second commandment. My apologies again.
Yeah, that was pretty bad. Apology accepted.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  MRyan on Mon Sep 19, 2011 7:46 pm

DeSelby wrote:Before I go into anything I just want to point out to the forum (and perhaps to MRyan) that this portion of MRyan's last post is misleading. . .

MRyan wrote:
columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:And isn't it interesting that Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio declares "that if ever ... a Sovereign Pope, had, before their elevation to the Cardinalcy or Pontificate, deviated from the Catholic Faith [i.e., "favoured error in any way"] or fallen into some heresy, the promotion or elevation - even if it had taken place with the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals - is invalid and null".
Did Honorius deviate before election? If no, I don't see the relevance of your highlighted points here.
That’s because you are blind....

. . . since I was the one who wrote "Did Honorius deviate before election? If no, I don't see the relevance of your highlighted points here." Therefore the "That’s because you are blind" comment is in reference to myself, and NOT Columba; my name is missing from the quote structure for some reason so it appears that it is Columba who is being accused of blindness, but for something that I said.

Okay. Continue... Very Happy
OK, now I am confused as to who said what. Sorry if I go the two of you mixed-up.





avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  MRyan on Mon Sep 19, 2011 7:54 pm

simple Faith wrote:
We need fear little that the See of Peter may ever fall because the impregnable foundation of his Church was laid by Christ the Lord; however We must not cease to defend its authority. (INTER PRAECIPUAS; Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI on Biblical Societies, 8 May 1844)
Mryan, as stated in the above quote, ''We must not cease to defend its authority.'', I think in this regard you can never be accused of falling short in your defence of the Holy Father or his Church and I'm sure for that you will be well rewarded. I appreciate your dedication and time given over to this important task. I know you can have a short fuse, but this I can also understand, especially when the attacks against the Pope come from within his own Church. Even Peter used his sword to cut off the ear of one of those who threatened Jesus, and I hope, that just as Jesus then ''touched his ear and healed him'', that those who question the validity of the Holy See, will listen and have their ear healed.
Keep up the good work.
You're the one doing the yeoman's work ... I've been taking a breather. But, what's this about a "short fuse"? Moi? Smile Considering the shrieking, the sniveling and the name-calling, I think I've held up rather well.

Those who attempt to "judge" the Roman Pontiff and to tear down the papacy will always come out on the losing end; it's guaranteed.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  columba on Mon Sep 19, 2011 9:07 pm

columba wrote:Mike do you derliberately make your posts so lengthy in order to prevent a detailed reply?


Not at all; I've been preoccupied with other more important business, but have been checking in to see what the sede-spleenists and the false traditionalists have been up to, and decided to swat as much of this nonsense away as I could in one fell swoop.

If you want to respond in small bites, that's fine - I'd prefer that anyway.

Will do.

columba wrote:
I've read the lot and will respond to what has caught my attention.
Pope Honorius you say was accused of usurping the papacy. This was proved later not to have been the case but the charge of heresy against him (contray to what you've said) was in fact upheld by a Pope and not just a council. (I'll supply the details later). However I would like to deal with following first

You're terribly confused. It was Pope Formosus who was falsely accused by Stephen VI and Sergius III of usurping the papacy, and not Pope Honorius. Why don’t you try again before you totally muck this up.

Human error. I was aware of my mistake after I posted but couldn't be bothered to do the edit thing. The main point still stands. He wasn't a usurper and therefore a true Pope. My present unease is concerned with ther possibility of a heretic being elected Pope.

You did not present anything “plausible”, you made a game of this by conflating an alleged unquestionable allegiance to “the post-conciliar mindset of which the current Pope is chief promulgator” (one cannot “promulgate" a “mindset”)

If there's nothing plausible in what I said then I believe it is you who are blind.
If one possesses a certain mindset then the things that are promulgated from it will contain its errors.

your fence-riding thesis that this same Pope may not be Christ’s true Vicar (an imposter) since he may have fallen from the Catholic faith prior to his uncontested elevation to the papacy. And to tie it all together you mockingly plead “invincible ignorance" as your “win-win” for salvation.

Good luck with that.

You are a twister of words Mike. I was not pleading invincible ignorance on my own behalf; I was demonstrating that under the post-conciliar, new-age beliefs, I, or anyone else for that matter could not be condemned of anything. It is the Church (not me) who tells me that I am invincibly ignorant as no one is capable of willful ignorance. How could I be condemned when everyone is saved. Work that out.

The threats to the faith, like the poor, the sede-spleenists and the rad-trads, will always be with us. That was a pretty silly question. But you confuse practice with doctrine as if the “chief promulgator” of “the post-conciliar mindset” has taught (as Pope) that these same Mormons, Jehovah’s and Baptists do not have the obligation of seeking the truth of the Catholic Faith, or that they can be saved apart from Faith in Jesus Christ or apart from the Church.

