Latest topics
» SSPX cannot accept Vatican Council II because of the restrictions placed by the Jewish Left
Tue Dec 12, 2017 8:36 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Vatican (CDF/Ecclesia Dei) has no objection if the SSPX and all religious communities affirm Vatican Council II (without the premise)
Sun Dec 10, 2017 8:29 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Piazza Spagna - mission
Sun Dec 10, 2017 8:06 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Fund,Catholic organisation needed to help Catholic priests in Italy like Fr. Alessandro Minutella
Sun Dec 10, 2017 7:52 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Catholic theocracy- Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Feeneyite) essential
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» The Social Reign of Christ the King can be seen based on Cushingite or Feeneyite theology, Vatican Council II with the false premise or without it
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:52 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» When Card. Ladaria and Bp Fellay meet a non Catholic they know he or she is oriented to Hell because the Church lic Church inspired by the Holy Spirit teaches this
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:49 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» No denial from Cardinal Ladaria and Bishop Fellay : two interpretations of Vatican Council II and theirs is the irrational one
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:44 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Ask Cardinal Ladaria a few questions when you meet him
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:42 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Now it is the time for cardinals Kasper and Marx to reject Vatican Council II
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:37 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» No denial from Cardinal Ladaria, CDF : schism from the Left over Vatican Council II
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:35 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Schism over Vatican Council II ?
Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:30 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX recognises that Abp.Lefebvre's writings are obsolete : seminaries have to make the correction
Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:25 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Polish traditionalists handicapped : Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake
Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:20 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the USA when they interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational premise deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Bishop Robert J.McManus and Brother Thomas Augustine MICM,Superior,St.Benedict Center,Still River,MA, interpret Vatican Council II with the 'possibilites are exceptions' error
Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:47 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX must be aware of the deception of Abp.Guido Pozzo and confront it
Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Two popes must ask all Catholics to affirm Vatican Council II (premise-free) as they do
Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:16 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary Still River Ma., could lose canomical status because of Feeneyism
Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

»  Traditionalists oppose Pope Francis on morals but give him a pass on salvation
Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:06 am by Lionel L. Andrades


Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Page 2 of 10 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Sun Mar 11, 2012 11:11 am

columba wrote:Mike,

6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter ... that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
I have never disputed this, but are you saying that this promise would apply in the case of an invalidly elected or heretical pope?
Yes, you have disputed this by accusing Peter of failing to “religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles” and even accusing Peter of heresy; and then claiming to have a get-out-of-jail-free card because a couple of theologians said you can, without schism, “refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.”

Let me give you a couple of examples where this would apply, with the most obvious one being the so called Great Western Schism where there were two, and even for a time, three claimants to the Chair of Peter. While a true pope did in fact reign, once the confusion ended and another pope was elected (by a Council which had no true authority to force the resignation of the true pope), the Church lifted all of the sanctions and excommunications of the competing claimants because no one could be held culpable for following who they only believed was the true pope due to the immediate question of legitimacy of the original (and true) pope by the very Cardinals who elected him.

Another example is the forced exile of Pope Liberius when the Church stripped him of his Office (where, technically, by divine law, it had no authority to do so) and elevated Felix to the Chair. From some accounts, St. Athanasius regarded the new pope (St. Felix) as something of “a monster, whom the malice of anti-Christ had placed on the Holy See”, and of being an abettor to the Arian heresy.

And yet, the Church honors St. Felix and Liberius as true Popes and even the former as a martyr for the Faith. So can Athanasius be held culpable if he held Felix as a usurper to the throne as Liberius languished in exile? Of course not.

Let Cardinal Billot, the great Jesuit theologian of the first half of the 20th century, explain to you the gigantic hole in your out-of-context argument:

"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." (http://catholicism.org/modern-popes.html#5)
The fact of the matter is, despite the claims a handful of sedevacantists, every Pope since Pope Pius XII received “the acceptance, the adherence, of the Universal Church” which “by itself” is “the infallible sign of the legitimacy of such-and-such a pontiff; and consequently of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy."

VCI dogmatically and infallibly declared why this must be so.

You have a defective understanding of “universal”, columba, for universal does not mean every single person, but a moral universal consensus. Not a single Cardinal Elector ever disputed the legitimacy of any of their valid elections, and the universal acceptance and adherence by the Bishops and faithful in communion with the popes is a fact.

But, if you want to hide behind an out of context citation of a theologian to justify disobedience, the accusations of heresy, and “doubt” of Pope BXVI's election – go ahead; just don’t expect me to take such a specious argument seriously.

Every schismatic invents a heresy to justify his schism.

More to follow.
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  Jehanne on Sun Mar 11, 2012 12:20 pm

Mike,

If the Pope would come-out tomorrow and say, "Jesus of Nazareth never even existed; he was just a legend and a myth..." perhaps after reading Dr. Robert Price, would you still follow him, or, would you begin to read more sede literature? Here's Price's website, by the way:

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/

He does have credentials. See, everyone has "his/her limits." Okay, the Pope has not yet made such a claim, but what if he did. Then what? You could say that he was possessed or even mentally ill, but what if a cadre of psychiatrists would affirm his complete sanity and soundness of mind. Then what?
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 50
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  columba on Sun Mar 11, 2012 2:05 pm

Mike ,
From your reply thus far I take it you do not believe Pope Paul IV when he stated in his Bull "Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, "That if ever it should appear that someone who was elected Roman Pontiff had beforehand deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into any heresy, his election, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals would be null, legally invalid and void, and all the subsequent acts, laws and appointments of such an invalidly elected pope, would be lacking in force, and would grant no stability and legal power to anyone whatsoever. Moreover, that all those who would be appointed to ecclesiastical offices by such a pope would, “by that very fact and without the need to make any further declaration, be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.”

And you do the very thing you accuse me of doing, -putting the words of a handful of theologians over and above those of the teaching authority of the Church- in this case, a certain Cardinal Billot, overrides the words of Pope Paul IV.
You can't keep having it both ways Mike.

I take it too that you believe St. Robert Bellarmine, Fr. Francisco Suarez, Fr. Francisco de Vitoria, Rev Ignatius Szal, where all fostering heretical ideas in the minds of the faithful when they offered their opinions on the courses of action that could legitimately be followed in times of crises.

"Just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff who aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist one who aggresses the souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, one who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed. It is not licit, however, to judge, punish, or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." (St. Robert Bellarmine)

"If [the Pope] gives an order contrary to good customs, he should not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something openly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be licit to resist him; if he attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation appropriate to a just defense." (Fr. Francisco Suarez, S.J)

"A Pope must be resisted who publicly destroys the Church. What should be done when the Pope, because of his bad customs, destroys the Church? What should be done if the Pope wanted, without reason, to abrogate Positive Law?" His answer is: "He would certainly sin; he should neither be permitted to act in such fashion nor should he be obeyed in what was evil; but he should be resisted with a courteous reprehension. (Fr. Francisco de Vitoria, O.P.

Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948)

De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter’] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8 )


I have the opinions of Saints, doctors and theologians to help me out on this. Am I to substitute their opinions for the opinions of a certain well-read layman?
avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  Guest on Sun Mar 11, 2012 2:27 pm

I am sorry to you Mike and Columba that I haven't been more a part of your discussions. The economy is bad and I really need to earn money. So I just don't have the time nor the energy after work and other projects to participate. I hope when the economy, or at least my own personal economy, picks up I will have more time.
God Bless

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Sun Mar 11, 2012 2:50 pm

Duckbill,

No need to apologize; no problem whatsoever.

These are tough economic times.

avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Sun Mar 11, 2012 2:51 pm

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

If the Pope would come-out tomorrow and say, "Jesus of Nazareth never even existed; he was just a legend and a myth..." perhaps after reading Dr. Robert Price, would you still follow him, or, would you begin to read more sede literature? Here's Price's website, by the way:

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/

He does have credentials. See, everyone has "his/her limits." Okay, the Pope has not yet made such a claim, but what if he did. Then what? You could say that he was possessed or even mentally ill, but what if a cadre of psychiatrists would affirm his complete sanity and soundness of mind. Then what?
Your question presupposes the heretical notion of a validly elected Pope who has received the universal following and adherence of the faithful as Christ’s true Vicar – who is at the same time a raving public apostate.

I reject outright the very absurd premise of your hypothesis for it denies the infallible promise of our Lord and the infallible dogmatic affirmation of VCI.

Furthermore, you can’t really be asking me to take this Price fellow seriously.

Honestly, I wish raddy traddies would actually study and pray over the dogmatic declarations of Pastor Aeternus, VCI, instead of following the fallible opinions of men.

avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  columba on Sun Mar 11, 2012 2:53 pm

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

If the Pope would come-out tomorrow and say, "Jesus of Nazareth never even existed; he was just a legend and a myth..." perhaps after reading Dr. Robert Price, would you still follow him, or, would you begin to read more sede literature? Here's Price's website, by the way:

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/

He does have credentials. See, everyone has "his/her limits." Okay, the Pope has not yet made such a claim, but what if he did. Then what? You could say that he was possessed or even mentally ill, but what if a cadre of psychiatrists would affirm his complete sanity and soundness of mind. Then what?

My suspician is that the psychiatrists opinion would be considered infallible and be accepted by todays Church leaders as such; even if it be opposed to Church doctrine on the reality of sin and the fallen nature of Man.
Modern psycology being in the denial of the reality of sin could not attribute culpability to anyone when there be no such thing as right or wrong. It's the psychiatrists who now determine when it's appropriate for the Church to carry its divinely appointed mission of exorcising demons (or as they would most likely term it, Psychiatric Therapy) and the modern Church has no problem subjecting its authority to that of its atheistic overlords. I could picture St Peter restraning a demoniac while he awaited clearance from Nero's medical advisors permitting him to procede with the exorcism.
avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  columba on Sun Mar 11, 2012 2:57 pm

MRyan wrote:Duckbill,

No need to apologize; no problem whatsoever.

These are tough economic times.


Ditto.
avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  simple Faith on Sun Mar 11, 2012 3:04 pm

Columba wrote,
I have the opinions of Saints, doctors and theologians to help me out on this. Am I to substitute their opinions for the opinions of a certain well-read layman?.
I would doubt very much if your quotes from the Saints, doctors and theologians were directed towards or intended for the individual layperson to determine the legitimacy of the Pope and to support an individual's disobedience to the Holy father.
avatar
simple Faith

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Sun Mar 11, 2012 3:18 pm

columba wrote:
Jehanne wrote:Mike,

If the Pope would come-out tomorrow and say, "Jesus of Nazareth never even existed; he was just a legend and a myth..." perhaps after reading Dr. Robert Price, would you still follow him, or, would you begin to read more sede literature? Here's Price's website, by the way:

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/

He does have credentials. See, everyone has "his/her limits." Okay, the Pope has not yet made such a claim, but what if he did. Then what? You could say that he was possessed or even mentally ill, but what if a cadre of psychiatrists would affirm his complete sanity and soundness of mind. Then what?

My suspician is that the psychiatrists opinion would be considered infallible and be accepted by todays Church leaders as such; even if it be opposed to Church doctrine on the reality of sin and the fallen nature of Man.
Is that supposed to be funny?

That is funny, coming from someone who sees disobedience of the Pope in his official acts of Supreme Primacy over the universal Church in all matters of faith, liturgy and discipline as some sort of infallible moral virtue.

I'll get to your totally out of context citations soon enough.



avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  columba on Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:57 pm

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:
My suspician is that the psychiatrists opinion would be considered infallible and be accepted by todays Church leaders as such; even if it be opposed to Church doctrine on the reality of sin and the fallen nature of Man.

Is that supposed to be funny?

Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction. In that sense, funny = strange
avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  columba on Sun Mar 11, 2012 5:01 pm

simple Faith wrote:Columba wrote,
I have the opinions of Saints, doctors and theologians to help me out on this. Am I to substitute their opinions for the opinions of a certain well-read layman?.
I would doubt very much if your quotes from the Saints, doctors and theologians were directed towards or intended for the individual layperson to determine the legitimacy of the Pope and to support an individual's disobedience to the Holy father.

Well then, don't read the saints and Doctors. Just read Mike's interpretation of them.
avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Sun Mar 11, 2012 5:11 pm

Once again, simple Faith’s Catholic gut instincts are correct, without having to look up a single one of columba’s out-of-context citations. He can smell hype a mile away.

columba wrote:Mike ,
From your reply thus far I take it you do not believe Pope Paul IV when he stated in his Bull "Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, "That if ever it should appear that someone who was elected Roman Pontiff had beforehand deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into any heresy, his election, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals would be null, legally invalid and void, and all the subsequent acts, laws and appointments of such an invalidly elected pope, would be lacking in force, and would grant no stability and legal power to anyone whatsoever. Moreover, that all those who would be appointed to ecclesiastical offices by such a pope would, “by that very fact and without the need to make any further declaration, be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.”

And you do the very thing you accuse me of doing, -putting the words of a handful of theologians over and above those of the teaching authority of the Church- in this case, a certain Cardinal Billot, overrides the words of Pope Paul IV.
You can't keep having it both ways Mike.
More baloney.

Any layman or prelate who thinks that he can “interpret” the disciplinary Bull of Paul IV to his own private ends by removing by their own private authority a validly elected Pope for appearing to have "deviated from the faith" prior to his election, and who has received the unanimous consent and adherence of the universal Church as Christ's true Vicar, is seriously deluded.

Time and again I’ve addressed the false traditionalist’s misuse of this Bull and you have never attempted a serious reply – because I don't think you are capable of a serious reply.

Even the sedevacantist Fr. Cekada has said that the Bull is disciplinary in nature and like with all disciplines, there is nothing “infallible” or “binding” about it that would preclude subsequent pope’s from modifying and even ignoring Paul IV’s vindictive paranoid prescriptions for fear of having a “secret Protestant” Cardinal elevated to the Chair of Peter.

Our Lord would not let it happen, at least not to where the false pope was accepted by the universal Church.

Now let’s take your other so-called “proofs” one at a time.

columba wrote:I take it too that you believe St. Robert Bellarmine, Fr. Francisco Suarez, Fr. Francisco de Vitoria, Rev Ignatius Szal, where all fostering heretical ideas in the minds of the faithful when they offered their opinions on the courses of action that could legitimately be followed in times of crises.