Where do you get this stuff from? This is professed in one breath and retracted in the next. What you determine and what I determine to be the mind of the Church on the matter is the very thing warned of and condemned by Pope St Pius X. That the modernist would, by deception, state things in such a way that one could say, "Oh, this is orthodox" and another, "This is heresy."
The split that we see within Catholicism is not due to the bad intentions of the faithful but rather to the failure and abandonment of care towards the flock from the highest positions within the Church. Now, if you ask me is this just mere laziness on the part of the Pope and the heirarchy, I say No; because there is no laziness apparent in the promotion of one-world-ism and one-church-ism.
If you refuse to see it or take it seriously. That's ok by me.

columba wrote: If then (as our Church now teaches) these too have within their own belief system the seeds of salvation and can (as BXVI assures us) be another road to salvation, why should the nominal Catholic, already badly infected with modernism put up any resistance to their specious arguments if (as BXVI assures us) these too can get the same reward as Catholics without laboring as we do.


The seeds of salvation come from and through the Church; and never has the Church taught that other “belief systems” can be “another road to salvation”; in fact, Cardinal Ratzinger and the CDF were quite clear in teaching that:

Sorry to burst your bubble Mike but you know where you said, "Oh what in the blue blazes is this bit of nonsense?*
That bit of nonsense was from none ither than Pope Benedict XVI, Co-Workers of the Truth, 1990, p. 217:
Here's the quote in full.

“The question that really concerns us, the question that really oppresses us, is why it is necessary for us in particular to practice the Christian Faith in its totality; why, when there are so many other ways that lead to heaven and salvation, it should be required of us to bear day after day the whole burden of ecclesial dogmas and of the ecclesial ethos. And so we come again to the question: What exactly is Christian reality? What is the specific element in Christianity that not merely justifies it, but makes it compulsorily necessary for us? When we raise the question about the foundation and meaning of our Christian existence, there slips in a certain false hankering for the apparently more comfortable life of other people who are also going to heaven. We are too much like the laborers of the first hour in the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Mt. 20:1-16). Once they discovered that they could have earned their day’s pay of one denarius in a much easier way, they could not understand why they had had to labor the whole day. But what a strange attitude it is to find the duties of our Christian life unrewarding just because the denarius of salvation can be gained without them! It would seem that we – like the workers of the first hour – want to be paid not only with our own salvation, but more particularly with others’ lack of salvation. That is at once very human and profoundly un-Christian.”
in his book of daily meditation (I think it was page 85 but I'll double check).


A fine example I must say of what you believe the Church teaches uncompromizingly.

Certainly, the Church has embarked on a new approach; but, is it the best, the most prudent or the most effective approach? Good and legitimate questions. Does it carry the risk of inadvertently promoting a false ecumenism, a false syncretism and religious pluralism? Of course, but the Church seems to be aware of these risks and has decided to plow-on nonetheless.


The complete opposite is the case. The Church is showing absolutely no awareness of the risks of his new approach. In fact the evidence is all around for the Pope and the bishops to see yuet they proceed unabated as if they willed this destruction of the faith.

Could a group of lapsed Catholics turn up at Assisi and offer their false worship to the true God?


Maybe they have. I think I spotted one or two of them holding a potted plant.

Hmm.. And who was accusing who of mockery and game playing?

Could a group of sedevacantists turn up and have the TLM offered for peace? If not, what's become of this new gospel of acceptance and tolerance?

The Church has been very tolerant by not excommunicating the lot of them. Not that they would recognize the excommunication, or anything. But, as you know, tolerance is in, anathemas are out. Perhaps they could show up as a group with the Old Catholics since neither recognizes the validity or legitimacy of the Pope. Care to join them? Perhaps they could lend you a small fence with which to straddle.

That's a bit silly. The sede's have already erxcommunicated themselves from what they believe to be a false Church.
I'm sure there's plenty of room at Assisi for us fence-sitters too but unfortunately like you, I'll have to decline. Don't want to be caught in an earthquake.

Have to go now. Back soon.

PS.

Simple Fath wrote:
Mryan, as stated in the above quote, ''We must not cease to defend its authority.'', I think in this regard you can never be accused of falling short in your defence of the Holy Father or his Church and I'm sure for that you will be well rewarded. I appreciate your dedication and time given over to this important task. I know you can have a short fuse, but this I can also understand, especially when the attacks against the Pope come from within his own Church. Even Peter used his sword to cut off the ear of one of those who threatened Jesus, and I hope, that just as Jesus then ''touched his ear and healed him'', that those who question the validity of the Holy See, will listen and have their ear healed.
Keep up the good work

PLEASE!
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  columba on Mon Sep 19, 2011 9:11 pm

PPS.

George Brenner wrote:
Were you able to view the video of Fr. Foster.

Yea.. Thanks George. Got the link. Horrific!!
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  bernadette on Tue Sep 20, 2011 11:48 am

You and bernadette are two peas of the same heretical pod; and your “doctrines” represent the spectacle of a false tradition that has the audacity to call itself “traditional”.

Your fingers must be sore from typing "or this..."!

So what is the heresy that I'm being accused of MRyan? What is the 'doctrine' that I represent which is a spectacle of false tradition?

Quit beating around the bush and pasting endless quotes...just tell me what heresy I'm guilty of.

bernadette

Posts : 15
Reputation : 15
Join date : 2011-09-14

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  MRyan on Tue Sep 20, 2011 6:43 pm

bernadette wrote:
You and bernadette are two peas of the same heretical pod; and your “doctrines” represent the spectacle of a false tradition that has the audacity to call itself “traditional”.


Your fingers must be sore from typing "or this..."!

I have no idea what you mean by “or this …!” But, never mind.

bernadette wrote:So what is the heresy that I'm being accused of MRyan? What is the 'doctrine' that I represent which is a spectacle of false tradition?

Quit beating around the bush and pasting endless quotes...just tell me what heresy I'm guilty of.
I am not one for beating around the bush, and I can’t help it if you haven’t kept up with these exchanges where I laid out the case for the objective heresy of the sede-spleenists more than once.

If my numerous dogmatic citations from VCI and other magisterial pronouncements have not yet resonated with you, let me recap:

Blessed Peter, the Prince and chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, and lives, presides and judges to this day, always, in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome….The disposition made by Incarnate Truth (dispositio veritatis) therefore remains, and Blessed Peter, abiding in the rock’s strength which he received (in accepta fortitudine petrae perseverans), has not abandoned the direction of the Church.” (VCI)
Your objective heresy denies that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, lives, presides and judges to this day, always, in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome, and that Blessed Peter, abiding in the rock’s strength which he received, has not abandoned the direction of the Church.”

Tell us, bernadette, if we have no pope and have had no pope for 53 years (or 133 years or 500 years), what is the direction of the visible Church on earth - today? If our Lord did not abandon the direction of the Church that He has placed in the hands and faith of Peter, where is Peter and where is the Church?

Shall I use crayons?

“To this day” means “to this day”, and not to some future date which remains entirely subject to your private opinion as to when Christ’s true Vicar is actually elevated to the papacy, while you reject the visible and perpetual succession of how ever many popes you have declared to be “antipopes” who sit as usurpers in the Chair of Peter, and who only pretend to have a universal recognition by the “false” universal Church, and only pretend to possess the full and immediate Primacy and plenary Power over the universal Church that is conferred directly upon each and every visible and recognized successor to Peter.

You make our Lord into a liar. Oh, and our Lord is NOT a sedevacantist.

Your objective heresy denies “The Church [is] Always Visible”, and you deny “therefore, the ordinance of truth”, that “St. Peter, persevering in the strength of the rock which he had received, hath not abandoned the government of the Church which had been confided to him”.

Your objective heresy denies “that neither against the rock upon which Christ builds His Church nor against the Church shall the gates of Hell prevail'; for your objective heresy denies “The meaning of this divine utterance” which “is, that, notwithstanding the wiles and intrigues which they bring to bear against the Church, it can never be that the Church committed to the care of Peter shall succumb or in any wise fail..." (Pope Leo XIII, "Satis Cognitum", 1896)

Where is your visible Church that cannot in any wise fail? In your house? In a trailer in upstate NY? In a compound in New Mexico? Where is your “little remnant” of believers who are without Pope, without ordinary jurisdiction, without Apostolic succession, without the ordinary means of sacramental grace and without any means for recognizing a “true” Pope? Oh, is God supposed to provide for you and your “remnant”? You place this ON HIM when He said He would never abandon His flock by letting His Church fail or let it be “eclipsed” for generations on end? Is your last pope portrayed in a picture hanging on the wall? Who is that, Pope Pius IX, Pius XII, John XXIII?

Your objective heresy denies that Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisibly” … “at the same time He rules it visibly, through him who is His representative on earth”; and that “it is absolutely necessary that the Supreme Head, that is, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, be visible to the eyes of all (Pope Pius XII, "Mystici Corporis Christi", 1943)

As Dr. Ludwig Ott wrote in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

That the Primacy is to be perpetuated in the successors of Peter is, indeed, not expressly stated in the words of the promise and conferring of the Primacy by Our Lord, but if flows as an inference from the nature and purpose of the primacy itself. As the function of the Primacy is to preserve the unity and solidarity of the Church; and as the Church, according to the will of her Divine Founder, is to continue substantially unchanged until the end of time for the perpetuation of the work of salvation, the Primacy also must be perpetuated. But Peter, like every other human being, was subject to death (John 21, 19), consequently his office must be transmitted to others. The structure of the Church cannot continue without the foundation which supports it (Mt. 16, 18): Christ's flock cannot exist without shepherds (John 21, 15-17).
And what is that visible FOUDATION; that “impregnable foundation of his Church” that “was laid by Christ the Lord", and upon which the entire structure of the Church rests?