"Just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff who aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist one who aggresses the souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, one who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed. It is not licit, however, to judge, punish, or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." (St. Robert Bellarmine)
This text is taken completely out of context.

In fact, let’s let the sedevacantist Fr. Cekada once again put another myth to rest:

In debates among traditional Catholics regarding the legitimacy of the post-Conciliar popes, the following quote from St. Robert Bellarmine has been repeatedly recycled:

Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior. (De Romano Pontifice, II.29.)

I have seen it employed this way no less that three times in the past four months-once in The Remnant (Edwin Faust, Signa Temporum,15 April 1994, eight), once in The Catholic (Michael Farrell, Letter to Editor, Simple Answer to the Sede-Vacantists, April 1994, 10), and once by a Society of St. Pius X priest.

Traditional Catholics who reject the New Mass and the post-Vatican II changes .... also see in this passage some sort of justification for recognizing someone as pope but rejecting his commands.

...Alas, it has been taken out of context and completely misapplied. In its original context, Bellarmine's statement neither condemns the principle behind the sedevacantist position, nor justifies resisting laws promulgated by a validly-elected pope...

The passage cited is from a lengthy chapter Bellarmine devotes to refuting nine arguments advocating the position that the pope is subject to secular power (emperor, king, etc.) and an ecumenical council (the heresy of conciliarism). The general context, therefore, is a discussion of the power of the state vis-à-vis the pope...

Those who would recognize John Paul II as pope while disregarding all his commands, therefore, can take no consolation whatsoever in the passage from Bellarmine.
(Rev. Anthony Cekada: Did Bellarmine Condemn Sedevacantism?, (c. 1994); taken from http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/983672/posts

'Nuff said.

columba wrote:"If [the Pope] gives an order contrary to good customs, he should not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something openly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be licit to resist him; if he attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation appropriate to a just defense." (Fr. Francisco Suarez, S.J)
Tell us, Columba; why were the words “the Pope” inserted in brackets? Have you ever read the original passage in its entirety and in context? Even if he was talking about the Pope, do you think he was justifying disobedience to his lawful commands in his universal Pimacy over laws, liturgy and matters of faith and morals?

I can almost assure you without any doubt that he is talking only about lawful resistance in the context of the following examples:

Pope John XII was "a scandal to the whole Church...John conducted himself in the manner of a layman, preferring hunting to church ceremonies, and largely indifferent to Church matters....It was said that he was struck with a paralysis while visiting his mistress. He died on 14 May 964, without confession or receiving the Sacraments."

Pope Boniface IX (1389-1404): ...increased the taxation of the Church and sold provisions and expectatives for ready cash. Indulgences were multiplied, to be gained by an offering of money with little regard paid to the essential spiritual conditions. In the year 1400 the Pope proclaimed a Holy Year and allowed would-be pilgrims to the shrines of Rome to forego the arduous journey for a sum roughly equivalent to what they would otherwise have spent. The bankers of Europe were called in to collect the offerings which they divided equally with the Pope. There can be little doubt that Boniface IX, who treated the whole business simply as a political problem, was guilty of simony on a massive scale.

Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484) had one dominating idea, "the desire to advance his family and obtain for it a leading position in Italy. Other popes had engaged in nepotism, some out of family loyalty and others from political considerations: but under him it became the chief influence in papal policy."

Pope Innocent VIII (1484-1492) was: ...a kindly and genial man [but] he lacked the personality and intellectual capacity for the office of pope. His morals were equally unsuitable, and he openly avowed his illegitimate children....To the open scandals caused by the pope's morals and policies - the advancement of his bastard Francesschotto, and his collaboration with the heathen - were added the results of corruption in the Curia. Administrative incompetence and the expenses of foreign policy in the early years of his pontificate led both to an increase in the sale of offices and to the creation of new posts in order that they might be sold. The number of papal secretaries was increased to twenty-six and the new posts sold for 62,400 ducats, while fifty-two Plumbatores were appointed to seal bulls, each of whom paid 2,500 ducats for his appointment.
To the extent that a pope can abuse his temporal and ecclesiastical power over non-universal policies and customs, he cannot force anyone to sin by participating in such unscrupulous actions. But these are not acts of his official Primacy over the universal disciplines, laws and liturgies of the Church.

We’ll let your next so-called “proof text” from Fr. Francisco de Vitoria, O.P. spell this out:

“A Pope must be resisted who publicly destroys the Church. What should be done when the Pope, because of his bad customs, destroys the Church? What should be done if the Pope wanted, without reason, to abrogate Positive Law?" His answer is: "He would certainly sin; he should neither be permitted to act in such fashion nor should he be obeyed in what was evil; but he should be resisted with a courteous reprehension. (Fr. Francisco de Vitoria, O.P.
Did you catch that? “[B]ad customs” does NOT refer to universal disciplines and laws, but to the individual customs or policies of a misbehaving pope.

Furthermore, what does de Vitoria mean by “What should be done if the Pope wanted, without reason, to abrogate Positive Law?". My answer is, so what?

If by positive law he means ecclesiastical positive law (I know of no other in relation to the Church), than it is within the Pope’s supreme powers to add, modify or abrogate such laws for whatever reason the pope feels is in the best interests of the Church – and we are obliged to obey.

Your citations from Szal and De Lugo are just more of the same taken-out-of context and misapplied excuses for disobedience towards the Primacy of Peter.

They don’t hold water as you would like to falsely apply them.

columba wrote:I have the opinions of Saints, doctors and theologians to help me out on this. Am I to substitute their opinions for the opinions of a certain well-read layman?

You "have" and proved nothing except that you know how to recycle the same old out-of-context and misapplied citations of others. Try "substituting", for a change, the dogmatic declarations of Pastor Aeternus.

Tell me, Columba, have you ever read the relevant chapters or entire passages from De Romano Pontifice, or any of the other sources for your copy and pasted “proofs”?

I think not.
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  columba on Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:19 pm

Mike I can't say I'm happy to see you in agreement with Fr. Cekada and even more so that when it be expedient to your cause you enlist the help of those you consider enemies of the Church. He agrees with you also on baptism of desire, but on both counts (baptism of desire and his false assertion that Cum ex Apostolatus Officio is merely disciplinary in nature) I disagree; not on my own authority but on the authority of the Church and the weight the Church attaches to those things which in light of the nature of the languge used in promulgating them are to be considered de fide.
Without having gone through it with a fine-tooth-comb I have pulled at least seven examples of the language used in promulgating the contents of Cum ex Apostolatus Officio.

"We approve and renew, that they may and must be observed in perpetuity and, if perchance they be no longer be in lively observance, that they be restored to it."

"..all these measures, by Apostolic authority, We approve and renew, that they may and must be observed in perpetuity and, if perchance they be no longer be in lively observance, that they be restored to it."

"Hence, by this Our Constitution which is to remain valid in perpetuity.."

"We also enact, determine, decree and define.."

"Finally, by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We also enact, determine, define and decree.."

"The provisions of this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity are to take effect, notwithstanding any Constitutions, Apostolic Ordinations, privileges, indults or Apostolic Letters,"

"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. "


Compare those statements above with any single one of the Vatican II documents, papal encyclicals, or teachings which you tell me I am bound to observe under threat of schism, and tell me am I not bound to believe that "Cum ex Apostolatus Officio" is an authoritive and binding teaching document of the Church pertaining to matters of faith.
If I am not bound by this, then neither am I bound by anything arising from Council Vast II.

MRyan wrote:
Our Lord would not let it happen, at least not to where the false pope was accepted by the universal Church.

I asked you before; Can you prove this beyond opinion?

Tell me, Columba, have you ever read the relevant chapters or entire passages from De Romano Pontifice, or any of the other sources for your copy and pasted “proofs”?

I think not.

You think wrong. I have read the relevant chapters umpteen times and I want you now to show me how I've read it out of context with special reference to the final chapter of the extract below.

The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom the manifestly heretical Pope is not ipso facto deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended. For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ. Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us?

This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope.

To this Cajetan responds (in Apol. pro tract. praedicto cap. 25 et in ipso tract. cap. 22) that the heretic is not a Christian "simpliciter" [i.e. without qualification, or absolutely], but is one "secundum quid" [i.e. in a relative sense]. For, granted that two things constitute the Christian - the faith and the character - the heretic, having lost the faith, is still in some way united to the Church and is capable of jurisdiction; therefore, he is also Pope, but ought to be removed, since he is disposed, with ultimate disposition, to cease to be Pope: as the man who is still not dead but is "in extremis" [at the point of death].

Against this: in the first place, if the heretic remained, "in actu," united to the Church in virtue of the character, he would never be able to be cut or separated from her "in actu," for the character is indelible. But there is no one who denies that some people may be separated "in actu" from the Church. Therefore, the character does not make the heretic be "in actu" in the Church, but is only a sign that he was in the Church and that he must return to her. Analogously, when a sheep wanders lost in the mountains, the mark impressed on it does not make it be in the fold, but indicates from which fold it had fled and to which fold it ought to be brought back. This truth has a confirmation in St. Thomas who says (Summ. Theol. III, q. 8, a. 3) that those who do not have the faith are not united "in actu" to Christ, but only potentially - and St. Thomas here refers to the internal union, and not to the external which is produced by the confession of faith and visible signs. Therefore, as the character is something internal, and not external, according to St. Thomas the character alone does not unite a man, "in actu," to Christ.

Further against the argument of Cajetan: either faith is a disposition necessary "simpliciter" for someone to be Pope, or it is only necessary for someone to be a good Pope. In the first hypothesis, in case this disposition be eliminated by the contrary disposition, which is heresy, the Pope immediately ceases to be Pope: for the form cannot maintain itself without the necessary dispositions. In the second hypothesis, the Pope cannot be deposed by reason of heresy, for otherwise he would also have to be deposed for ignorance, immorality, and other similar causes, which impede the knowledge, the morality, and the other dispositions necessary for him to be a good Pope (ad bene esse papae). In addition to this, Cajetan recognises (tract. praed., ca. 26) that the Pope cannot be deposed for the lack of dispositions necessary, not "simpliciter," but only ad bene esse.

To this, Cajetan responds that faith is a disposition necessary "simpliciter," but partial, and not total; and that, therefore, even if his faith disappears he can still continue being Pope, by reason of the other part of the disposition, the character, which still endures.

Against this argument: either the total disposition, constituted by the character and by faith, is necessary "simpliciter," or it is not, the partial disposition then being sufficient. In the first hypothesis, the faith disappearing there no longer remains the disposition "simpliciter" necessary, for the disposition "simpliciter" necessary was the total, and the total no longer exists. In the second hypothesis, the faith is only necessary ad bene esse, and therefore its absence does not justify the deposition of the Pope. In addition to this, what finds itself in the ultimate disposition to death, immediately thereafter ceases to exist, without the intervention of any other external force, as is obvious; therefore, also the Pope heretic ceases to be Pope by himself, without any deposition.

Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are ipso facto deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says: "We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right"; and he also teaches (lib. 2, epist. 1) that the heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church. St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, nor bind nor loose. St. Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca. 2), St. Augustine (in Enchir., cap 65), St. Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer.) teach the same.

Pope St. Celestine I (epist. ad Jo. Antioch., which appears in Conc. Ephes., tom. I, cap. 19) wrote: "It is evident that he [excommunicated by Nestorius] has remained and remains in communion with us, and that we do not consider destituted [i.e. deprived of his office by of Nestorius] anyone who has been excommunicated or deprived of his charge, either episcopal or clerical, by Bishop Nestorius or by the others who followed him, after they commenced preaching heresy. For he who had already shown himself as deserving to be excommunicated, could not excommunicate anyone by his sentence."

And in a letter to the clergy of Constantinople, Pope St. Celestine I says: "The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever."

St. Nicholas I (epist. ad Michael) repeats and confirms the same. Finally, St. Thomas also teaches (S. Theol., II-II, q. 39, a. 3) that schismatics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and that anything they try to do on the basis of any jurisdiction will be null.

There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms.

Besides that, the second affirmation of Cajetan, that the Pope heretic can be truly and authoritatively deposed by the Church, is no less false than the first. For if the Church deposes the Pope against his will it is certainly above the Pope; however, Cajetan himself defends, in the same treatise, the contrary of this. Cajetan responds that the Church, in deposing the Pope, does not have authority over the Pope, but only over the link that unites the person to the pontificate. In the same way that the Church in uniting the pontificate to such a person, is not, because of this, above the Pontiff, so also the Church can separate the pontificate from such a person in case of heresy, without saying that it is above the Pope.

But contrary to this it must be observed in the first place that, from the fact that the Pope deposes bishops, it is deduced that the Pope is above all the bishops, though the Pope on deposing a bishop does not destroy the episcopal jurisdiction, but only separates it from that person. In the second place, to depose anyone from the pontificate against the will of the deposed, is without doubt punishing him; however, to punish is proper to a superior or to a judge. In the third place, given that according to Cajetan and the other Thomists, in reality the whole and the parts taken as a whole are the same thing, he who has authority over the parts taken as a whole, being able to separate them one from another, has also authority over the whole itself which is constituted by those parts.

The example of the electors, who have the power to designate a certain person for the pontificate, without however having power over the Pope, given by Cajetan, is also destitute of value. For when something is being made, the action is exercised over the matter of the future thing, and not over the composite, which does not yet exist, but when a thing is destroyed, the action is exercised over the composite, as becomes patent on consideration of the things of nature. Therefore, on creating the Pontiff, the Cardinals do not exercise their authority over the Pontiff for he does not yet exist, but over the matter, that is, over the person who by the election becomes disposed to receive the pontificate from God. But if they deposed the Pontiff, they would necessarily exercise authority over the composite, that is, over the person endowed with the pontifical power, that is, over the Pontiff.

Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church.This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: "He would not be able to retain the episcopate, and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church."
avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Sun Mar 11, 2012 8:57 pm

“The earth is flat. Whoever claims it is round is an Atheist deserving of punishment.”
~ Intolerance of other religious beliefs by Sheik Abdel-Aziz ibn Baaz, 20th century.

Ay Caramba,

I asked if you had read the relevant sections of De Romano Pontifice that you took your citations from; and you say you have, and then proceed to cite another section from De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, chapter 30 on a related but different subject concerning what may or may not happen in the entirely hypothetical situation of an openly heretical pope, when your original citation is from “lib. 2, chap. 29”.

As we say in America, “close” only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

Btw, with regard to chapter 30, perhaps you should also cite from his “A Catholic Controversy”, 1596, where Bellarmine says:

Now when [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.” A Catholic Controversy, 1596)
Do you or do any of your sede friends claim to be “the Church” with the authority to “doubt” his legitimacy or “declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See”?

If Pope BXVI, or any of his validly elected predecessors have not been deprived of their Apostolic See by “the Church”, which, hypothetically, can (soon after his election -before he is universally accepted) only deprive a usurper and an anti-Pope to his false claim to the Apostolic See (for no one can judge a valid Pope), then how is it that God has allowed a false Pope to visibly reign over His visible Church for 54 years and counting?

Oh, let me guess, the not so visible “true Church” is in “eclipse”, and you can cite some bogus "prophesy" to justify such a heretical absurdity. Sure, that’s what VCI teaches, all right.

Are you going to place the non-unanimous and varied opinions of theologians over that of an infallible dogmatic Council?

St. Bellarmine did not for a minute believe that the hypothetical exercise he conducted could ever happen, for the very same reasons that were infallibly declared by VCI.

I’m taking your little barb about Fr. Cekada in stride ~ I knew it was coming, and didn’t care. Fr. Cekada is wrong about many things, but:

“… he does tend to quote his sources accurately. He also tends to recognize the general context of sources correctly - even though his arguments suffer from unproven presuppositions. And in light of how the overwhelming majority of so-called "trads" do not reference sources with the care that they should, this writer challenges them to disprove Fr. Cekada's assertion viz the manifested intention of this passage. For as anyone who has read the context of the text can plainly see for themselves, Fr. Cedaka's assertion is on the money as far as those who appropriate this passage in misrepresenting its true sense.” (Squelching Fr. Gruner's "Squawking Squire", by I. Shawn McElhinney)
And so how do you go about proving Fr. Cekada misinterpreted the true sense of the passage?

Why, you cited a lengthy section from the next chapter – different subject. Good on ya, columba.

Regarding your “at least seven examples of the language used in promulgating the contents of Cum ex Apostolatus Officio”, I don’t know how to break the news to you, but you’ve proven nothing except how confused you really are.

The strong “binding” papal rescripts of “by Apostolic authority, We approve and renew … by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We also enact, determine, define and decree..", etc. etc., is certainly binding on the faithful in perpetuity, right up to the moment the next Pope enacts his own disciplinary rescripts, and/or ignores the penalties, changes the law, or deep sixes the more ambiguous and dangerous prescriptions that spell anarchy for the Church with every layman acting as his own pope.

Subsequent canon law would make reference to Cum ex, but only in one context, and not the arbitrary and chaotic “should he appear to have deviated from the faith prior to his elevation” private judgments.

In matters of discipline, the pope can “bind in perpetuity” and “define” all they want; and we are obliged to obey - but he cannot bind his successors to disciplines and maters of positive law, but only to dogmatic truths and divine law; to which all popes are bound without exception.

Please do take the time to read TRUE AND THE FALSE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPES, By Bishop Josef Fessler, he’ll explain it all; and he even address Cum ex and the erroneous accusations of the Protestant Professor Dr. Schulte who makes the same errant arguments as you.

Imagine that!

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/Fessler.htm
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  Jehanne on Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:08 am

Mike,

You never answered my question, other than to say that you'd think that my scenario was impossible. I think that you need to have a "second look" st Columba's post from a week ago where Pope Benedict quotes favorably from those "exegetes" who deny the historicity of St. Luke's account of our Lord's resurrection.

In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff,who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfill our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the hireling. (Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, 1)

Note the part in bold and note the part in italics; the later is clearly modifying the former, which means that it is not talking about the Pope prior to his election to the Throne but after. It is Christ who is the Head of His Church and not His Vicar, which means that this section of Cum ex Apostolatus Officio is reaffirming a divine law and not merely some "discipline". You yourself have quoted this many times:

To be a member of Christ, it is not enough to be united with him in the bond of charity, some other union is needed. (Council of Florence)

Likewise, you've agreed that,
For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

what we do not agree upon is the fact that,
Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.

Well, there has been some error, as Columba posted a week ago. When a sitting Pope fails to affirm the complete historicity of all the Gospels, that's an error. Let's hope that he corrects it and soon, as he corrected his little diatribe on condoms from a few years ago.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 50
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:38 am

columba wrote:
Compare those statements above with any single one of the Vatican II documents, papal encyclicals, or teachings which you tell me I am bound to observe under threat of schism, and tell me am I not bound to believe that "Cum ex Apostolatus Officio" is an authoritive and binding teaching document of the Church pertaining to matters of faith.

If I am not bound by this, then neither am I bound by anything arising from Council Vast II.
This is patently false; or, as Bishop Fessler said, it is "an enormous blunder in the sight of every one who knows anything at all about such matters."

"Cum ex Apostolatus Officio" is NOT an authoritative and binding teaching document of the Church pertaining to matters of faith ... it is a disciplinary document codifying and explicating ecclesiastical law. From its introduction:

In respect of each and every sentence of excommunication, suspension, interdict and privation and any other sentences, censures and penalties against heretics or schismatics, enforced and promulgated in any way whatsoever by any of Our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs, or by any who were held to be such (even by their "litterae extravagantes" i.e. private letters), or by the sacred Councils received by the Church of God, or by decrees of the Holy Fathers and the statutes, or by the sacred Canons and the Constitutions and Apostolic Ordinations - all these measures, by Apostolic authority, We approve and renew, that they may and must be observed in perpetuity and, if perchance they be no longer in lively observance, that they be restored to it.
Bishop Fessler (Secretary to the First Vatican Council), True and False Infallibility of the Popes (approved and recommended by Pope Pius IX):

Dr. Schulte proceeds with another Bull of Pope Paul IV., issued in the year 1559 which is rightly described in the collection of Papal Bulls under the title of ‘Renewal of previous censures and punishments against heretics and schismatics, with the addition of further penalties.’ Why, the very title, which gives a true account of its contents, is of itself alone enough to show every one who reads it, that this Papal delivery is not a definition de fide, and cannot, therefore, be an utterance ex cathedra. And yet Dr. Schulte, in the most decided way, asserts that it is, saying that ‘it is directed to the whole Church, signed by the Cardinals in the most solemn form, so that it is certainly delivered ex cathedra (Dr. Schulte’s Pamphlet, p. 34). One can hardly believe one’s eyes when one sees such manifestly erroneous assertions set forth with such an affectation of demonstrated certainty. One really feels sorry for Dr. Schulte [and Columba] that he should have made such an enormous blunder in the sight of every one who knows anything at all about such matters. To us it is beyond all question certain, that this Bull, is not a definition of faith or morals, not an utterance ex cathedra. It is simply an outcome of the supreme Papal authority as legislator, and an instance of his exercising his power of punishing; it is not done in the exercise of his power as supreme teacher. I should abuse the patience of my readers if I were to attempt to prove in detail what is manifest to all mankind in every line of the Bull. Who ever imagined before Dr. Schulte that the Pope was infallible in the province of declaring legal pains and penalties.?
Gee, columba, what silly rabbit will you pull out of the hat now?
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:51 am

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

You never answered my question, other than to say that you'd think that my scenario was impossible.
That you didn’t like my answer does not mean that I did not answer your question.

You want to propose that a reigning pope who has received the unanimous consent and adherence of the universal Church; which, as Cardinal Billot and other theologians have taught, is an infallible sign that he has been accepted by God as His true Vicar, can fall into obstinate and pertinacious (formal) heresy and thus, the promise and prayer of our Lord that his faith will not fail will have failed -- and his faith will no longer be the foundation upon which the faith and communion of the visible edifice of the Church rests.

I consider the latter to be opposed to the dogmatic and infallible prescription of VCI, and I really don’t care what this or that theologian says to the contrary, or how some layman fallibly “interprets” the disciplinary Bull, Cum ex. The Church has spoken.

However, for the sake of argument, I will address your arguments.

Jehanne wrote:
I think that you need to have a "second look" at Columba's post from a week ago where Pope Benedict quotes favorably from those "exegetes" who deny the historicity of St. Luke's account of our Lord's resurrection.
Why would I do that? What is that supposed to prove … that Pope Benedict XVI “quotes favorably from those ‘exegetes’ who deny the historicity of St. Luke's account of our Lord's resurrection”. Are you implying heresy by association? Are you actually suggesting that Pope Benedict XVI has denied the historical and dogmatic fact of our Lord’s resurrection?

Prove it – for such a blatant heresy cannot stand, and we all know it; and we also know he doesn’t believe any such nonsense. Remember, columba is the same person who believes Cum ex is a binding teaching document of the supreme teaching office of the Pope, so excuse me if I don’t pay a lot of attention to his copy and paste inferences, especially from an easily misconstrued non-authoritative book of the pope.

Jehanne wrote:
In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff,who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfill our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the hireling. (Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, 1)
Note the part in bold and note the part in italics; the later is clearly modifying the former, which means that it is not talking about the Pope prior to his election to the Throne but after. It is Christ who is the Head of His Church and not His Vicar, which means that this section of Cum ex Apostolatus Officio is reaffirming a divine law and not merely some "discipline". You yourself have quoted this many times:

To be a member of Christ, it is not enough to be united with him in the bond of charity, some other union is needed. (Council of Florence)
The citation from Florence is a condemned proposition, and I don’t see how it has any relevancy to Cum ex.

Furthemore, it is certainly true that a pope may be “contradicted” who is found to have “deviated from the faith” for popes may err in their private capacity as doctor and theologian; and we know that popes have erred without ever having fallen into obstinate heresy. However, Paul IV does not address the situation of an alleged heretical Pope until section Six, where he says:

“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:
Again, the Pope may deviate from the faith and even appear to have fallen into some heresy, but that does not mean that a Pope can fall into formal heresy and thus, to have lost the Catholic faith.

As Cardinal Bellarmine taught, the Church MUST judge all such alleged instances, and he did not believe for a minute that such a complete fall from the faith could ever occur, based on the promise of our Lord, which is supported by the fact that never has it occurred.

Since I just finished citing Bishop Fessler, let me cite him again as he addresses the only intelligible reading of Cum ex:

To set this supposed case in its proper light the following remarks may be useful. Pope Paul IV., no doubt, supposes the case possible (however improbable it might be) that a man who clings to an heretical doctrine might be chosen Pope, and also that after he has mounted the Papal throne, he might still hold heretical doctrine, or, even it may be, express it in his intercourse with others; not, however, that he would teach the whole Church this heretical doctrine in an utterance of his supreme teaching office (ex cathedrâ). From making such an utterance God Himself, through His special assistance, preserves the Pope and the Church. If, then, as has been suggested, a man were elected Pope who might uphold heretical doctrine to the whole Church formally as Catholic doctrine de fide, or prescribe it to be held as such), then we should have the case before us for which Pope Paul IV., in the above-named Bull, § 6, provides, by quashing the election of such a man to the Papacy, and declaring it ‘null and void.’ This is one of the cases which theologians mean when they say the Pope (homo privates), as a private individual, may err in a matter of faith; that is, when he is considered simply as a man, with merely his own human conception of a doctrine of the faith. As Pope, as supreme teaching of the Catholic Church, he cannot err, when, by virtue of the assistance of God, promised and vouchsafed to him, he solemnly defines a truth revealed by God, and prescribes it to be held by the Universal Church. It is clear that there are in the one person of the Pope two different active powers (έυεδγείαί): first, the ordinary power of thinking and viewing things; and, secondly, the solemn defining power for the whole Church. I might illustrate this point by the parallel case of a judge who has to decide upon a suit. In his own private life he may, perhaps, hold and express his opinion, and that on very various occasions, but in the suit nothing passes for law but his solemn judicial utterance, which, however, will suffice to show that a man who is invested with an official position can be readily conceived as thinking and speaking as a man, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, as an official personage in his forensic utterances and acts.

After making this distinction, plain enough as I conceive it to be, the introductory words of this Bull will be quite intelligible; why, that is, the Pope expresses his conviction how perilous it would be if, even his private life, a Pope were to admit an error in doctrine, and what sad confusion would arise if the said Pope, as a private individual, were to be guilty of heresy, and yet had to put into force penalties against heretics, he as Pope having no judge higher than himself.[51]

[51] The question, ‘an Papa, si in hæresim incidit (i.e.as homo privates) deponi posit!’ has been investigated and answered in different ways in former times. The introductory words of the Bull point to a solution of the difficulty in the sense of Pope Paul IV.; the real meaning of the words, however, depends on the right understanding of the word redargui.
Because he is concerned with addressing only supreme acts of papal infallibility, Bishop Fessler does not address the specific instances of the general infallibility of the ordinary magisterium as it was presented by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis where he teaches:

“in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine.”
Neither does Bishop Fessler suggest that in “clinging” to a heretical doctrine (as envisaged by Paul IV) a Pope may do so with an obstinate and pertinacious will, but addresses only the situation of a Pope who “even his private life … were to admit an error in doctrine”, and who “as a private individual, may err in a matter of faith; that is, when he is considered simply as a man, with merely his own human conception of a doctrine of the faith.”

Jehanne wrote:Likewise, you've agreed that,

For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
The only thing I agreed to was the fact that false traditionalists take this out of context by ignoring the passage that follows which makes it clear that the Church cannot do anything but “religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.”

Jehanne wrote:what we do not agree upon is the fact that,
Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.
This is amazing; you are actually stating that you do not agree with the dogmatic proclamation of VCI.

Our Lord was addressing “Simon” before he was Peter, and that is the context of “when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren”, for he had not yet received in his person the divine charisms of his office, to include a never failing faith, which was about to "fail" in courage out of human weakness.

Jehanne wrote:Well, there has been some error, as Columba posted a week ago. When a sitting Pope fails to affirm the complete historicity of all the Gospels, that's an error. Let's hope that he corrects it and soon, as he corrected his little diatribe on condoms from a few years ago.
Rubbish. If you are going to make an accusation of “error”, be specific.
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  Jehanne on Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:58 am

Mike,

First of all, I agree with everything that you state in the above post and all of your citations and quotes. Lest anyone say that this is another "ecumenical moment" and I am forced to post my video of that "jumping cat" (who, by the way, I am absolutely convinced survived his fall, which appears to have been an ongoing "sport" for both him and his owner), I am happy that "your happy" that the Pope can at least err in his books, speeches, and other "ecumenical moments"; what I think is the disagreement between us is just how often and/or frequent that this occurs.

Theology, for me, is like the game of basketball. Sometimes it is hard to tell if the Pope is dribbling the ball on or off the court. Wherever he is, he is certainly not at "center court," at least by those standards set by his 260 or so pre-Vatican II predecessors. Here's an excellent article that I read recently:

http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt149.html

I do not know if it has been posted to this forum before or not. If it has, I am sorry that I missed it. In any case, I agree with everything that Father Harrison states, except for the de facto presumption virtually ubiquitous in today's Catholic Church that everyone who is outside of her canonical boundaries must be in "Category 7." I believe that this is both a dangerous and erroneous presumption, and for many, perhaps an eternally fatal one. What Father Harrison should have mentioned but did not is the impossibility of ever knowing that one is, in fact, in Category 7, or knowing that another individual is, also. We should at least presume that Category 7 is, perhaps, empty or at least composed of very few individuals. Such is the safest course to take with respect to our eternal salvation and that of others. And, that's the problem with today's Church.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 50
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:19 am

Wow, is this another ecumenical moment?

Bring on the seriously overweight jumping cat.

Thanks for posting Fr. Harrison's article ... I actually don't remember reading that one.

I don't think it was necessary that "Father Harrison should have mentioned ... the impossibility of ever knowing that one is, in fact, in Category 7" for the simple reason that he is talking about subjective dispositions that are known only to God, even if the Church can make judgments in favor of a presumed good will, as in the case of Catechumens and the Orthodox.







avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  tornpage on Mon Mar 12, 2012 12:09 pm

Jehanne,

Thanks so much for posting that Father Harrison link. It's a brilliant article, and, as with Mike, I was not aware of it before.

While I might need to digest it a bit, at first blush I think Father Harrison nails it here:

The above eight-point analysis should make it clear enough that, contrary to what we might have expected a priori, it is not immediately obvious what exactly the traditional magisterium meant by being ‘outside the Church’. Our enquiry has shown that the position assumed tacitly by the Council of Florence in regard to catechumens is a chink, as it were, in Fr. Feeney’s armor. It punctures a hole in his iron-clad dichotomy, namely, his claim that, according to the traditional magisterium, all who are not members of the Church – i.e., baptized Roman Catholics in good standing – are ipso facto outside of her fold (and, for that reason, on the road to damnation). And once it is recognized that Tradition admits, at least implicitly, the existence of an intermediate condition that is neither ‘inside’ nor ‘outside’ the Church, the way has been opened logically for the more recent doctrinal development – legitimate (we would argue) and in substantial continuity with Tradition – which allows us to assign not only catechumens, but certain other non-members of the Church as well, to this theological locality we are calling the ‘portico’ of the Church. In short, the seed that has grown into Vatican II’s category of persons in “partial communion” with the Church had already been sown quietly at Florence.

Our analysis has also shown that there are two sufficient conditions for being extra Ecclesiam: 1) a lack (whether culpable or inculpable) of supernatural faith; and 2) an explicit and culpable will not to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (Each of these two dispositions can exist either independently or together with the other.) Also, we have seen that there is one (and only one) necessary condition for being extra Ecclesiam, namely, lack of supernatural charity. A logically equivalent way of stating these conclusions is to say that all who are outside the Church lack charity, while all who lack theological faith, along with all schismatics who retain faith while culpably refusing subjection to the Roman Pontiff, are outside the Church.37

I think Father Harrison should be commended for stating the obvious: Florence damns all "outside" the Church, while demanding not being "inside" but being "joined" to Her for salvation. I know this is the gist of Mike's argument here lately, but Father Harrison I think formulated it quite well and succinctly. Mike's good, but there's better. Very Happy

I believe Mike will appreciate that last remark since, if I know him as I think I do, the recent encomia he gets from some here I am sure truly makes him feel a bit uncomfortable.

My only fault with Father Harrison is that he doesn't make explicit a foundation of God' predilection for the elect - a sovereign, unilateral and logically preceding act of His will alone (followed by the free assent of His creature) - and His determination that He will grant them (as opposed to others) the saving faith in His Son as anchoring and explicating what both he and I believe is a necessity for explicit faith in Christ for salvation post promulgation of the Gospel, a requirement which many consider "harsh." Father Harrison punts on that issue, and says it's not harsh because of near death revelations and experiences, etc. I agree with him as to those, and trust that God draws some of His elect to Him even from apparently (because not visible) non-Christian sources - but I'd squarely place the foundation for that on the sovereign will and action of God. Perhaps it's Father Harrison distancing himself from what I believe is his Reformed Protestant roots.

Anyway, that last paragraph is just me . . . I can see MRyan wincing about now.

Thanks again for the link, Jehanne.

avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Mon Mar 12, 2012 12:26 pm

tornpage wrote:
I believe Mike will appreciate that last remark since, if I know him as I think I do, the recent encomia he gets from some here I am sure truly makes him feel a bit uncomfortable.
Quite so; and very uncomfortable.

avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  Jehanne on Mon Mar 12, 2012 12:47 pm

avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 50
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  columba on Mon Mar 12, 2012 12:48 pm

MRyan wrote:

Ay Caramba,

I asked if you had read the relevant sections of De Romano Pontifice that you took your citations from; and you say you have, and then proceed to cite another section from De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, chapter 30 on a related but different subject concerning what may or may not happen in the entirely hypothetical situation of an openly heretical pope, when your original citation is from “lib. 2, chap. 29”.

As we say in America, “close” only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

Close enough to make the point though.
The fact that in chap 29 St Bellarmine is dealing with the scenario of bad or notoriously sinful popes does not detract from his conclussion in chapter 30 concerning heretical popes. You can smoke screen all you like Mike in an attempt to avoid the undeniable implications of what he's saying, for what he is saying (even if the he's speaking of hypothetical cases) is, that the principle itself is “most certain,” that a heretic cannot be pope. He is stating a truth of the faith which he says is “the opinion of all the ancient Fathers,” He was refuting other theologians (Cajetan) who took the view that a herical pope can remain in office though can legitimately be resisted.
We can conclude then, without fear of contradiction, that a heretical pope falls ipso facto from office and places himself outside the Church.

Btw, with regard to chapter 30, perhaps you should also cite from his “A Catholic Controversy”, 1596, where Bellarmine says:
Now when [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.” A Catholic Controversy, 1596)
I've no need to. You've already done so, and in so doing have proved what I've written above.

Do you or do any of your sede friends claim to be “the Church” with the authority to “doubt” his legitimacy or “declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See”?

I do not need to do that. If the pope be a heretic he has deprived himself of office. All that I'm required to do is accept his teaching with docility until such a time as an irreconcilable blatant contradiction of a truth of the faith becomes apparent in his teaching.
The intellect is for truth, and one cannot hold two opposing and contradictory premises as both being valid/true at the same time without abandoning altogether the very function of the intellect. That's why one cannot give the assent of intellect and will to that which contradicts truth.
An example: CCC 1257 62 “The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude;” vs CCC 1258, “The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.”
Here the good Catholic is asked to hold two opposing and contradictory statements as both being true at the same time. The faithful Catholic does not go looking for contradictions, the contradictions are presented to the intellect and are recognized as such. If they be reconcilable with each other then all's fine and dandy. When it becomes apparent that the contradictions can't be resolved then the obvious conclusion is that only one of the premises can be true; likewise with the teaching that belief in Christ is necessary for salvation vs rejection of Christ as being a legitimate position that can lead souls (Jewish souls to be precise) to salvation.


If Pope BXVI, or any of his validly elected predecessors have not been deprived of their Apostolic See by “the Church”, which, hypothetically, can (soon after his election -before he is universally accepted) only deprive a usurper and an anti-Pope to his false claim to the Apostolic See (for no one can judge a valid Pope), then how is it that God has allowed a false Pope to visibly reign over His visible Church for 54 years and counting?

I don't think God would allow it (except maybe as a punishment to a faithless generation or two) but I've no doubt that corrupt man would accept it if it advances his own agenda.

Oh, let me guess, the not so visible “true Church” is in “eclipse”, and you can cite some bogus "prophesy" to justify such a heretical absurdity. Sure, that’s what VCI teaches, all right.

All prophesy's are not bogus (even though we've had our fair share of such in recent times) but there's no way we can claim that biblical prophesy's are bogus.

Are you going to place the non-unanimous and varied opinions of theologians over that of an infallible dogmatic Council?

No. I keep trying to avoid the theologians but you just can't help siting the ones that on the surface seem to qualify your specious conclusions. However the extract from “Cum ex Apostolatus Officio” despite your objections is stating a truth of the faith.
188 of the 1917 code of canon law upholds this Bull and makes reference to it when restating the truth that a heretical pope falls ipso facto from office and outside the Church.

St. Bellarmine did not for a minute believe that the hypothetical exercise he conducted could ever happen, for the very same reasons that were infallibly declared by VCI.

When did you ask him?
Do you believe then that St. Bellarmine was deliberately speculating upon the impossible whilst he himself knew it to be impossible?

I’m taking your little barb about Fr. Cekada in stride ~
I knew you would. I often make reference to cardinal Ratzinger/ Benedict XVI and the CCC to add credence to my own position which you determine to be schismatic while the teachings of the same refute your allegations (its a win win sutuation for me).

Fr. Cekada is wrong about many things, but:“… he does tend to quote his sources accurately. He also tends to recognize the general context of sources correctly - even though his arguments suffer from unproven presuppositions.

I agree with you.

Regarding your “at least seven examples of the language used in promulgating the contents of Cum ex Apostolatus Officio”, I don’t know how to break the news to you, but you’ve proven nothing except how confused you really are.
Then the Church is confused too. I only hold that meaning which the Church upheld and included in her code of canon law.

The strong “binding” papal rescripts of “by Apostolic authority, We approve and renew … by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We also enact, determine, define and decree..", etc. etc., is certainly binding on the faithful in perpetuity, right up to the moment the next Pope enacts his own disciplinary rescripts, and/or ignores the penalties, changes the law, or deep sixes the more ambiguous and dangerous prescriptions that spell anarchy for the Church with every layman acting as his own pope.

And look at the anarchy that has resulted from going against the "in perpetuity" clause inserted in Pope Paul V promulgation of what's now called the "Extraordinary form."
His prophesy has certainly come true in that we have indeed incurred the wrath of Almighty God and that of the holy apostles Peter and Paul.

Subsequent canon law would make reference to Cum ex, but only in one context, and not the arbitrary and chaotic “should he appear to have deviated from the faith prior to his elevation” private judgments.

Because this clause would go without saying. How could a heretic ascend the chair of Peter when he isn't even a member of the Church?

In matters of discipline, the pope can “bind in perpetuity” and “define” all they want; and we are obliged to obey - but he cannot bind his successors to disciplines and maters of positive law, but only to dogmatic truths and divine law; to which all popes are bound without exception.

A matter of faith is not a disciplinary matter, The ipso facto anathemas directed at heretics are facts not disciplines.
If a man were to commit cold-blooded murder, would he be "ipso facto" a murderer, even if he were never caught and brought to trial? He would be indeed. If he were to be caught, brought to trial and sentenecd, then everyone would now know him to be a murderer where previously only those who witnessed his act would have known the truth for sure. That's why in the case of a heretical pope, the Church confirms the truth that he would ipso facto fall from office even if he never be publically charged, convicted and sentenced. If you are denying this fact then you are at the very least being intellectually dishonest. Even a child could understand this.

Please do take the time to read TRUE AND THE FALSE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPES, By Bishop Josef Fessler, he’ll explain it all; and he even address Cum ex and the erroneous accusations of the Protestant Professor Dr. Schulte who makes the same errant arguments as you.

Imagine that!

I will read it and we shall see. I bet your interpretation will differ from mine.
Could you believe that?
avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Mon Mar 12, 2012 2:00 pm

Sedevacantism and the 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law

http://papsttreu.blogspot.com/2010/02/sedevacantism-and-1917-pio-benedictine.html:

“Sedevecantatists use the following to back up their position:

Canon 188:
Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric:

4.° Publicly defects from the Catholic faith

Sedevacantists interpret this to mean that their claims to “manifest heresy” on behalf of the Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI are sufficient to establish that these “Conciliar popes” are heretics, schismatics and also apostates, and thus cannot be considered to be legitimate popes.

There are two issues that the proponents of anti-Vatican II sedevacantism do not address according to the 1917 CIC (Codex Iuris Canonici):

1. the question regarding the authentic interpretation of ecclesiastical laws
2. the question as to who can authoritatively and infallibly establish a “public defect” from the Catholic faith (this is tied to point 1)
3. the canonical procedure regarding the vacancy of any office (especially the Papal Office)

A matter of interpretation? It seems that sedevacantists claim for themselves the right to properly interpret Canon 188, n. 4. Is this permissible though? According to the 1917 CIC, the legislator of the law or his successor or all those given by the aforementioned the authority to authentically interpret the laws are the ones to consult regarding the authentic interpretation of ecclesiastical laws:

Canon 17:
§ 1. Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator or his successor and by those whom the power of interpretation has been committed by [the legislator or his successors].
§ 2. An authentic interpretation, given our in the manner of law, has the same force as does the law itself; and if it merely declares what is certain from the words of the law, it does not require promulgation and is effective retroactively; but if it narrows or extends the law or resolves a doubt, it is not retroactive and must be promulgated.
§ 3. That [interpretation] given by means of a judicial sentence or by a rescript in a specific matter does not have the force of law and binds only those persons and affects only those matters for which it was given.

Canon 18:
Ecclesiastical laws are to be understood according to the meaning of their own words considered in their text and context; as for those things that remain unclear or in doubt, reference should be made to parallel provisions in the Code, if there are any, to the purposes and circumstances of the law and to the mind of the legislator.

Canons 2314, 2379 and 2388 are referenced in Canon 188. These must therefore be understood as explaining the proper context of Canon 188.

Thus to better understand Canon 188, n. 4 and to address the aforementioned issues, we must look further into the 1917 CIC:

Canon 2379:
Clerics who, against the prescription of Canon 136, do not wear ecclesiastical habit and clerical tonsure are to be gravely warned; but if a month passes from the warning without result, [then] as to minor clerics the prescription of the same Canon 136, § 3, is observed; but major clerics, with due regard for the prescription of Canon 188, n. 7, are suspended from the orders received, and if they notoriously go to a sort of life alien to the clerical state, [then] unless, once again being warned they recover their senses, after three months from the final warning they are deposed.

While this specific canon speaks of Canon 188, n. 7, it can be used to understand Canon 188, n. 4. This is because the preceding explanation saying “upon the fact” and “without any declaration” applies to all numbers of Canon 188., and because this Canon is referenced in Canon 188. In this case, we see that the canonical procedure intends for warnings to be pronounced by proper authorities and only if such warnings are ignored obstinately are the persons in question to be rendered as deposed.

Another example:

Canon 2388
§ 1. Clerics constituted in sacred [orders] or regulars, or nuns after a solemn vow of chastity, and likewise all those who presume to contract even a civil marriage with any of the aforesaid persons incur automatic excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See; clerics, moreover, having been warned, if they do not come back to their senses within a time defined by the Ordinary according to the diversity of circumstances, will be degraded, with due regard for the prescription of Canon 188, n. 5.
§ 2. But for those professed of simple perpetual vows, whether to an Ordinary or to a religious Congregation, all of them, as above, receive excommunication reserved to the Ordinary.

In this case also, the degradation which sedevacantists portray to be “automatic” according to their understanding of the situation, is tied to warnings: the canonical penalty of degradation only takes place after warnings are obstinately not heeded to. That is to say that after the deadline of the warning has lapsed, the person warned is to be considered automatically deposed/degraded without any need of a public declaration. Such automatic penalty is incurred after the failure to take heed to the warning.

A sedevacantist may still argue (though fallaciously) against such understanding of Canon 188. For this purpose, I will cite a canon “On delicts against the faith and unity of the Church”:

Canon 2314
§ 1. All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic:

1.° Incur by that fact excommunication
2.° Unless they respect warnings, they are deprived of benefice, dignity, pension, office, or other duty that they have in the Church, they are declared infamous, and [if] clerics, with the warning being repeated, [they are] are deposed;
3.° If they give their names to non-Catholic sects or publicly adhere [to them], they are by that fact infamous, and with due regard for the prescription of Canon 188, n. 4, clerics, the previous warnings having been useless, are degraded.

This canon explicitly elaborates on the canonical application of Canon 188, n. 4. It does not give any lay person the right to declare that “person X is not a pope by virtue of heresy”, instead recalls that warnings have to be given and only the obstinate refusal to heed to such warnings will result in the privation of “benefice, dignity, pension, office, or other duty that they have in the Church”, and deposition/degradation.

All these examples show that only the competent ecclesiastical authorities may authoritatively and infallibly determine whether a certain person has actually “defected publicly from the Catholic faith”. The private judgement of any lay person is to be considered without any effect and irrelevant – considering such a lay person has no authority to give warnings to the persons suspected of any delict.

The third issue anti-Vatican II sedevacantism fails to address correctly would be the canonical procedures that follow the vacancy of any office. They claim that the Chair of Peter has been vacant for over 40 years. When asked when, by whom and how the next – according to their opinions – “valid pope” is going to be elected, they normally respond with the following answers:

[Snip ...]

[End of citation]

avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  columba on Mon Mar 12, 2012 2:01 pm

MRyan wrote:
"Cum ex Apostolatus Officio" is NOT an authoritative and binding teaching document of the Church pertaining to matters of faith ... it is a disciplinary document codifying and explicating ecclesiastical law. From its introduction:

You do not believe then that a pope who would becaome a publically hersetic would fall from office "ipso facto?"
You do believe that a one who profesed heresy before being ellected pope can legitimately hold the office and is not by that fact excluded?

What is your definition of the term "ipso facto?" Does it mean to you what it means to theologians and everyone else who uses the term, that it pertains to the actual reality of a situation and not to imposed disciplinary actions?
Does "Cum ex Apostolatus Officio" (even if conceded that it be disciplnary in nature) not contain within its paragraphs certain unalterable truths?

Bishop Fessler in his arrogant dismissal of Dr. Schulte, himself has not distinguished between those things in the Bull of Pope Paul IV which are disciplinary in nature, and those which are de fide certainties of the faith.
Even if the Bull where totally disciplinary in nature, it would be a fool who would presume to abolish it and replace it with something affording less protection to the Church in her defending and protecting of her highest office and centre of unity, that of the papacy.
The arrogance of modernism never ceases to amaze me.

Gee, columba, what silly rabbit will you pull out of the hat now?

Mike I'm beginning to suspect that there's no cure for this intellectual disorientation aflicting the multitudes today from the highest to the lowest, and I pray that that is all that it is. A good walk in the countryside could cure much of it but no one wants to take that type of medicine anymore. Ahh... the sadness of it all.
avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  columba on Mon Mar 12, 2012 2:51 pm

MRyan wrote:
tornpage wrote:
I believe Mike will appreciate that last remark since, if I know him as I think I do, the recent encomia he gets from some here I am sure truly makes him feel a bit uncomfortable.
Quite so; and very uncomfortable.


You are a modest man at heart Mike.

I've no doubt Benedict XVI will adopt the same attitude when I don't indulge in encomia concerning the papacy. I'm sure he knows that respect for the office and worshiping the holder are two different things.
avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:02 pm

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
"Cum ex Apostolatus Officio" is NOT an authoritative and binding teaching document of the Church pertaining to matters of faith ... it is a disciplinary document codifying and explicating ecclesiastical law. From its introduction:

You do not believe then that a pope who would becaome a publically hersetic would fall from office "ipso facto?"
I reject the premise outright.

For the sake of argument, even the divine law requires the application of ecclesiastical laws; meaning that warnings, an interpretation and a judgement confirming whether an ipso facto loss office may or may not apply to a specific alleged occurrence of a “public defection” from the faith -- must follow. And, you are not that authority; sorry.

Again, where are the warnings, the interpretations and the judgments of the Church? Oh, I forgot, the "true" Church is in "eclipse".

Your example from the Catechism, for example, as some sort of “public defection” -- is a joke.

columba wrote:Bishop Fessler in his arrogant dismissal of Dr. Schulte,
That tells us all we need to know ... for it is clear that the Bishop and Secretary-General to VCI "arrogantly" dismissed your pathetic rendering of a disciplinary Bull of the Supreme Legislator as an infallible teaching of the Supreme Teaching Authority of the Pope.

".. after the council [Bishop Fessler] replied in a masterly brochure to the attack on the council by Dr. Schulte, professor of canon law and German law at Prague. Dr. Schulte's pamphlet on the power of the Roman popes over princes, countries, peoples, and individuals, in the light of their acts since the reign of Gregory VII, was very similar in character to the Vaticanism pamphlet of Mr. Gladstone, and rested on just the same fundamental misunderstanding of the dogma of Papal Infallibility as defined by the Vatican Council." (CE)
"Arrogant", indeed. Here is what Pope Pius IX said of such "arrogance" in his Papal Brief to Bishop Fessler:

... We esteem it a very opportune and useful thing to have beaten back the audacity of Professor Schulte, inciting as he does the secular powers against the dogma of Papal Infallibility, as defined by the Ecumenical Council of the Vatican. For it is a matter the true meaning of which, no all men, and especially not all laymen, have a thoroughly clear understanding of, and the truth, when lucidly set forth, is wont to expel from properly constituted minds opinions which men perhaps have drunk in with their mother’s milk, to confirm others in a right mind, and fortify them against insidious attacks. Wherefore, if you continue to refute figments of this kind, you will deserve well of our most holy religion, and of all Christian people, in that, like a good pastor, you withdraw them from poisoned pastures. We make known to you, then, the great pleasure you have given Us, both by reason of the book which you have presented to Us, as well as by reason of your most affectionate letters; and We pray that you may receive a rich reward for your deference to Our authority and devotion towards Ourselves. . . . .’

{Signed by the Pope's own hand}

Yes, columba, you are in very good company ... good luck with the "figments" of your imagination.



avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:21 pm

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
tornpage wrote:
I believe Mike will appreciate that last remark since, if I know him as I think I do, the recent encomia he gets from some here I am sure truly makes him feel a bit uncomfortable.
Quite so; and very uncomfortable.


You are a modest man at heart Mike.
Not modest enough.

columba wrote:I've no doubt Benedict XVI will adopt the same attitude when I don't indulge in encomia concerning the papacy. I'm sure he knows that respect for the office and worshiping the holder are two different things.
I've seen this type of reductio ad absurdum argument too many times; and it usually follows from those who have nothing left in their quiver with which to return fire.

It is absolutely absurd to classify filial obedience to the Pope's supreme and universal authority over the laws, disciplines and liturgical actions of the Church; as well as the religious submission of the mind and will to his ordinary teaching authority over matters already appertaining to doctrine, as "worshiping the holder" of the office.

What nonsense.
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  Jehanne on Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:29 pm

Mike,

Are you saying that the Pope could tomorrow abolish the Eastern Catholic Church's liturgy and "order" them to use only the English Novus Ordo from now on?
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 50
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:40 pm

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

Are you saying that the Pope could tomorrow abolish the Eastern Catholic Church's liturgy and "order" them to use only the English Novus Ordo from now on?
He could (he has the power); but he wouldn't, unless he is fond of promoting schism.

The Pope, once upon a time, ordered the Milanesi to use only the Roman Rite in place of the Ambrosian Rite. He caved when the faithful of Milan said "not in this lifetime" (or words to that effect).

The pope can err in judgment; but a wise pope knows when to pull back from unjust laws.

The pope is on record as stating that he would never allow Eastern Catholics to abandon (by edict) their sacred liturgical traditions.
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  Jehanne on Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:51 pm

We "traddy Catholics" here in the "West" want the same courtesy.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 50
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:59 pm

Jehanne wrote:We "traddy Catholics" here in the "West" want the same courtesy.
I know.
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  columba on Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:20 pm

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:
You do not believe then that a pope who would becaome a publically hersetic would fall from office "ipso facto?"

I reject the premise outright.

I thought you would, and with it you also reject the meaning of the term "ipsi Facto."

MRyan wrote:
For the sake of argument, even the divine law requires the application of ecclesiastical laws; meaning that warnings, an interpretation and a judgement confirming whether an ipso facto loss office may or may not apply to a specific alleged occurrence of a “public defection” from the faith -- must follow. And, you are not that authority; sorry.

I had already given a "for the sake of argument" scenario. The cold-blooded murderer one, remember!

But "ipso facto" means a state of fact which already exixts without any determination having to be made. Can't you understand this?

The fact of the matter is; a pope could be reigning over the Church and accepted by all, to the last man, as a legitimate pope. However, in reality he would not be a legitimate pope if he had fallen ipso facto from office because of some hersey.
If the hersey be public then one could have reason to believe that he has, ipso facto, excommunicated himself without ever having received this sentence from Church authorities. Considering that no authority on earth has a God-given right to judge a pope, he could remain indeffinately in office but still not be a legitimate pope.
The most that anyone could do legitimately, would be to resist those teachings which stand contrary to the dogmas of the faith. Thus, one would not be judging the pope (even if in reality he is not the pope) but judging his teachings as being in accord or not with the universally accepted teachings of the Church throughout her history.

You Mike, have thrown away your only legitimate means of defense if such a state of affairs should ever become a reality. By you stating that this would be an impossibility that could never happen, you have left youself at the mercy of every heresy that could procede from one who is in fact not a true teacher but a wolf in sheeps clothing. In fact in my book you have already accepted heretical teachings which despite all manner of verbal gymnastics, you cannot reconcile with the law of non-contradiction.

Your example from the Catechism, for example, as some sort of “public defection” -- is a joke.

And yet you can't reconcile one with the other in any coherent way and fall ever deeper into a mire of contradictions as one false belief begets another and so on and so on.

I'll ask you again in the hope of proving this piont to you:
How can, "The Church knows of no other means" be reconciled with the its contradiction, "the Church does know of another means." iF you can clear that one up it will be a good start in reconciling the apparent contradictions which have sprung from this one.


More later.
avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  George Brenner on Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:39 pm


A TRIP TO THE DENTIST

My fears and joy are that we now may be entering the dentistry solution to the crisis in the Church. Like others have mentioned it almost seems imminent but then everything is imminent when measured against eternity. Many who were the teeth in the mouth of the Church have neglected to do proper brushing, flossing and dental care for the last half century. Some teeth remained strong by their very structure and firm root system. There have been some teeth with shallow cavities. There have been some teeth with deep cavities. There have been some teeth with complete abscesses. There have been broken teeth. There have been teeth that have grown crooked. There have been bridges to nowhere. There have been far too many false teeth.The smile that the world was used to seeing has been severely compromised. And yet the teeth will be restored or removed where necessary. The Mouth remained strong and intact.

This trip to the dentist although feared was always inevitable. Failure to brush, floss and gargle with daily regularity for so long has taken a severe toll and had an unfavorable impact on the entire mouth. With little reason to smile both lack of confidence and respectability have been very noticeable. So as not to show the teeth, the mouth at times has resorted to mumbling. We were confused and could not clearly understand what the mouth was really saying.

The Dentist will totally restore the mouth but with much pain and agony. The scrapping of the excessive tartar will cause the gums and mouth to bleed. The bloodshed may be almost unbearable. Even the good strong teeth will share in the pain but what else could be done since they share in the totality of the mouth. It does not seem fair but they are part of the mouth suffering. Root canals, caps and crowns will be part of the solution.There will be many tooth extractions for there was no salvation.

In the end the the mouth will open wide again with a glorious smile and the mouth will talk for all of those of good will to hear, obey and understand.
avatar
George Brenner

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  columba on Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:08 pm

In response to Mike's quote Jehanne wrote:


First of all, I agree with everything that you state in the above post and all of your citations and quotes.

The problem here Jehanne is that Mike himself doesn't agree with half the things he says in that post.
An example:

MRyan wrote:
Why would I do that? What is that supposed to prove … that Pope Benedict XVI “quotes favorably from those ‘exegetes’ who deny the historicity of St. Luke's account of our Lord's resurrection”. Are you implying heresy by association? Are you actually suggesting that Pope Benedict XVI has denied the historical and dogmatic fact of our Lord’s resurrection?

Prove it – for such a blatant heresy cannot stand, and we all know it; and we also know he doesn’t believe any such nonsense. Remember, columba is the same person who believes Cum ex is a binding teaching document of the supreme teaching office of the Pope, so excuse me if I don’t pay a lot of attention to his copy and paste inferences, especially from an easily misconstrued non-authoritative book of the pope.

You see Mike believes that Cum ex (because in most part deals in disciplinary matters) contains no doctrinal points of fact from which the disciplinary elements are based, but yet, when we do in fact have docuents that we are authoritively told contain no binding teachings bar those that have already been expressed in previous dogmatic Chucrh documents and are reflected in the said documents of VatII Council, he then changes positions and declares that these documents are in fact binding on all the faithful, even in their new understanding of which the previously understood meaning has been changed.
I know, its very confusing and almost defies expression through the medium of language but one can hold at least a conceptual meaning of this in ones mind.

And now, when a pope is actually holding office, we are told that he can put this office on hold and proclaim his own personal theolgical ideas, -even those that are in opposition to already known truths- via books he authors under his reassumed lay title and we are to take these writings as non-authoritative, while the whole Catholic world accepts them as being from the hand of the pope.
If ever one had a way of disseminating contraversial and dangerous ideas with the best hope of them being accepted as true teachings, this is surely the way to go about it.
Do you realize Mike that when these books were being written the chair of Peter was vacant. The pope had (by his own admission) left his office for the duration of the book and was now Joseph Ratzinger. I do not remember him being re ellected as pope again. Dio you?

Furthemore, it is certainly true that a pope may be “contradicted” who is found to have “deviated from the faith” for popes may err in their private capacity as doctor and theologian; and we know that popes have erred without ever having fallen into obstinate heresy.

Mike doesn't really believe this either for when anyone highlights a case of erronious teaching proceding from the mouth or pen of a pope (even in his private capacity), the accusations of schism and heresy immediately begin to fly and every attempt is made to conform the strange teaching to known doctrine, even if that entails the redefinition of standard theological terms.

There is a certain language in secular law which goes by the name of Legalese. It sounds like English and looks like English but is in fact not English. Words that we understand in English are used in this Legalese language but have a totally different meaning.
For example; the word "understand" does not mean "comprehend" but actually means "stand under" which places the person who says they understand a given charge against them, in the position where they now " stand under" the charge and are agreeing that they accept the charge. Its all very interesting and worth reading about.

My point being, that when we're all laboring under shifting definitions of what's meant by Church, Baptism, Necessity and many many more words that were once commonly undertstood as meaning one thing only and of which everyone had the same understanding, its little wonder that no meaningful dialougue can take place between one who holds the traditional meaning and one who holds the post concilliar meaning of any given word.
And one thinks that they truely believe their own rhetoric without realizing that they've substituted certain fundamental and immovable principles for relative and subjective ones, all because the language they use is built on shifting sands and lacks the stability necessary for uncovering truth. De Facto.
avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  Jehanne on Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:03 pm

Columba,

If you take Cum ex Apostolatus Officio seriously, then the Pope "who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world..." must be absolutely true. Still, the Pope's at least implicit denial of the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture is most disturbing. In the military, "One salutes the position and not necessarily the person," but "how far" is "too far"? I believe that the Catholic Faith is absolutely immutable, more so than the fundamental axioms of arithmetic, which means that I am not going to ever lose my Catholic Faith even if the Pope should lose his, assuming, of course, that such is even possible. But just in case, we need a "Plan B."
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 50
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:36 am

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
columba wrote:
You do not believe then that a pope who would becaome a publically hersetic would fall from office "ipso facto?"
I reject the premise outright.
I thought you would, and with it you also reject the meaning of the term "ipsi Facto."
Your logical fallacy rears its ugly head once again. Why would I reject the term “ipso facto” when I don’t; and when I agreed that AB Lefebvre received a latae sententiae “ipso facto” excommunication as soon as he committed his schismatic act?

I also agree that public acts of outright heresy may be judged in the external form to be exactly that ... but I reject outright the claims of the sede's against the pope.

What I reject is the notion of a validly elected pope (lawfully elected and accepted by the Universal Church) who can wither away into obstinate and pertinacious (formal) heresy. On the contrary, the First Vatican Council dogmatically confirmed that:

In order that the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted IN him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation”; and

THAT which our Lord Jesus Christ established in the Blessed Apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church [the permanent principles of faith and communion], must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time.’
And that:

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.
And that:

For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood.

… and 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: have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not; and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren."

Tell us, columba, what is it about these infallible dogmatic prescriptions that you do not understand?

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
For the sake of argument, even the divine law requires the application of ecclesiastical laws; meaning that warnings, an interpretation and a judgement confirming whether an ipso facto loss office may or may not apply to a specific alleged occurrence of a “public defection” from the faith -- must follow. And, you are not that authority; sorry.
I had already given a "for the sake of argument" scenario. The cold-blooded murderer one, remember!

But "ipso facto" means a state of fact which already exixts without any determination having to be made. Can't you understand this?
I understand it perfectly and I reject the notion that the Pope can commit cold-blooded spiritual public murder by falling into public, obstinate and pertinacious heresy.

Can’t you understand this?

Next, you’ll be defining spiritual “public murder” as your fallacious “interpretation” of the CCC on the hope of salvation for unbaptized infants where the only ones who see a “defect from the faith” are a handful of Pharisaical doctrinal Neanderthals who wouldn’t recognize a theological distinction if it bit them in the rear end.

Your abuse and evisceration of Cum ex and Canon 188 is nothing more than private interpretation gone amok to where any Catholic Crusader Holy Joe can claim an ipso facto removal from office of any pope in the entire history of the Church who appears to have deviated from the faith.

You scoffed at the real time example of the sedevacantists who, with Cum ex and canon law in hand, dragged down Pope Leo XIII to anti-pope status for having fallen into heresy and to have suffered an ipso facto excommunication, when they are only taking your advice in reading divine and ecclesiastical law precisely as you state it; and acting upon it with all the alleged authority it gives every sede with an ax to grind against this or that pope who "appears to have deviated from the faith".

And you think you have any credibility in this matter when sedevacantists take the law into their own hands and determine who is and who is not a pope? What gives you any credibility or authority to tell them they are wrong because you don’t agree with their assessment of this or that pope? You open wide the barn door and then complain when other sedevacntists don’t behave themselves by following “mainstream” sede propaganda to the letter.

You advocate the dogma of anarchy and private interpretation; our Lord had something else in mind when He established the divine institution of the Church and placed the permanent principles of faith and communion squarely in the person of His Vicar, and the gates of sede hell will not prevail against this bedrock foundation of faith and communion.

columba wrote:
The fact of the matter is; a pope could be reigning over the Church and accepted by all, to the last man, as a legitimate pope. However, in reality he would not be a legitimate pope if he had fallen ipso facto from office because of some hersey.
Who said so? Not the First Vatican Council.

Even if one accepted your premise, which I don’t, you have failed to address my previous post on “Sedevacantism and the 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law” that clearly demonstrates that even the divine law, as with ecclesiastical law, requires the competency of ecclesiastical authorities to interpret the law and to authoritatively determine whether a certain person, and especially the pope, has actually “defected publicly from the Catholic faith”.

All of the accusations of "public defection", since such a defection is disputed by the episcopacy and the universal Church at large, is nothing less than the private errant judgement of a miniscule few that has no basis in a proper interpretation of the law for rendering such a public judgment against the visible and true Vicar of Christ.

Of course, if one holds that the entire visible Church (all but the little remnant of "true believers") has gone to hell in a hand-basket, then one can play that game and get locked into a vicious circle that spells total anarchy and defection for the divine institution of the Church; you know the one without valid sacraments, without a valid pope and without a visible valid hierarchy.

That, what sede's would have us believe, is called, "the permanent [and visible] principles of unity of faith and communion" which was "established in the Blessed Apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church" which "must of necessity remain for ever".

You don't believe that for a minute. You'd rather stand with your sede friends.

columba wrote:
If the hersey be public then one could have reason to believe that he has, ipso facto, excommunicated himself without ever having received this sentence from Church authorities. Considering that no authority on earth has a God-given right to judge a pope, he could remain indeffinately in office but still not be a legitimate pope.
Nonsense; IF a manifest heretic occupied the Chair of Peter, the Church would have every right to depose him, for he would NOT be the pope. This would mean, of course, that sufficient warning and the opportunity for retraction were given, but IF the “pope” persisted in his public, obstinate and pertinacious heresy, he could be deposed as an anti-Pope. Again, I reject outright the notion of a formally heretical pope, but if you are going to press an argument, at least remain consistent and stop making it up as you go along.

This sounds like the Tradition In Action “God has rejected His Vicar; He’s only waiting for the faithful to catch up publicly reject him” specious argument. Hey, in the pope judging business, have Cum ex, will travel ... anything goes.

columba wrote:
The most that anyone could do legitimately, would be to resist those teachings which stand contrary to the dogmas of the faith. Thus, one would not be judging the pope (even if in reality he is not the pope) but judging his teachings as being in accord or not with the universally accepted teachings of the Church throughout her history.
“Those teachings” which appertain to doctrine and have been proposed to the universal Church by the ordinary magisterium or by the supreme magisterium (e.g., VCII), cannot be “opposed to the dogmas of the faith”, and I reject the heresy which says otherwise -- outright.

Cardinal Ratzinger response to Ab Lefebvre, May 29, 1985:

"You can express the desire for a declaration or an explanatory treatment of this or that point, but you cannot affirm the incompatibility of the conciliar texts – which are magisterial texts – with the magisterium and tradition." In other words, the conciliar texts could not be corrected or disavowed, but it was legitimate to ask for complementary explanations that could clarify their meaning or give them a new interpretation. (http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350146?eng=y)
That is the extent of your lawful "resistance".

columba wrote:
You Mike, have thrown away your only legitimate means of defense if such a state of affairs should ever become a reality. By you stating that this would be an impossibility that could never happen, you have left youself at the mercy of every heresy that could procede from one who is in fact not a true teacher but a wolf in sheeps clothing. In fact in my book you have already accepted heretical teachings which despite all manner of verbal gymnastics, you cannot reconcile with the law of non-contradiction.
I’ve thrown away nothing except your specious “interpretations” of divine and ecclesiastical laws.

I am not at the mercy of any heresy, least of all yours.

If the two-headed monster you are always falsely pointing to should ever actually appear in the form of a pope, I will deal with it then; in the interim, I have the dogmatic assurance of the Church that our Lord will not let it happen - and that’s, as the Church tells me I must do, is where I place my faith.

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Your example from the Catechism, for example, as some sort of “public defection” -- is a joke.
And yet you can't reconcile one with the other in any coherent way and fall ever deeper into a mire of contradictions as one false belief begets another and so on and so on.

I'll ask you again in the hope of proving this piont to you:

How can, "The Church knows of no other means" be reconciled with the its contradiction, "the Church does know of another means." iF you can clear that one up it will be a good start in reconciling the apparent contradictions which have sprung from this one.
I’ve addressed your false interpretation and non-contradiction on numerous occasions – but you are not listening.

“The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude … God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.”

Let’s place this into proper context. Tell us, columba, is the Baptized adult “assured” of his salvation?

Of course, not; unless he is properly disposed, which is a subjective discernment the Church cannot possibly be “assured” of (with the exceptions of canonizations).

However, validly Baptized infants are assured of salvation; and, as the instrument of salvation, the Church does not know or have any other means that can provide this same assurance, so she can only hope that God may provide a means outside (but not apart from the grace of) the instrument and sacrament of salvation.

So, when the Church teaches: “For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament”, the assurance of salvation stated here is predicated on the necessary disposition being present in the catechumen; of which, unlike infants, she has no infallible assurance (except for canonizations) that they are present, though she can make a judgment in the external forum with respect to Christian burial and by already embracing them as one of her own, even without formal membership (without giving any “assurance” of their salvation).

So -- where is the “contradiction”, let alone the public heresy that allows you to consider the Pope a formal heretic and anti-pope?

Nowhere, except in your Pharisaical imagination.
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  George Brenner on Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:23 pm

Columba,

I believe that you have reached the point in your beliefs where you have all but nailed your 95 theses to the church door. Maybe only prayer and not posts are the answer for you. I love Father Feeney but had I known that he was excommunicated when I visited him , I would have kidnapped Him and taken him to Rome. My greatest fear for you is that you are a victim of exactly of what you claim to be fighting against. You have left the Catholic Church. Save the crisis of faith subject for a different discussion.

Mike, the link below is for your review, when time permits to see what value it may have in these discussions.

by Michael J. Mazza http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7jqYZV9PAkQA.YRXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1czhvZnZxBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMwRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA01TWTEwMV8yMDc-/SIG=12ofdsmej/EXP=1331680792/**http%3a//www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm%3frecnum=963



JMJ,

George
avatar
George Brenner

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Tue Mar 13, 2012 2:42 pm

Thanks, George, for the link.

Good article, even if there are a couple of points that are not entirely accurate (such as Fr. Feeney “had his teaching formally condemned by an official Protocol of the Holy Office”).

His teaching was definitely censored (specifically, that which he endorsed in the named “From the Housetops” article), but “formally condemned” is too strong a description … though the overall points are well taken, that “Feeney was excommunicated for his continued disobedience nearly four years after he was silenced, suspended, expelled from his order, had his Center placed under interdict”, and that, after all of this, “the excommunication itself really becomes a moot point”.

The named similarities to the case of AB Lefebvre was spot on.

I guess this really hit home because I am familiar with everyone mentioned in the article, and have corresponded with a few of them. I've also read each of the named Feeneyite works. Anyway, that's for another time ...

Here are some takeaways:

Commenting on St. Cyril's phrase in a recent interview with a Time magazine reporter, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, placed the famous words in their important historical context:

We must remember that this expression was formulated by St. Cyprian in the third century in a quite concrete situation. There were those who thought they were better Christians who were unhappy with the Church of bishops and separated themselves from her. In answer to that, Cyprian says: separation from the Church community separates one from salvation. But he did not mean to lay down a theory on the eternal fate of all baptized and non-baptized persons (quoted in "Ratzinger Speaks," The Catholic World Report, January 1994, p. 23).
One more example of this broad understanding of membership in the partially invisible and mysterious Body of Christ comes from the moving funeral oration of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, which he offered on the occasion of his father's death in A.D. 374:

He was ours even before he was of our fold. His manner of life made him one of us. Just as there are many of our own who are not with us, whose lives alienate them from the common body, so too there are many of those outside who belong really to us, men whose devout conduct anticipates their faith. They lack only the name of that which in fact they possess. My father was one of these, an alien shoot but inclined to us in his manner of life (William A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. 2, Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1979, p. 29).
In other words, when the authentic understanding of extra ecclesiam is not taught, or worse, when the error of religious indifferentism is passed off as "modern" church teaching, the young are especially vulnerable to an extreme "solution" like Feeneyism.

Vin Lewis, the aforementioned Feeney apologist of All Roads Ministries, justified in a recent debate his own rejection of church teaching as contained in Redemptoris Missio and the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "I reject the statements of the pope because, regardless of what Canon Law says, I am number one supreme in my conscience."
The last sounds vaguely familiar.
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  Guest on Tue Mar 13, 2012 2:52 pm

George Brenner wrote:

I believe that you have reached the point in your beliefs where you have all but nailed your 95 theses to the church door.


I believe you to be a complete phony George Brenner when it comes to examining the arguments on both sides. I believe, deep down, you do see the contradiction, but you are just not man enough to admit it. You would rather let yourself be deceived, rather than come to the correct conclusion that the Holy Seat of St. Peter is vacant; you follow in the way of rank modernism that spews from the mind of Mryan. You are truly false in that sense. The man that you worship in Rome has spread his “95 theses” in the minds of duped “Catholics” such as yourself all over the world, and has been responsible for maybe thousands and thousands of souls being damned to Hell, for if a person believes in the teachings of Benedict XVI, he cannot be saved, since that person would not have the true Catholic faith. You have seen the arguments, you reject them, and you are a phony.

Also, your outburst and attack on the Dimond brothers a few weeks ago just demonstrates your profound bad will. Why don’t you give them a call, and tell them what you think of them, see how much they care! Maybe in the process they can expose your false version of Catholicism. You would be refuted in every single false argument you bring forward, the same way Mryan would be refuted on every single false argument he brought forward, that’s why he’s afraid to call them up, he knows every argument he could think of would be exposed and he would be sent home crying with his tail between his legs, just like a little fragile puppy does when it is scolded.


George Brenner wrote:

Maybe only prayer and not posts are the answer for you.


It is only prayer and not posts are the answer for you George Brenner. You are an Mryanite and thus seeped in modernism; a deadly error condemned by St. Pius X. At least Columba is man enough to come out and say what he sees to be a contradiction to Catholic dogma in the teachings of the post conciliar claimants to the papacy. Not like you, who just ignore them, and says “just listen to Mryan, he’s the man, he knows what he’s at”. Wise up!


George Brenner wrote:

I love Father Feeney but had I known that he was excommunicated when I visited him, I would have kidnapped Him and taken him to Rome.


Father Feeney, a true soldier for Christ when it came to defending the true interpretation of the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. You contradict Father Feeney and that dogma in your belief in baptism of desire. However, The Roman Catholic Church teaches that "Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception, for salvation", as Our Lord Jesus Christ said "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost…" (John 3:5).

As an Mryanite George, for you, there’s just one contradiction after another.


George Brenner wrote:

My greatest fear for you is that you are a victim of exactly of what you claim to be fighting against.


The exact same could be said about you. That is exactly what you are, a brainwashed victim of the counter church.


George Brenner wrote:

You have left the Catholic Church. Save the crisis of faith subject for a different discussion.


Yea, dead on George. You’re the one who has left the Catholic Church. You subject yourself to a wicked man who dresses up in the Pope’s robes and travels from Jewish synagogue to Muslim mosque, who blasphemes God by holding apostate prayer meetings with the demonic religions of the world, while at the same time, he heaps his profound respect and esteem on them. Get with the program Mr. Brenner.

The Council of Elvira , A.D. 305: “It has been decreed that those who in adult age after receiving Baptism shall go into the pagan temples to worship idols, which is a deadly crime and the height of wickedness, shall not be admitted to communion even at death.” (Quoted by Amleto Giovanni Cicognani, Canon Law, Philadelphia, PA: The Dolphin Press, 1935, p. 177.)

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II, Q. 12, A. 1, Obj. 2: “… if anyone were to… worship at the tomb of Mahomet, he would be deemed an apostate.”

Open your eyes, stand for the truth for once.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Tue Mar 13, 2012 3:42 pm

Fatima for our times wrote:
Yea, dead on George. You’re the one who has left the Catholic Church. You subject yourself to a wicked man who dresses up in the Pope’s robes and travels from Jewish synagogue to Muslim mosque, who blasphemes God by holding apostate prayer meetings with the demonic religions of the world, while at the same time, he heaps his profound respect and esteem on them. Get with the program Mr. Brenner.

The Council of Elvira , A.D. 305: “It has been decreed that those who in adult age after receiving Baptism shall go into the pagan temples to worship idols, which is a deadly crime and the height of wickedness, shall not be admitted to communion even at death.” (Quoted by Amleto Giovanni Cicognani, Canon Law, Philadelphia, PA: The Dolphin Press, 1935, p. 177.)

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II, Q. 12, A. 1, Obj. 2: “… if anyone were to… worship at the tomb of Mahomet, he would be deemed an apostate.”

Open your eyes, stand for the truth for once.
Fatima foot in mouth,

This is a blatant lie, for never once has the Pope gone "into the pagan temples to worship idols" and never once has the Pope "worship[ed] at the tomb of Mahomet".

That you are too ignorant to know the difference between true crime of communcatio in sacris and positive ecclesiastical law is no one's fault but your own.

George, we may part company here; for I have no problem calling out Ffot for what he is - a heretic, a blasphemer and scourge on the Catholic faith. He dares to come on this forum and run his vile accusations, when he is nothing but an ignorant sycophant and copy and paste apologist for a particularly noxious sede sect.

We are not of the same faith with these dogmatic delinquents, and I refuse to make excuses for this one.

Have you noticed he cannot stay the course in a real debate? He is not capable of doing so.

Just ignore him, he might go away.





avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  simple Faith on Tue Mar 13, 2012 3:50 pm

George wrote,
My greatest fear for you is that you are a victim of exactly of what you claim to be fighting against. You have left the Catholic Church.

George,
Don't be too sore on Columba, it's not his fault, he is currently suffering from a condition known as HACS ('Home Alone' Catholic Syndrome). This is caused by an intolerance of Popes and an inability to properly digest Church documents. This in turn causes a deficiency in humility, inevitably resulting in the patient's self-imposed isolation and separation. Syptoms of this condition include paronoia and a irrational fear of anything written written after 1965. The sufferer may also have delusions of grandeur and believe that he is more knowledgable than the Pope and the Magisterium.

PS, I think 'Fatima for our time' may also suffer from this syndrome.
avatar
simple Faith

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:12 pm

I hope HACS is not contagious. Is it treatable?

That’s OK, simple Faith, George is just applying Cum ex and canon 188 to columba for appearing to have publicly defected from the faith for his rejection of the dogmatic Pastor Aeternus. Of course, columba will say that he does not deny it, but that’s what they all say. Canon law says we can makes judgments in the external forum without recourse to, or waiting for a formal judgment and condemnation by the Church. Yep, that’s what it says; just ask columba.

See, it’s easy, and anyone can play, and one does not even have to be familiar with the rest of the law which might place canon 188 into proper context. In other words, the authority for an authentic interpretation of the law is with those who say “the buck stops here”; as in “I reject the statements of the pope because, regardless of what Canon Law says, I am number one supreme in my conscience."

Yep.

Besides, columba can be joined to the Church by an implicit desire, so all hope is not lost; though fence sitting can be hazardous to one's health.
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  George Brenner on Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:32 pm


Fatima For Our Times,

I must have hit a nerve. When a good priest of the Fraternal order of St Peter and there have been many gets a phone call from Peter Dimond and Peter records him and posts it without his permission, that should be a clue to you that something is wrong. When Peter only uses the name Father once and goes on to call the priest by his first name, or says hey sir, or calls the Pope that Guy or constantly interrupts that should be a clue. When Peter tells the priests that you will not save your soul that should be a clue. These priests who celebrate the TLM, who are giving strong homilies, forgive sins in the name of Jesus, give last rites and bury the dead and give communion to those in kneeling position with reverence and are attacked by the likes of the Dimonds and do not even raise their voice, that should be a clue. The Church will be here long after the Dimonds implode and are just an obscure sub footnote in history. The real sadness is the influence they have on some gullible souls who live in these times and get caught in their web. The Dimonds are not doing the work of God.
Fatima for Our Times, you are correct on many of your thoughts on the reasons for the Crisis in the Church but you have abandoned the Ark of Salvation. You along with the Dimonds have passed judgement on past and present souls. That is not for you to say. I pray that you find peace and truth and I wish you inner tranquility.
In Charity, I will not give up on you. Please pray to The Holy Spirit for truth
avatar
George Brenner

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  columba on Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:41 pm

MRyan wrote:
Your logical fallacy rears its ugly head once again. Why would I reject the term “ipso facto” when I don’t; and when I agreed that AB Lefebvre received a latae sententiae “ipso facto” excommunication as soon as he committed his schismatic act?

Well then, you only prove what I said. If this happens ipso facto to a bishop then its a principle based on an "existing fact" regardless whether it be a bishop, cardinal or pope.
I take it your argument has more to do wih the impossibilty (as you believe) of a pope falling into heresy or being a heritic before his ellection as pope. The principle however holds good if it in fact be possible for a pope to become a heretic.

I also agree that public acts of outright heresy may be judged in the external form to be exactly that ... but I reject outright the claims of the sede's against the pope.

Then this is based on your own personal, subjective opinion. You could then at any time reverse this opinion if the evidence disagreed with it to your own satisfaction,

What I reject is the notion of a validly elected pope (lawfully elected and accepted by the Universal Church) who can wither away into obstinate and pertinacious (formal) heresy.

I already know this to be your opinion but it's not based on any "de fide" Church teaching, and the references you provide in support of your belief do not prove that a pope cannot fall into heresy.

I'll use just one of your supplied quote in order to keep this post shorter:

For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood.

… and 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: have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not; and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren.
"

Tell us, columba, what is it about these infallible dogmatic prescriptions that you do not understand?

I understand them completely. And I understand how the See of St Peter is protected from all blemish of error by the fact that a heritical pope would immediately fall from office at the instant of his heresy and thus would not be "Peter" at all. If this were not the case then the See of St Peter would not be protected frtom all blemish of error. The ipso facto excommunication is the guarantor of this.

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:
I had already given a "for the sake of argument" scenario. The cold-blooded murderer one, remember!

But "ipso facto" means a state of fact which already exixts without any determination having to be made. Can't you understand this?


I understand it perfectly and I reject the notion that the Pope can commit cold-blooded spiritual public murder by falling into public, obstinate and pertinacious heresy.

Can’t you understand this?

I understand it but I take it as your own private opinion with nothing in authoratative Church teaching to back the claim.

Next, you’ll be defining spiritual “public murder” as your fallacious “interpretation” of the CCC on the hope of salvation for unbaptized infants where the only ones who see a “defect from the faith” are a handful of Pharisaical doctrinal Neanderthals who wouldn’t recognize a theological distinction if it bit them in the rear end.

Whether a defection from the faith be there or not, the defection from the law of non-contradiction is there and everyone can see that. In Fact this is the very reason why we have a dispute on the matter in the first place.

Your abuse and evisceration of Cum ex and Canon 188 is nothing more than private interpretation gone amok to where any Catholic Crusader Holy Joe can claim an ipso facto removal from office of any pope in the entire history of the Church who appears to have deviated from the faith.

The principle still holds good whether or not the appearance of having deviated from the faith is present or not, that one who has deviated from the faith falls ipso facto from office and outside the Church. In most cases it could be presumed that because no official sentence of excommunication has been passed, the heresy of the offender (for whatever reason) has gone undetected by the heirarchy but the fact would still ramain, that in God's eyes, he is no longer pope and in the case of pre ellection heresy, never was pope.

You scoffed at the real time example of the sedevacantists who, with Cum ex and canon law in hand, dragged down Pope Leo XIII to anti-pope status for having fallen into heresy and to have suffered an ipso facto excommunication, when they are only taking your advice in reading divine and ecclesiastical law precisely as you state it; and acting upon it with all the alleged authority it gives every sede with an ax to grind against this or that pope who "appears to have deviated from the faith".

And you think you have any credibility in this matter when sedevacantists take the law into their own hands and determine who is and who is not a pope? What gives you any credibility or authority to tell them they are wrong because you don’t agree with their assessment of this or that pope? You open wide the barn door and then complain when other sedevacntists don’t behave themselves by following “mainstream” sede propaganda to the letter.

I don't tell anyone they are wrong and I'd like you to show me where I did so.
I myself am not a sede as I lack the competency to make a judgment concerning a pope, but I still don't rule out the fact that the sede's could be correct. In fact by the authority of Christ Himseklf I feel they are justified in taking the stand they do for He has warned us; "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." (Matt 7: 15-20)

MRtan wrote:

columba wrote:
The fact of the matter is; a pope could be reigning over the Church and accepted by all, to the last man, as a legitimate pope. However, in reality he would not be a legitimate pope if he had fallen ipso facto from office because of some hersey.

Who said so? Not the First Vatican Council.

And who said not? Not the first Vatican Council.

Even if one accepted your premise, which I don’t, you have failed to address my previous post on “Sedevacantism and the 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law” that clearly demonstrates that even the divine law, as with ecclesiastical law, requires the competency of ecclesiastical authorities to interpret the law and to authoritatively determine whether a certain person, and especially the pope, has actually “defected publicly from the Catholic faith”.

Sorry but I have addressed this and I agree "that even the divine law, as with ecclesiastical law, requires the competency of ecclesiastical authorities to interpret the law and to authoritatively determine whether a certain person, and especially the pope, has actually “defected publicly from the Catholic faith”.
But it doesn't change the fact that a pope who has fallen ipso facto from office needs wait upon the pronouncement from ecclesiastical authorities to confirm what already has taken place automatically.

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:
If the hersey be public then one could have reason to believe that he has, ipso facto, excommunicated himself without ever having received this sentence from Church authorities. Considering that no authority on earth has a God-given right to judge a pope, he could remain indeffinately in office but still not be a legitimate pope.

Nonsense; IF a manifest heretic occupied the Chair of Peter, the Church would have every right to depose him, for he would NOT be the pope. This would mean, of course, that sufficient warning and the opportunity for retraction were given, but IF the “pope” persisted in his public, obstinate and pertinacious heresy, he could be deposed as an anti-Pope. Again, I reject outright the notion of a formally heretical pope, but if you are going to press an argument, at least remain consistent and stop making it up as you go along.

Unfortunately in this particular crisis the copetent authorities aren't even competent enough to say who is, and who is not part of the Church, nor competeant enough to determine (even in the external and visible froum) who is, and who is not eligible to receive the Holy Eucharist. How then do you expect them to make any ruling regarding heresy committed by anyone never mind a pope. If the pope has fallen into heresy then the people in office below him are even more afflicted than he.
In the meantime their are those bishops and priests who have decided to rely on authoratative teachings given from the chiar of Peter throughout all time with the hope of holding the faith intact through this crisis, especially regarding the purity of the sacraments.

This sounds like the Tradition In Action “God has rejected His Vicar; He’s only waiting for the faithful to catch up publicly reject him” specious argument. Hey, in the pope judging business, have Cum ex, will travel ... anything goes.

Scoff Scoff... The fact that nobody has had a practice run to prepare themselves for this crisis means they'll just have to work with what they have been dealt.
There are four possible options: Either Stick with the NO and accept all its inovations both in liturgical practice and matters pertaining to faith itself and risk loosing your soul; stick with tradition and resist all the above while remaing subject to the pope as best one can; extract oneself completely from the NO structure and become a sedevacantist, or, abandon the faith altogether and become an atheist or something.

Take your pick Mike. Ive chosen option number two. Option 3 is still a possibilty but options 1 and four I've totally ruled out.

More Later..

avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  George Brenner on Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:04 pm

Columba said:
Scoff Scoff... The fact that nobody has had a practice run to prepare themselves for this crisis means they'll just have to work with what they have been dealt.
There are four possible options: Either Stick with the NO and accept all its inovations both in liturgical practice and matters pertaining to faith itself and risk loosing your soul; stick with tradition and resist all the above while remaing subject to the pope as best one can; extract oneself completely from the NO structure and become a sedevacantist, or, abandon the faith altogether and become an atheist or something.

Take your pick Mike. Ive chosen option number two. Option 3 is still a possibilty but options 1 and four I've totally ruled out.


Columba,

Your thoughts on changing a few words?
1. Stick with the NO, while not tolerating or accepting any innovations or abuse of the liturgy. ( then discuss specifically what that does mean )
2. Stick with the TLM until the all clear signal is given, subject to the Pope ( Discuss )
3. not an option/ just forget about it
4. that is just silly Billy Babel talk/ sorry off the list

For you surveys says #2 as long as you let the church explain church doctrine
avatar
George Brenner

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  columba on Tue Mar 13, 2012 6:10 pm

Wow!... A lot going on above that I missed while replying to Mike.

Fatima,

You shouldn't get angry with Mike, George and SF. I was once where I believe/suspect they are now, and all but lost my faith. Its not a nice place to be but thanks to St Louis de Montfort and his "True Devotion to Mary," I started praying the rosary each day in the way prescribed by that great saint, and the Blessed Virgin eventually took pity on me and pulled me out of the mire of false beliefs.
In fact I'm of the opinion that no one can save their soul in these times without praying the rosary and placing themselves under the protection of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Yes, they can attend Mass, pray the Divine Office, or perform any religious exercises they wish, but as the Blessed Virgin told the Children At Fatima, "God is giving two last remedies to the world. They are the Holy Rosary and devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary." and as Sr Lucia said, " These are the last two remedies which signify that there will be no others."

The way I see it, God has closed his ears to this apostate world of today and he will not listen to any plea that does not come via the intercession of His holy mother. If we pray the rosary then we still have a chance of saving our souls, if we don't, I for one can't see how we are to be saved in these times. If we do listen to Our Lad and do as she says, the first thing to go under the hammer will be human respect which as St John Bosco tells us, drags more souls to hell than any other vice save that of impurity.
Get enrolled in the brown Scapular of Our Lady of Mt Carmel, wear the Miraculous Medal and place an image of the Sacred Heart in a prominent place in your home, then expell the devil and all his blasphemous verbage from your home by throwing out your television. In so doing, the Blessed Virgin will see that your taking reverence for God and the salvation of your soul seriously and she will do the rest. And, If I (or you) say the Rosary faithfully until death, I am assured by the great St. louis de Montfort that, in spite of the gravity of my sins I shall receive a never-fading crown of glory.  Even if I am on the brink of damnation, even if I have one foot already in hell (as some here think I have), even if I have sold my soul to the devil as sorcerers do who practise black magic, and even if I am a heretic as obstinate as a devil, sooner or later I will be converted and will amend my life and save my soul, if-- and mark well what I say-- if I say the Holy Rosary devoutly every day until death for the purpose of knowing the truth and obtaining contrition and pardon for my sins."

No matter what state we think the Church may be in. there's nothing stoping any of us here from obeying the simple requests of Our Lady of Fatima nor taking the sound advice of St Louis de Montfort seriously. God always opens a way even when there is no way. Remeber the Red Sea?
And In case anyone should think that I'm presuming to preach, everything I said is no more than Our Lady and the saints have said.







avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Tue Mar 13, 2012 6:39 pm

columba wrote:In response to Mike's quote Jehanne wrote:


First of all, I agree with everything that you state in the above post and all of your citations and quotes.
The problem here Jehanne is that Mike himself doesn't agree with half the things he says in that post.
An example:

MRyan wrote:
Why would I do that? What is that supposed to prove … that Pope Benedict XVI “quotes favorably from those ‘exegetes’ who deny the historicity of St. Luke's account of our Lord's resurrection”. Are you implying heresy by association? Are you actually suggesting that Pope Benedict XVI has denied the historical and dogmatic fact of our Lord’s resurrection?

Prove it – for such a blatant heresy cannot stand, and we all know it; and we also know he doesn’t believe any such nonsense. Remember, columba is the same person who believes Cum ex is a binding teaching document of the supreme teaching office of the Pope, so excuse me if I don’t pay a lot of attention to his copy and paste inferences, especially from an easily misconstrued non-authoritative book of the pope.
You see Mike believes that Cum ex (because in most part deals in disciplinary matters) contains no doctrinal points of fact from which the disciplinary elements are based, but yet, when we do in fact have docuents that we are authoritively told contain no binding teachings bar those that have already been expressed in previous dogmatic Chucrh documents and are reflected in the said documents of VatII Council, he then changes positions and declares that these documents are in fact binding on all the faithful, even in their new understanding of which the previously understood meaning has been changed.

I know, its very confusing and almost defies expression through the medium of language but one can hold at least a conceptual meaning of this in ones mind.
And yet, your statement that “Mike believes that Cum ex (because in most part deals in disciplinary matters) contains no doctrinal points of fact from which the disciplinary elements are based” is a total falsehood; and it does not change or address the FACT that the Bull is a disciplinary declaration establishing, codifying and re-affirming the penalties and censures for defections, by clerics, from the faith.

Shall we say that because the ecclesiastical discipline that prohibited Christian burial for catechumens was based in part on the doctrine of formal membership, that the canonical prohibition was thus a binding act of the teaching magisterium of the Church?

Or, shall we say that the reformed ecclesiastical discipline that allows Christian burial for the catechumen was based in part on a complimentary doctrine that allows the Church, at her discretion, to presume that good-faith Catechumens are already united to the Church through faith, charity and intention; and thus, this discipline is also a binding act of the teaching magisterium of the Church?

The asnwer to both is - no.

The Church can reaffirm dogmas and doctrines in her canonical laws and legislative acts, but that does not render these same laws and acts as binding acts of the teaching Magisterium (the teachings already have requisite degrees of adherence); for her purpose in these acts is not to teach, but to legislate. However, none of her universal laws can be opposed to doctrine – period.

Furthermore, this is also false:

"he then changes positions and declares that these documents are in fact binding on all the faithful, even in their new understanding of which the previously understood meaning has been changed."

All you've done is what you always do, impose your own private interpretation to a dogmatic text with all of your "implied" dogmatic inferences, and then tell us that is how the Church has always understood the words which do not say what you allege.

I've demonstrated how you employ private "interpretation" time and again by demonstrating how the saints the theologians and the Church have always understood the dogma, and you just arrogantly snub your nose at these authorities while pitting one magisterium against another - a most heretical and explicitly condemned notion, indeed.

I've also demonstrated that you do NOT know the difference between an actual dogmatic definition, and an accompanying dogmatic explication.

As such, you have no business commenting on any of the Church's dogmatic definitions - for you do not even know what a dogmatic definition is.

columba wrote:And now, when a pope is actually holding office, we are told that he can put this office on hold and proclaim his own personal theolgical ideas, -even those that are in opposition to already known truths- via books he authors under his reassumed lay title and we are to take these writings as non-authoritative, while the whole Catholic world accepts them as being from the hand of the pope.
The pope can put his office “on hold” because he does not always exercise the various functions of his office?

Well, that’s why there is an office, so the Pope can exercise it when he acts as the Supreme Pastor of souls, the Supreme Teacher and/or the Supreme Legislator. And he can do so through the ordinary, the O&U, or the extraordinary Magisterium.

Despite all of your whining, you have yet to demonstrate that anything the pope has said as a private theologian is actually opposed to the faith. Even if it were, that does not mean that he holds it in a heretical sense. You want to complain about the Pope having the temerity to write books while telling us that he is not writing as Peter; fine, for it is true that there is no escaping the office, but we, as Catholics, should be smart enough to know the difference and to cut him some slack if he appears to say something in that “say what” category.

The pope is actually a gifted theologian, and probably knows Thomistic Scholasticism better than the Scholastics, even if he appears to prefer some of the more modern theological schools of thought. But he also knows his dogmas – and don’t ever think that you can get one over on him by getting into his mind. Just listen to what he has to say as Peter, which he is the solid majority of the time, and you’ll do fine.

columba wrote:If ever one had a way of disseminating contraversial and dangerous ideas with the best hope of them being accepted as true teachings, this is surely the way to go about it.
Do you realize Mike that when these books were being written the chair of Peter was vacant. The pope had (by his own admission) left his office for the duration of the book and was now Joseph Ratzinger. I do not remember him being re ellected as pope again. Dio you?
Say what?

You mean when the pope writes a private letter or goes on vacation to write his memoirs or some poetry as Joseph Ratzinger, the Chair is vacant?

It’s kind of hard for the Chair to be vacant when all of the authority of the Chair resides IN the person of Peter, don’t you think? He’s kinda stuck with it, but can choose to exercise it as his will and pleasure. Sorry, that’s just the way it is.

Gosh, columba, that’s one of the silliest things you ever said. I need to start writing these "columbaisms" down.

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Furthemore, it is certainly true that a pope may be “contradicted” who is found to have “deviated from the faith” for popes may err in their private capacity as doctor and theologian; and we know that popes have erred without ever having fallen into obstinate heresy.
Mike doesn't really believe this either for when anyone highlights a case of erronious teaching proceding from the mouth or pen of a pope (even in his private capacity), the accusations of schism and heresy immediately begin to fly and every attempt is made to conform the strange teaching to known doctrine, even if that entails the redefinition of standard theological terms.
Were your lips moving as you wrote this? Please demonstrate where I have ever accused anyone of accusing the pope of schism and heresy for simply criticizing anything he has written in one of his books.

You made the accusation, now back it up.

If anything, it is just the opposite with the rad-trads and sede’s accusing the pope of “heresy” for the very same writings. These are the very same retreaded rad-trads and sede’s who wouldn’t recognize a theological distinction or the given context of a particular passage if it bit them in the rear end.

Far from employing “redefinitions of standard theological terms” (about which you don’t seem to have a clue), I always place the burden on the mouthy accusers to put up or shut up - show me the heresy. All you can do is jabber and whine, without saying much of anything of any substance whatsoever.

columba wrote:My point being, that when we're all laboring under shifting definitions of what's meant by Church, Baptism, Necessity and many many more words that were once commonly undertstood as meaning one thing only and of which everyone had the same understanding, its little wonder that no meaningful dialougue can take place between one who holds the traditional meaning and one who holds the post concilliar meaning of any given word.
My point being that you are not equipped to understand theological terms to begin with, so all of your ranting against the teaching and legislative authority of the Church only makes you look foolish.

avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  columba on Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:20 pm

simple Faith wrote:George wrote,
My greatest fear for you is that you are a victim of exactly of what you claim to be fighting against. You have left the Catholic Church.

George,
Don't be too sore on Columba, it's not his fault, he is currently suffering from a condition known as HACS ('Home Alone' Catholic Syndrome). This is caused by an intolerance of Popes and an inability to properly digest Church documents. This in turn causes a deficiency in humility, inevitably resulting in the patient's self-imposed isolation and separation. Syptoms of this condition include paronoia and a irrational fear of anything written written after 1965. The sufferer may also have delusions of grandeur and believe that he is more knowledgable than the Pope and the Magisterium.

PS, I think 'Fatima for our time' may also suffer from this syndrome.


HACS also stands for "Holding Anti Catholic Suppositions"

From Wikipedia:
HACS (Holding Anti Catholic Suppositions) is considered to be a disease of the mind or a malfuntion in the intellect. The sufferer loses some or all ability (depending on the severity of the condition) to differentiate between reality and fantazy, permitting the patient to hold two mutually contradictory beliefs, simultaneously in the mind without experiencing any mental discomfort.
This condition was once rare (afflicting less than 0.1% of the total population) but since around 1945, reported cases of the disorder have steadly increased until the present day where there is an estimated 90% of the population infected, making it the most prolific epidemic ever known in human history. All nationalities and socilal classes can become victims of HACS but surprisingly, the most infected members of society seem to be from the intelligentsia, theoligical and philosophical classes, while the poorer and working class members of society are considered less susceptible wih a more likely chance of making a full recovery.


OK.. I didn't really find this on wikipedia but I'm thinking it should be there. Smile

SF... Your lucky I have lentin resolutions to keep, but after Easter Sunday the gloves are comming off..



avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 10 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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