It is this:

He made Peter a perpetual principle of this two-fold unity [faith and communion] and a visible foundation, that on his strength an everlasting temple might be erected and on the firmness of his faith a Church might arise whose pinnacle was to reach into heaven. But the gates of hell, with a hatred that grows greater each day, are rising up everywhere against its divinely established foundation with the intention of overthrowing the Church, if this were possible. We, therefore, judge it necessary for the protection, the safety, and the increase of the Catholic flock to pronounce with the approval of the sacred council the true doctrine concerning the establishment, the perpetuity, and the nature of the apostolic primacy. In this primacy, all the efficacy and all the strength of the Church are placed. (VCI, Session 4: 18 July 1870 First dogmatic constitution on the church of Christ)
Abbot Guéranger writes:

The inevitable play of human passions, interfering in the election of the Vicar of Christ, may perchance for a while render uncertain the transmission of spiritual power. But when it is proved that the Church, still holding, or once more put in possession of, her liberty, acknowledges in the person of a certain Pope, until then doubtful, the true Sovereign Pontiff, this her very recognition is a proof that, from that moment at least, the occupant of the Apostolic See is as such invested by God himself. (, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Vol XII, pg. 188)
Cardinal Billot wrote:

Finally, what one may think of the possibility or the impossibility of an heretical pope, there is at least one point absolutely clear which no one can put in doubt, and it is that the acceptance, the adherence, of the Universal Church to a pope will always be, by itself, the infallible sign of the legitimacy of such-and-such a pontiff; and consequently of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy." And this is based on the Church’s attribute of Indefectibility as defined by "the promise of the infallible Providence of Christ [that] ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’ and ‘Behold, I am with you all days even unto the end of the world.’ For the adherence of the Church to a false pontiff would be the same thing as its adherence to a false rule of Faith, since the pope is the living rule of the Faith that the Church has to follow, and that in fact, She always follows."

He continues:

"God some times can allow that the vacancy of the Apostolic See be for a certain time. He can allow also that a doubt may come concerning the legitimacy of such-and-such an election, but He cannot allow that the whole Church accept as a pontiff one who is not really legitimate. Therefore, from the moment that the pope is accepted by the Church and is united to Her as the head to the body, we can no longer raise the doubt on the possible bias of election or the possible lack of the necessary conditions for legitimacy. Because this adherence of the Church heals in its root all faults committed at the moment of election, and proves infallibly the existence of all the conditions required."
Now, anticipating your response that posits that the Vicar of Christ is not “visible” during a legitimate interregnum (between the death of a pope and his elected successor), the Church makes provisions for these ordinary occurrences in the following manner:

Between the death of the pope and the election of his successor (sede vacante) the cardinal-camerlengo is the head of the Sacred College. It is his duty to verify the death of the pope, to direct the preparations for the conclave, and to take charge of the same. The camerlengo does not make any decisions that are not of immediate necessity to the administration of the Church. Any decision that is not urgent to the running of the Church is postponed until a new pope is elected.
And, while the longest sede vacante period lasted for about 3½ years due to persecution and political strife, the Church recognizes that these periods are not part of her ordinary constitution, which is why these interregnums must be of relatively short duration (some theologians speculate that the longest period before indefectibility and perpetual Apostolic succession would be adversely effected is one generation, or 20-22 years; though I find even this length to be implausible in consideration of everything that has already been presented).

But here is this major flaw in your heterodoxy: Your “interregnum” is not a true interregnum that happens every time a Pope dies, yours is a gross and unprecedented distortion of a true interregnum that sees in the place of a true pope a heretical imposter who visibly sits upon the Chair of Peter and who has usurped full and immediate Primacy over the universal Church, and for generations on end; and whose election was contested by no one (by anyone that matters).

Again, not in the entire history of the Church has an antipope been recognized as Christ’s true Vicar; and never has an antipope usurped the papacy without there already being a valid Pope.

In summary:

He speaks in vain who tries to persuade me of the orthodoxy of those who, like himself, refuse obedience to his Holiness the Pope of the most holy Church of Rome: that is to the Apostolic See." Satis Cognitum
For you, the Apostolic See is GONE; and so long as you remain stuck in the quagmire of objective heresy, you shall never find it.

Therefore, those who believe that they can accept Christ as the head of the Church, without giving loyal adherence to his vicar on earth, walk the path of dangerous error. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity, and they so disfigure the true concept of the mystical body of the Redeemer that it cannot be recognized or found by those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation..
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum