Latest topics
» Rethink "Feeneyism"?
Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:34 pm by MRyan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Arguments against sedevacantism

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  Guest on Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:55 am

A basic premise of the Sedevacantists is that a Pope, when he becomes a heretic, losing his office.  Thus he loses his authority to make official and binding pronouncements.  Rather than argue against this, and it can be refuted or at least attacked, let me assume it to be true, for argument's sake, and continue.

Here is my premise.  What necessarily leads to nonsense or evil MUST be nonsense or evil in itself.  Thus, if this position of the Sedevacantists does this, then it MUST be wrong.

I take it as a given that we do NOT know EVERYTHING about earlier popes.  That is, not everything was recorded, and some things were were recorded incorrectly, and some were lost.  I am referring to personal actions, namely sins.  Therefore it is quite possible that some popes in the past were heretics, but we would not know for certain.  And thus, according to the Sedes, they lost their office and authority.  As we do not know when---or even if---this may have happened the following follows.  EVERY Papal decree, including the ones the Sedes use to support their position, may, or may not, be valid.  The same applies to bishops and other sources.  It is possible that every Pope was a heretic.  Can they prove otherwise?  They would need to document every action and thought of every one of them.  This is an impossible task.

Catholicism can NOT be based upon doctrines which may, or may not, be true.  Doctrinal statements are not things which have, at their very core, a profound and insoluble doubt.  Our doctrinal statements must be accepted as true and valid, or we all become Prots.  Yet this is precisely what the sedevacantist position leads to.  As it leads to nonsense, and destroys the Faith, it thus must be rejected as false.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  Guest on Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:01 am

RashaLampa wrote:A basic premise of the Sedevacantists is that a Pope, when he becomes a heretic, losing his office.  Thus he loses his authority to make official and binding pronouncements.  Rather than argue against this, and it can be refuted or at least attacked, let me assume it to be true, for argument's sake, and continue.

Here is my premise.  What necessarily leads to nonsense or evil MUST be nonsense or evil in itself.  Thus, if this position of the Sedevacantists does this, then it MUST be wrong.

I take it as a given that we do NOT know EVERYTHING about earlier popes.  That is, not everything was recorded, and some things were were recorded incorrectly, and some were lost.  I am referring to personal actions, namely sins.  Therefore it is quite possible that some popes in the past were heretics, but we would not know for certain.  And thus, according to the Sedes, they lost their office and authority.  As we do not know when---or even if---this may have happened the following follows.  EVERY Papal decree, including the ones the Sedes use to support their position, may, or may not, be valid.  The same applies to bishops and other sources.  It is possible that every Pope was a heretic.  Can they prove otherwise?  They would need to document every action and thought of every one of them.  This is an impossible task.

Catholicism can NOT be based upon doctrines which may, or may not, be true.  Doctrinal statements are not things which have, at their very core, a profound and insoluble doubt.  Our doctrinal statements must be accepted as true and valid, or we all become Prots.  Yet this is precisely what the sedevacantist position leads to.  As it leads to nonsense, and destroys the Faith, it thus must be rejected as false.

Well said :!:

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  MRyan on Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:53 pm

RashaLampa wrote:A basic premise of the Sedevacantists is that a Pope, when he becomes a heretic, losing his office.  Thus he loses his authority to make official and binding pronouncements.  Rather than argue against this, and it can be refuted or at least attacked, let me assume it to be true, for argument's sake, and continue.

Here is my premise.  What necessarily leads to nonsense or evil MUST be nonsense or evil in itself.  Thus, if this position of the Sedevacantists does this, then it MUST be wrong.

I take it as a given that we do NOT know EVERYTHING about earlier popes.  That is, not everything was recorded, and some things were were recorded incorrectly, and some were lost.  I am referring to personal actions, namely sins.  Therefore it is quite possible that some popes in the past were heretics, but we would not know for certain.  And thus, according to the Sedes, they lost their office and authority.  As we do not know when---or even if---this may have happened the following follows.  EVERY Papal decree, including the ones the Sedes use to support their position, may, or may not, be valid.  The same applies to bishops and other sources.  It is possible that every Pope was a heretic.  Can they prove otherwise?  They would need to document every action and thought of every one of them.  This is an impossible task.

Actually, Rasha, I think you’re missing an important piece. Personal sins are not necessarily heretical, and “occult” or secret heresy does not a true heresy, or a heretic, make. The heresy must be public, and it must be pertinacious, or it is not heresy, properly speaking. We do not judge the secrets of the heart, but only the external acts. Canonists and theologians are pretty consistent here - and sede’s can site canon law and theologians all day long in support of this; even if Sede’s are wrong in their conclusions.

RashaLampa wrote:Catholicism can NOT be based upon doctrines which may, or may not, be true.  Doctrinal statements are not things which have, at their very core, a profound and insoluble doubt.  Our doctrinal statements must be accepted as true and valid, or we all become Prots.  Yet this is precisely what the sedevacantist position leads to.  As it leads to nonsense, and destroys the Faith, it thus must be rejected as false.

Agreed
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  Guest on Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:14 am

MRyan wrote:
Actually, Rasha, I think you’re missing an important piece. Personal sins are not necessarily heretical, and “occult” or secret heresy does not a true heresy, or a heretic, make. The heresy must be public, and it must be pertinacious, or it is not heresy, properly speaking. We do not judge the secrets of the heart, but only the external acts. Canonists and theologians are pretty consistent here - and sede’s can site canon law and theologians all day long in support of this; even if Sede’s are wrong in their conclusions.

Yes but in previous times we did not have such good communication. I mean there were Catholic Churches in South America after 1492. If the Pope in Rome said something heretical to a group of people, would they necessarily hear about it? They might hear about it after he was dead. They didn't have Youtube back then.

It comes down to how do you define "manifest"? How many people need to hear it for it to be manifest? Can just the Papal household hear it? Can just people in one city hear it?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  Catholic_Truth on Sun Dec 19, 2010 3:38 am

MRyan wrote:Actually, Rasha, I think you’re missing an important piece. Personal sins are not necessarily heretical, and “occult” or secret heresy does not a true heresy, or a heretic, make. The heresy must be public, and it must be pertinacious, or it is not heresy, properly speaking. We do not judge the secrets of the heart, but only the external acts. Canonists and theologians are pretty consistent here - and sede’s can site canon law and theologians all day long in support of this; even if Sede’s are wrong in their conclusions.

MRyan, I'm not a sede-vacantist. I make no judgement on whether the papal claimants since 1958 are true Popes or false Popes. There is no place in Catholic teaching where it says I must judge others in order to be a Catholic in good standing. So I choose not to judge anyone. However, the sede-vacantists do make a very good case for their position.

MRyan, can you elaborate on your comment about "Sede's being wrong in their conclusions".
avatar
Catholic_Truth

Posts : 115
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2010-12-19
Location : Louisiana

http://www.PaltalkExpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  Guest on Sun Dec 19, 2010 7:59 am

The question though is if it is permitted to remain undecided on such a fundamental question especially considering the fact that there has been no trial into heresy even initiated. I mean the Pope is making acts of legislation all the time which we must submit to.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  Guest on Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:04 am

RashaLampa wrote:The question though is if it is permitted to remain undecided on such a fundamental question especially considering the fact that there has been no trial into heresy even initiated. I mean the Pope is making acts of legislation all the time which we must submit to.

MRyan made a good point. And Rasha did too. There needs to be a manifestation and obstinacy. But I think when we are dealing with official authorities in the Church we need to have the Church deal with it officially. Otherwise everyone then becomes a pope excommunicating this priest and that bishop (similar to the Hussite movement but Hus said that a priest can't celebrate the sacrament in mortal sin, a little different than heresy, but the results are similar as sedes--confusion). Manifestation and obstinacy in the case of priests and bishops must be measured by the Church officially.:


Pope Eugene IV, Council of Basel, Sess. 20, Jan. 22, 1435

[Excommunicates are not to be shunned unless specifically named]

To avoid scandals and many dangers and to relieve timorous consciences, this holy synod decrees that henceforth nobody shall be obliged to abstain from communion with anyone in the administration and reception of sacraments or in any other sacred or profane matters, or to shun someone or to observe an ecclesiastical interdict, on the ground of any ecclesiastical sentence, censure, suspension or prohibition that has been promulgated in general by a person or by the law, unless the sentence, prohibition, suspension or censure was specifically or expressly promulgated or pronounced by a judge against a specified person, college, university, church or place, or if it is clear that someone has incurred a sentence of excommunication with such notoriety that it cannot be concealed or in any way excused in law. For the synod wishes such persons to be avoided in accordance with canonical sanctions. By this, however, it does not intend any relief or favour to those so excommunicated, suspended, interdicted or prohibited.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/Florence.htm#14
I think this is clear that we can't be sure a priest, Bishop or Pope is a heretic until he is confronted and is able to show if he is obstinate or not. I think there is a right to the person to at least defend themselves against such accusations especial those ruling the Church. This being in an infallible council it is above anything a sede can quote. All other statements must be seen in light of this, no?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  MRyan on Sun Dec 19, 2010 3:48 pm

Catholic_Truth wrote:
MRyan wrote:Actually, Rasha, I think you’re missing an important piece. Personal sins are not necessarily heretical, and “occult” or secret heresy does not a true heresy, or a heretic, make. The heresy must be public, and it must be pertinacious, or it is not heresy, properly speaking. We do not judge the secrets of the heart, but only the external acts. Canonists and theologians are pretty consistent here - and sede’s can site canon law and theologians all day long in support of this; even if Sede’s are wrong in their conclusions.

MRyan, I'm not a sede-vacantist. I make no judgement on whether the papal claimants since 1958 are true Popes or false Popes. There is no place in Catholic teaching where it says I must judge others in order to be a Catholic in good standing. So I choose not to judge anyone. However, the sede-vacantists do make a very good case for their position.

MRyan, can you elaborate on your comment about "Sede's being wrong in their conclusions".

You do not have to “judge” the pope, but you do have to recognize that we have a visible and valid pope (Christ's true Vicar). Why?

Because the whole multitude of believers is held together in the unity of faith and communion, and because our Lord set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities [of FAITH and communion] and their visible foundation, and because no one can be in doubt that the holy and most blessed Peter, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See ….

In other words, whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received. And, In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith, the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd. And finally, This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

That was taken directly from Pastor Aeternus, Session Four, First dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ (VCI).

That sounds like a pretty good reason to me why “no one can doubt” any of the above.

Do you profess the same faith as Peter? Does Peter profess the Catholic Faith? If you can’t answer that question, you have already “judged”.

Or at least it seems to me.

Can I elaborate on "Sede's being wrong in their conclusions"?

I think I just did; but, let me add that the typical so-called “proofs” of manifest heresies and acts of apostasy are no “proofs” at all; at least none that would justify making such a reckless private judgment against the Vicar of Christ.

Furthermore, the sede’s have left us without Peter; without a visible Episcopacy; without, or questionable, Orders; without, or questionable, Sacraments; and without, or questionable, Jurisdiction. As Pope Pius XII declared:

41. They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it. (Mystici Corporis Christi)

That describes the world of the sedevacantist to a T. And as far as the sedevacantists making “a very good case for their position”; well, I suppose so, if one’s position is more closely aligned with Old Catholics than with the true faith.

Our Lord did no leave us orphans, and the foundation and visible bonds of unity are still with us, and shall not fail or be broken.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  MRyan on Sun Dec 19, 2010 6:23 pm

duckbill wrote:
RashaLampa wrote:The question though is if it is permitted to remain undecided on such a fundamental question especially considering the fact that there has been no trial into heresy even initiated. I mean the Pope is making acts of legislation all the time which we must submit to.

MRyan made a good point. And Rasha did too. There needs to be a manifestation and obstinacy. But I think when we are dealing with official authorities in the Church we need to have the Church deal with it officially. Otherwise everyone then becomes a pope excommunicating this priest and that bishop (similar to the Hussite movement but Hus said that a priest can't celebrate the sacrament in mortal sin, a little different than heresy, but the results are similar as sedes--confusion). Manifestation and obstinacy in the case of priests and bishops must be measured by the Church officially.:


Pope Eugene IV, Council of Basel, Sess. 20, Jan. 22, 1435

[Excommunicates are not to be shunned unless specifically named]

To avoid scandals and many dangers and to relieve timorous consciences, this holy synod decrees that henceforth nobody shall be obliged to abstain from communion with anyone in the administration and reception of sacraments or in any other sacred or profane matters, or to shun someone or to observe an ecclesiastical interdict, on the ground of any ecclesiastical sentence, censure, suspension or prohibition that has been promulgated in general by a person or by the law,unless the sentence, prohibition, suspension or censure was specifically or expressly promulgated or pronounced by a judge against a specified person, college, university, church or place, or if it is clear that someone has incurred a sentence of excommunication with such notoriety that it cannot be concealed or in any way excused in law. For the synod wishes such persons to be avoided in accordance with canonical sanctions. By this, however, it does not intend any relief or favour to those so excommunicated, suspended, interdicted or prohibited.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/Florence.htm#14
I think this is clear that we can't be sure a priest, Bishop or Pope is a heretic until he is confronted and is able to show if he is obstinate or not. I think there is a right to the person to at least defend themselves against such accusations especial those ruling the Church. This being in an infallible council it is above anything a sede can quote. All other statements must be seen in light of this, no?

Duckbill, Yes, but notice where I changed the emphasis - precisely where the sede places it. The actual evidence is circumstantial, and the interpretation of "the law" is flawed, but that won't stop them from deposing the visible pope(s). 52 years and counting - oh my.


Last edited by MRyan on Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:21 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  columba on Mon Dec 20, 2010 12:02 pm

TIA seem to have a half-baked type sedevacantism or is it really sedevacantism in disguise?

I found this reply to a question posted on their site which outlines the position TIA holds on recent conciliar popes.
What are your thoughts on this position, anyone?

http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/F037_ValidPope.html
avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  Catholic_Truth on Mon Dec 20, 2010 12:25 pm

Here are a few questions for all persons who are definitely against sede-vacantism.

If your local Bishop began practicing Voodoo and teaching Voodoo, then would you immedietaly recognize that Voodoo promulgator as no longer holding any office within the Church and having any authority over your diocese or would you wait for the Church to officially declare him as being a heretic even if that declaration doesn't seem to be taking place anytime within your lifetime?

Would you still be obedient to that Voodoo practicing individual ?

If your answer is that you would reject that Voodoo individual as being a true Bishop holding office WITHIN THE CHURCH, then why would you not also apply this same logic to the "Papal Office" ?
avatar
Catholic_Truth

Posts : 115
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2010-12-19
Location : Louisiana

http://www.PaltalkExpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  MRyan on Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:00 pm

columba wrote:TIA seem to have a half-baked type sedevacantism or is it really sedevacantism in disguise?

I found this reply to a question posted on their site which outlines the position TIA holds on recent conciliar popes.
What are your thoughts on this position, anyone?

http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/F037_ValidPope.html
Excerpts from the TIA link (bolding mine):

Given that all the Conciliar Popes have stood behind the heresy of universal salvation - that a man can be saved in any religion - we believe that those Popes may be – and most probably are – heretics, and therefore, illegitimate Popes. But they still remain valid authorities of the Church until a new Pope will declare their heresy, or until the ensemble of the faithful will make their authority lose its effectiveness

Summarizing our position:
When a Pope becomes a pertinacious heretic, God knows it. Therefore, he loses the pontificate before God. He becomes an illegitimate Pope.

• However, given that he has all the appearances of a Pope – duly elected by a College of Cardinals, followed by a hierarchy of Bishops, and accepted by the Church as such – he is still a valid or a de facto Pope. To stop being a valid Pope, a considerable part of the members of this visible society called the Catholic Church should resist his authority and make it inefficacious.
Of course, the old “half-a-pope” is better than “no pope” theory. I mean, there must be someone who can stand-in for Christ as His visible Vicar on earth and provide for the rule, governance and sanctification of the universal faithful - so it might as well be a notorious “illegitimate” and pertinacious heretic who has lost the Catholic faith and “who loses the pontificate before God”, but not before men - not until the faithful form a universal moral consensus of condemnation and remove him from office by declaring “we have no pope”!

Let’s begin with the lie that “all the Conciliar Popes have stood behind the heresy of universal salvation - that a man can be saved in any religion”. Once the lie (inspired by the father of lies), takes root and spreads, one must then come up with a theory on how one can depose the pope, whether through loss of office due to a) heresy, or b), to claim he was never the pope to begin with (due, once again, to heresy).

Alternatively, as we see with TIA, in order to nod in the general direction of his portrait and feign some sort of “communion” with the Roman Pontiff and “submission” to his authority (at least in theory), one must effectively reject His universal Primacy over the Catholic Church. This includes a rejection of his acts of power and authority in “confirming” his brethren in the faith; as well as a rejection of his universal Apostolic Primacy of Jurisdiction over the rites and disciplines of the Church; for example, by simply rejecting his authority over the Mass by saying he had no authority to promulgate the Novus Ordo.

This is what TIA appears to mean in their call to “resist his authority and make it inefficacious.” If enough Catholics would join them, the pope’s validity would no longer be just de facto (we have a cardboard cutout we feign communion with, but refuse to be subject to), it would also become de jure (God says, “OK, the game is up, the faithful have finally confirmed My rejection of My false Vicar’s pontificate - and about time, too!”).

Remember, these are the same popes who were “duly elected by a College of Cardinals, followed by a hierarchy of Bishops, and accepted by the Church as such”.

What TIA is saying, as it appears to me, is that the so-called “pertinacious heresy” of the conciliar popes has led to their rejection by God Himself, Who “in order to render permanent the saving work of redemption .. [and] In order, then, 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] Upon the strength of this foundation was to be built the eternal temple…”

The TIA attack, however unwittingly, represents the work of the father of lies, or, as VCI continues: “the gates of hell trying, if they can, to overthrow the Church, [and] make their assault with a hatred that increases day by day against its divinely laid foundation.” (VCI, Session Four, First dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ)

OK, I've said enough; but, does anyone really buy this TIA nonsense?



Last edited by MRyan on Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:28 pm; edited 2 times in total
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  MRyan on Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:16 pm

Catholic_Truth wrote:Here are a few questions for all persons who are definitely against sede-vacantism.

If your local Bishop began practicing Voodoo and teaching Voodoo, then would you immedietaly recognize that Voodoo promulgator as no longer holding any office within the Church and having any authority over your diocese or would you wait for the Church to officially declare him as being a heretic even if that declaration doesn't seem to be taking place anytime within your lifetime?

Would you still be obedient to that Voodoo practicing individual ?

If your answer is that you would reject that Voodoo individual as being a true Bishop holding office WITHIN THE CHURCH, then why would you not also apply this same logic to the "Papal Office" ?

One would first have to be morally certain that the Bishop was in fact “practicing Voodoo”. I know for a fact that JPII (or any of the conciliar popes) did not “practice Voodoo”, so why the non-sequitur?

Before we end up with a litany of alleged papal heresies and acts of apostasy, can you address my post above where I responded to your post, which began: “I'm not a sede-vacantist. I make no judgement on whether the papal claimants since 1958 are true Popes or false Popes.”

Thank you.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  Guest on Mon Dec 20, 2010 3:05 pm

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Basel, Sess. 20, Jan. 22, 1435
[Excommunicates are not to be shunned unless specifically named]

To avoid scandals and many dangers and to relieve timorous consciences, this holy synod decrees that henceforth nobody shall be obliged to abstain from communion with anyone in the administration and reception of sacraments or in any other sacred or profane matters, or to shun someone or to observe an ecclesiastical interdict, on the ground of any ecclesiastical sentence, censure, suspension or prohibition that has been promulgated in general by a person or by the law,unless the sentence, prohibition, suspension or censure was specifically or expressly promulgated or pronounced by a judge against a specified person, college, university, church or place, or if it is clear that someone has incurred a sentence of excommunication with such notoriety that it cannot be concealed or in any way excused in law. For the synod wishes such persons to be avoided in accordance with canonical sanctions. By this, however, it does not intend any relief or favour to those so excommunicated, suspended, interdicted or prohibited.http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/Florence.htm#14

MRyan, that is what I would expect from them but to take that responsibility on themselves is not in the reading, from what I see.

1. first point, one is not to worry about the reception of the sacraments or dealings with those involved in general cases, but only if there is specific mention of person, place etc...

2. The part you said would be emphasized by sedes seems to still be pointing to a sentence (implied some official ruling) by a judge--"in any way excused by law". It doesn't say "incurred an automatic sentence of excommunication." If that was the intention then it would negate the meaning of the first part of being careful only when directed, thus not making sense of the whole quote. There needs to be a ruling.

Sedes are in a similar situation as Luther created, that anyone is capable of correctly interpreting scripture; they are saying that all are capable of de-throning legitimate office holders, by accusing them of heresy, without due justice of retraction or clarification.
There are sedes who have de-throned Pius XII and other popes. Again who is the judge? It always has to go through official sources, just like scripture, otherwise it is chaos. I think that was Rasha's original point.


Plus the Church has always taught that a person has a right to their good name and the long established principle "innocent till proven guilty"--(Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. The burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies.)
Until the suspect is confronted with the charges it remains in the alleged sphere. This is the reason there have been hearings of alleged heretics, so they can affirm, deny or defend.
Recently the Dimond brothers were accused on CNN of crimes, as they often accuse the Pope of crimes. Do they have a right to clarify what their intention and meaning was? I would say yes.
While the Pope's actions and words have caused confusion, until he is confronted with the possibility to clarify what is supposed being heretical, we presume his innocence.


Last edited by duckbill on Mon Dec 20, 2010 3:35 pm; edited 2 times in total

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  Guest on Mon Dec 20, 2010 3:07 pm

MRyan wrote:
Catholic_Truth wrote:Here are a few questions for all persons who are definitely against sede-vacantism.

If your local Bishop began practicing Voodoo and teaching Voodoo, then would you immedietaly recognize that Voodoo promulgator as no longer holding any office within the Church and having any authority over your diocese or would you wait for the Church to officially declare him as being a heretic even if that declaration doesn't seem to be taking place anytime within your lifetime?

Would you still be obedient to that Voodoo practicing individual ?

If your answer is that you would reject that Voodoo individual as being a true Bishop holding office WITHIN THE CHURCH, then why would you not also apply this same logic to the "Papal Office" ?

One would first have to be morally certain that the Bishop was in fact “practicing Voodoo”. I know for a fact that JPII (or any of the conciliar popes) did not “practice Voodoo”, so why the non-sequitur?

Before we end up with a litany of alleged papal heresies and acts of apostasy, can you address my post above where I responded to your post, which began: “I'm not a sede-vacantist. I make no judgement on whether the papal claimants since 1958 are true Popes or false Popes.”

Thank you.

LoL that is what I was going to say or as you see I have said (above) but not in response to the Voodoo or better yet "alleged voodoo"

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  Catholic_Truth on Mon Dec 20, 2010 3:43 pm

MRyan wrote:typical so-called “proofs” of manifest heresies and acts of apostasy are no “proofs” at all; at least none that would justify making such a reckless private judgment against the Vicar of Christ.

MRyan, so I guess one needs a formal declaration from the Church to know that Jim Jones, Benny Hinn, Jimmy Swaggert and Paula White are all heretics? Plus you already have made the determination that Ratzinger has succeeded to the Papal office and is the "Vicar of Christ", but can a manifest public heretic who rejects traditional Catholic teaching validly be elected to that office? In other words, can a non-Catholic be elected as head of the Catholic Church?

Have you ever even read any of Ratzinger's statements before he was elected? You would be shocked by some of what he said.

Can someone who rejects the dogmatic teaching of the Church on EENS be a Pope, much less a Catholic at all?

Can any individual who rejects even just one dogma of the Church still be considered a member of the Church?
avatar
Catholic_Truth

Posts : 115
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2010-12-19
Location : Louisiana

http://www.PaltalkExpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  Guest on Mon Dec 20, 2010 4:35 pm

Catholic_Truth wrote:
MRyan wrote:typical so-called “proofs” of manifest heresies and acts of apostasy are no “proofs” at all; at least none that would justify making such a reckless private judgment against the Vicar of Christ.

MRyan, so I guess one needs a formal declaration from the Church to know that Jim Jones, Benny Hinn, Jimmy Swaggert and Paula White are all heretics? Plus you already have made the determination that Ratzinger has succeeded to the Papal office and is the "Vicar of Christ", but can a manifest public heretic who rejects traditional Catholic teaching validly be elected to that office? In other words, can a non-Catholic be elected as head of the Catholic Church?

Have you ever even read any of Ratzinger's statements before he was elected? You would be shocked by some of what he said.

Can someone who rejects the dogmatic teaching of the Church on EENS be a Pope, much less a Catholic at all?

Can any individual who rejects even just one dogma of the Church still be considered a member of the Church?

I think you may be jumping the gun a little. Jim Jones and others you mention publicly say they are NOT Catholic so there is no need to prove anything. But when you accuse persons who say they are Catholic, so you're in another sphere of proceedings.
Unfortunately the Church has let us down by not being more diligent in enforcing due respect for tradition and proper, theology, but a sentence of heresy is a grave matter that needs competent judges.

By the Church not being diligent enough, in this matter of expelling those who are in error, it has had the unfortunate/fortunate result of the laity needing to study their Faith and make many personal judgment calls on which priest to believe, and which not, based on Church teaching, as far as they know it. I say it is unfortunate because this is not the normal role of the laity and they shouldn't need to do it; I say fortunate because I think we have some of the best theologically trained laity in the history of the Church, forced by necessity.
While the laity are free to make prudential judgments to a certain degree on what spirituality is best to follow within the Church, nevertheless, the sentencing of heresy and losing the office of bishop or Pope needs to be done officially as stated above, or otherwise we have chaos.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  MRyan on Mon Dec 20, 2010 4:44 pm

Catholic_Truth wrote:
MRyan wrote:typical so-called “proofs” of manifest heresies and acts of apostasy are no “proofs” at all; at least none that would justify making such a reckless private judgment against the Vicar of Christ.
MRyan, so I guess one needs a formal declaration from the Church to know that Jim Jones, Benny Hinn, Jimmy Swaggert and Paula White are all heretics?
Not at all; did I ever say that one needs a formal declaration from the Church to know that so and so is a heretic? Nope.

Catholic_Truth wrote: Plus you already have made the determination that Ratzinger has succeeded to the Papal office and is the "Vicar of Christ", but can a manifest public heretic who rejects traditional Catholic teaching validly be elected to that office?
Actually, I did not make this determination by my lonesome … the Catholic Church did when Pope BXVI was universally accepted as Christ’s true Vicar. The rag-tag group of sede’s who object to that premise are not included in the “moral certainty” that make up this universal acclamation. In other words, our Lord accepts what the Church accepts - we have a Pope! And as soon as his election is confirmed, all powers of Apostolic Primacy are conferred IN Peter, and there is no power on earth that can take those powers away - not even a future pope (let alone individual sede’s).

As VCI declared, “we can have no doubt …”. Why do you have doubts? Actually, I do understand your doubts ... many of us have had similar doubts; and I am not denying the “diabolical disorientation” or the “devastated vineyard” in which we find ourselves in this vale of tears. But I think its time we put those doubts aside and trust in the Lord -- and trust that He will not allow His Church to fail, and He will not allow His Vicar to apostatize of fall from the divine and catholic faith. Again, our Lord instituted IN Peter the permanent principle of the unities of faith and communion, and upon the visible strength of THIS foundation was to be built the eternal temple.

Where there is Peter, there is the Church.

Catholic_Truth wrote: In other words, can a non-Catholic be elected as head of the Catholic Church?
No; at least not for long; the illegitimacy of his election would be revealed before his universal acceptance (even before the announcement of his acceptance); besides, the Holy Ghost would not allow a false pope to rule over His Church. Not gonna happen.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  Catholic_Truth on Mon Dec 20, 2010 8:08 pm

Ok Duckbill, so John Kerry, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi claim to be "Catholic" even though they are pro-abortion and push for pro-abortion laws. So do you need a formal declaration from the Church to know that these pro-aborion politicians are heretics and that they are not really Catholic at all?

Does not the Catholic Church teach that a Catholic ex-communicates themselves from the Church ipso facto(automatically) if that person rejects even just one Dogmatic teaching of the Church ?


Last edited by Catholic_Truth on Mon Dec 20, 2010 8:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Catholic_Truth

Posts : 115
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2010-12-19
Location : Louisiana

http://www.PaltalkExpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  Catholic_Truth on Mon Dec 20, 2010 8:22 pm

MRyan wrote:
Catholic_Truth wrote:
MRyan wrote:typical so-called “proofs” of manifest heresies and acts of apostasy are no “proofs” at all; at least none that would justify making such a reckless private judgment against the Vicar of Christ.
MRyan, so I guess one needs a formal declaration from the Church to know that Jim Jones, Benny Hinn, Jimmy Swaggert and Paula White are all heretics?
Not at all; did I ever say that one needs a formal declaration from the Church to know that so and so is a heretic? Nope.

So would you agree that Paula White who preaches against the Holy Trinity doctrine is a heretic ?
avatar
Catholic_Truth

Posts : 115
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2010-12-19
Location : Louisiana

http://www.PaltalkExpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  Guest on Tue Dec 21, 2010 10:14 am

Catholic_Truth wrote:Ok Duckbill, so John Kerry, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi claim to be "Catholic" even though they are pro-abortion and push for pro-abortion laws. So do you need a formal declaration from the Church to know that these pro-aborion politicians are heretics and that they are not really Catholic at all?

Does not the Catholic Church teach that a Catholic ex-communicates themselves from the Church ipso facto(automatically) if that person rejects even just one Dogmatic teaching of the Church ?

Firstly they hold no office in the Church and they can't lose their political authority for moral sin/heresy.
They are Catholics until I hear otherwise. I think they are gravely sinning but that is the office of bishop to excommunicate them publicly. They still deserve a hearing before the Church and the Church should bounce them out. But the Church has not always been so good doing things like this, through out history.

If you accept the Dimonds stance, then by your thinking, Pius XII lost his office with the Letter to Boston. PLus he advocated publicly BoD. Did Pius XII cease to be pope?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  MRyan on Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:08 pm

Catholic_Truth wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Catholic_Truth wrote:
MRyan wrote:typical so-called “proofs” of manifest heresies and acts of apostasy are no “proofs” at all; at least none that would justify making such a reckless private judgment against the Vicar of Christ.
MRyan, so I guess one needs a formal declaration from the Church to know that Jim Jones, Benny Hinn, Jimmy Swaggert and Paula White are all heretics?
Not at all; did I ever say that one needs a formal declaration from the Church to know that so and so is a heretic? Nope.

So would you agree that Paula White who preaches against the Holy Trinity doctrine is a heretic ?

Who is Paula White and what exactly did she say, and what is the context in which she said it? I don't get out much.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  Catholic_Truth on Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:23 am

duckbill wrote:
Catholic_Truth wrote:Ok Duckbill, so John Kerry, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi claim to be "Catholic" even though they are pro-abortion and push for pro-abortion laws. So do you need a formal declaration from the Church to know that these pro-aborion politicians are heretics and that they are not really Catholic at all?

Does not the Catholic Church teach that a Catholic ex-communicates themselves from the Church ipso facto(automatically) if that person rejects even just one Dogmatic teaching of the Church ?


They are Catholics until I hear otherwise. I think they are gravely sinning but that is the office of bishop to excommunicate them publicly. They still deserve a hearing before the Church and the Church should bounce them out.

Actually you are incorrect Duckbill. A manifest public heretic such as John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi automatically ex-communicates themselves from the Church without any formal declaration from the Bishop and/or Pope. Catholic teaching says that they don't need any Church authority to deem them as being ex-communicated, but instead they are to be seen as having already been ex-comminicated because they publicly reject Catholic teaching.

Therefore how can you as a Catholic claim that John Kerry is a Catholic in one faith and one union with you in the faith, when John Kerry doesn't believe as you do ?

Are we now to believe that the Church is no longer comprised of "LIKE" believers who all hold to the same Catholic faith, but instead any so called individual can believe anything they want just as long as they call themselves "catholic", then they are Catholic ??!!??!!??
avatar
Catholic_Truth

Posts : 115
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2010-12-19
Location : Louisiana

http://www.PaltalkExpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  Guest on Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:40 am

Catholic_Truth wrote:
duckbill wrote:
Catholic_Truth wrote:Ok Duckbill, so John Kerry, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi claim to be "Catholic" even though they are pro-abortion and push for pro-abortion laws. So do you need a formal declaration from the Church to know that these pro-aborion politicians are heretics and that they are not really Catholic at all?

Does not the Catholic Church teach that a Catholic ex-communicates themselves from the Church ipso facto(automatically) if that person rejects even just one Dogmatic teaching of the Church ?


They are Catholics until I hear otherwise. I think they are gravely sinning but that is the office of bishop to excommunicate them publicly. They still deserve a hearing before the Church and the Church should bounce them out.

Actually you are incorrect Duckbill. A manifest public heretic such as John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi automatically ex-communicates themselves from the Church without any formal declaration from the Bishop and/or Pope. Catholic teaching says that they don't need any Church authority to deem them as being ex-communicated, but instead they are to be seen as having already been ex-comminicated because they publicly reject Catholic teaching.

Therefore how can you as a Catholic claim that John Kerry is a Catholic in one faith and one union with you in the faith, when John Kerry doesn't believe as you do ?

Are we now to believe that the Church is no longer comprised of "LIKE" believers who all hold to the same Catholic faith, but instead any so called individual can believe anything they want just as long as they call themselves "catholic", then they are Catholic ??!!??!!??

Considered from a moral and juridical standpoint, the guilt requirement for the incurring of automatic excommunication implies,
1. the full use of reason;
2. sufficient moral liberty;
3. a knowledge of the law and even of the penalty.

I would say 3. is possible applicable here.
Where such knowledge is lacking, there is no contumacy, i.e. no contempt of ecclesiastical law, the essence of which consists in performing an action known to be forbidden, and forbidden under a certain penalty.
The prohibition and the penalty are known either through the text of the law itself, which is equivalent to a juridical warning, or through admonitions or proclamations issued expressly by the ecclesiastical judge. Hence arise various extenuating reasons (causæ excusantes), based on lack of guilt, which prevent the incurring of excommunication.

Ignorance is possible in the above cases because of the confusion in the Church and catechetical ignorance. The general principle is, that whosoever is ignorant of the law is not responsible for transgressing it; and whosoever is ignorant of the penalty does not incur it. But the application of this principle is often complicated and delicate.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

No one is automatically excommunicated for any offense if, without any fault of his own, he/she was unaware that he/she was violating a law (CIC 1323:2) or that a penalty was attached to the law (CIC 1324:1:9). The same applies if one was a minor, had the imperfect use of reason, was forced through grave or relatively grave fear, was forced through serious inconvenience, or in certain other circumstances (CIC 1324).

Can I be ABSOLUTELY sure these politicians are in some way NOT ignorant of the facts about their possible excommunication or have been tricked by some diabolical priest or Bishop?

I say no. I can not be sure.

So I know they are in error so I avoid them and voting for them but the Church has a duty to investigate and notify them personally of their plight and clarify it for all of us in the Church.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  Catholic_Truth on Wed Dec 22, 2010 4:30 pm

Duckbill, would you not agree that Benedict falls under these 3......?
1. the full use of reason;
2. sufficient moral liberty;
3. a knowledge of the law and even of the penalty.

This is the EENS forum. EENS is Church Dogma. If Benedict rejects EENS, then would you say he has ex-communicated himself from the Church ?

(and again everyone, I am not a sede-vacantist. I am simply giving you the sede position as they see it. I make no judgement on Benedict)
avatar
Catholic_Truth

Posts : 115
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2010-12-19
Location : Louisiana

http://www.PaltalkExpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  Guest on Wed Dec 22, 2010 6:14 pm

Catholic_Truth wrote:Duckbill, would you not agree that Benedict falls under these 3......?
1. the full use of reason;
2. sufficient moral liberty;
3. a knowledge of the law and even of the penalty.

This is the EENS forum. EENS is Church Dogma. If Benedict rejects EENS, then would you say he has ex-communicated himself from the Church ?

(and again everyone, I am not a sede-vacantist. I am simply giving you the sede position as they see it. I make no judgement on Benedict)

No I wouldn't say he clearly rejects it, because under him 3 feeneyite groups were approved--2 as head of CDF and 3rd as Pope. It is well known that these groups were presented to him so he did not reject it.
From what I read but can't find now. Ratzinger wanted to retire and study original sin. He seems to have been formed in a very confusing time in theology so I think he is still working it out.
Where there is any possibility of Mercy I will grant it until he can be directly confronted to see what his true position is. Until then is is just an educated guess but I think we need more than a guess to excommunicate anyone.

As Our Lord said" Do unto others that you would have them do to you" So if I was accused I wish I would have a time to defend my good name.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  Catholic_Truth on Thu Dec 23, 2010 12:21 am

Duckbill, you don't say he rejects it !? I've been following the EENS thread on Benedict and apparently you, Mryan and Rasha are trying to grasp Benedict's own statements when Benedict seemingly rejects EENS by his own quoted statement.

This is your response to Benedicts statement, "Ratzinger is clearly saying there is no need for Faith in the Trinity or Jesus Christ as Lord. His reasoning I can only guess at but he is utterly wrong"

So, I'll ask you again,...Would you say that Benedict rejects EENS and therefore is rejecting a dogmatic teaching of the Holy Catholic Church?

Here again are the requirements.......

1. the full use of reason;
2. sufficient moral liberty;
3. a knowledge of the law and even of the penalty

Can a Catholic remain a Catholic if they meet all 3 requirements and yet still chooses to reject Catholic dogma ?
avatar
Catholic_Truth

Posts : 115
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2010-12-19
Location : Louisiana

http://www.PaltalkExpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  Guest on Thu Dec 23, 2010 12:13 pm

Catholic_Truth wrote:Duckbill, you don't say he rejects it !? I've been following the EENS thread on Benedict and apparently you, Mryan and Rasha are trying to grasp Benedict's own statements when Benedict seemingly rejects EENS by his own quoted statement.

This is your response to Benedicts statement, "Ratzinger is clearly saying there is no need for Faith in the Trinity or Jesus Christ as Lord. His reasoning I can only guess at but he is utterly wrong"

So, I'll ask you again,...Would you say that Benedict rejects EENS and therefore is rejecting a dogmatic teaching of the Holy Catholic Church?

Here again are the requirements.......

1. the full use of reason;
2. sufficient moral liberty;
3. a knowledge of the law and even of the penalty

Can a Catholic remain a Catholic if they meet all 3 requirements and yet still chooses to reject Catholic dogma ?

Yes his reasoning I can only guess at and maybe I should have said from what is quotes it appears he is wrong. See people can say things sloppily Very Happy Me included.

Jesus said 'The measure you measure will be measured to you.' This is why I am hesitant to attack God's anointed one. As David would not kill Saul because he was God's anointed I too will tread cautiously before I condemn a Pope or anyone for that matter, I hope.

Would you like me to spread the rumor that you are a de facto Sedevicantist because you can't make up your mind? Would that be fair or would it be more just to find out why, and in what manner you are withholding judgment?
I think you would prefer that I discussed it with you. 'So do unto others that you would have them do to you' I think that's enough.

PS I think he said it when he was Ratzinger not Benedict! there is a distinction.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  Catholic_Truth on Thu Dec 23, 2010 3:13 pm

duckbill wrote:I think he said it when he was Ratzinger not Benedict! there is a distinction.

Makes no difference if Ratzinger said it before his election because Catholic teaching says that anyone who previously was a public manifest heretic cannot be validly elected to the papal office. That being said, I agree with you that a Catholic doesn't have to pass judgement on Benedict to remain a Catholic in good standing, which is why I neither judge him as being an anti-pope or as being a true pope. I am simply agnostic inregards to that situation. After all, you can't blame me, ...on one hand Scripture and Tradition tells us to recognize the heretic by his heresy and on the other hand we want to be as charitable as possible. Strange times we live in today.


avatar
Catholic_Truth

Posts : 115
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2010-12-19
Location : Louisiana

http://www.PaltalkExpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  Guest on Thu Dec 23, 2010 3:40 pm

Catholic_Truth wrote:
duckbill wrote:I think he said it when he was Ratzinger not Benedict! there is a distinction.

Makes no difference if Ratzinger said it before his election because Catholic teaching says that anyone who previously was a public manifest heretic cannot be validly elected to the papal office. That being said, I agree with you that a Catholic doesn't have to pass judgement on Benedict to remain a Catholic in good standing, which is why I neither judge him as being an anti-pope or as being a true pope. I am simply agnostic inregards to that situation. After all, you can't blame me, ...on one hand Scripture and Tradition tells us to recognize the heretic by his heresy and on the other hand we want to be as charitable as possible. Strange times we live in today.



I can see your point so we at least can agree that we need to fight for doctrine and maybe convert some people back that also are messed up-- geek :?: Laughing

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  Catholic_Truth on Thu Dec 23, 2010 5:35 pm

duckbill wrote:
Catholic_Truth wrote:
duckbill wrote:I think he said it when he was Ratzinger not Benedict! there is a distinction.

Makes no difference if Ratzinger said it before his election because Catholic teaching says that anyone who previously was a public manifest heretic cannot be validly elected to the papal office. That being said, I agree with you that a Catholic doesn't have to pass judgement on Benedict to remain a Catholic in good standing, which is why I neither judge him as being an anti-pope or as being a true pope. I am simply agnostic inregards to that situation. After all, you can't blame me, ...on one hand Scripture and Tradition tells us to recognize the heretic by his heresy and on the other hand we want to be as charitable as possible. Strange times we live in today.



I can see your point so we at least can agree that we need to fight for doctrine and maybe convert some people back that also are messed up-- geek :?: Laughing

Agreed santa
avatar
Catholic_Truth

Posts : 115
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2010-12-19
Location : Louisiana

http://www.PaltalkExpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  columba on Thu Dec 30, 2010 11:12 pm

Catholic_Truth wrote:Ok Duckbill, so John Kerry, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi claim to be "Catholic" even though they are pro-abortion and push for pro-abortion laws. So do you need a formal declaration from the Church to know that these pro-aborion politicians are heretics and that they are not really Catholic at all?

Does not the Catholic Church teach that a Catholic ex-communicates themselves from the Church ipso facto(automatically) if that person rejects even just one Dogmatic teaching of the Church ?

According to the CCC I think Catholic_Truth has a point here that excommunication can be ipso facto in the case of abortion and co-operation in it.

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  MRyan on Sat Jan 01, 2011 1:36 am

columba wrote:
Catholic_Truth wrote:Ok Duckbill, so John Kerry, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi claim to be "Catholic" even though they are pro-abortion and push for pro-abortion laws. So do you need a formal declaration from the Church to know that these pro-aborion politicians are heretics and that they are not really Catholic at all?

Does not the Catholic Church teach that a Catholic ex-communicates themselves from the Church ipso facto(automatically) if that person rejects even just one Dogmatic teaching of the Church ?

According to the CCC I think Catholic_Truth has a point here that excommunication can be ipso facto in the case of abortion and co-operation in it.

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
Perhaps someone would like to define "Formal cooperation".
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  Catholic_Truth on Sat Jan 01, 2011 6:17 am

MRyan wrote: If I were a priest, I would forbid everyone in my parish, under pain of sin, from visiting any sedevacantist website, and from reading sede documents and publications without my express permission (it better be for a good reason). And when one of the traveling sedevacantists came rolling into town to give one of his “talks” about the “apostate Novus Ordo so-called Catholic Church”, I would forbid every parishioner, under pain of sin, from attending such events.

Step two - excommunication

Why hide the sede-vacantist position from them? You wouldn't hide the Protestant position from them , but instead make the Protestant position known to them so that they can refute it. So why are you so afraid of the sede position? Is it because the sede position is actually quite convincing when all the evidence is presented? I noticed that whenever the Dimond brothers debate Novus Ordo Vatican II defenders, then it is clear that the Dimond brothers always seem to win in those debates simply by presenting the "infallible dogmatic" teachings of the Church and by exposing the seemingly heretical teachings from Vatican II and the teachings of those supposive "popes" who support Vatican II.

You said that you would not be open to debating the Dimond brothers because they are uncharitable and call everyone heretics. Well, you could always agree before the debate that no name calling would take place. I find it quite revealing how Vatican II supporters, such as yourself, constantly throw charges and insults at Sedevacantists, but when any Sede challenges you guys to a debate, then all of you scatter, run and hide. Why is that? You don't run and hide from Protestants, so why refuse to take on Sede-vacantists?
Again, the Sede-vacantists, Dimond brothers, are always willing to debate persons such as yourself. You can contact them toll free at 1-800-275-1126 or email them at mhfm1@aol.com

So what excuse will you attempt to dream up now to get out of debating them?
avatar
Catholic_Truth

Posts : 115
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2010-12-19
Location : Louisiana

http://www.PaltalkExpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  columba on Sat Jan 01, 2011 4:14 pm

MRyan wrote:
columba wrote:
Catholic_Truth wrote:Ok Duckbill, so John Kerry, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi claim to be "Catholic" even though they are pro-abortion and push for pro-abortion laws. So do you need a formal declaration from the Church to know that these pro-aborion politicians are heretics and that they are not really Catholic at all?

Does not the Catholic Church teach that a Catholic ex-communicates themselves from the Church ipso facto(automatically) if that person rejects even just one Dogmatic teaching of the Church ?

According to the CCC I think Catholic_Truth has a point here that excommunication can be ipso facto in the case of abortion and co-operation in it.

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
Perhaps someone would like to define "Formal cooperation".

I hope the term "Formal cooperation" isn't another one of those undefinable terms like you know what.
Logic, would dictate that those with the most power at their disposal to prevent abortion but instaed use that power to promote or enforce it, would, above all people be prime candidates for formal cooperation. What you think?
avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  columba on Sat Jan 01, 2011 4:33 pm

[quote="Catholic_Truth"]
MRyan wrote: If I were a priest, I would forbid everyone in my parish, under pain of sin, from visiting any sedevacantist website, and from reading sede documents and publications without my express permission (it better be for a good reason). And when one of the traveling sedevacantists came rolling into town to give one of his “talks” about the “apostate Novus Ordo so-called Catholic Church”, I would forbid every parishioner, under pain of sin, from attending such events.

Step two - excommunication

I can't find where you originally posted this MRyan so I copied it from Catholi_Truth's post.

Would you also forbid them visiting certain Novus Ordo parishes where heresy is preached almost every Sunday but even in a more dangerous way as those who preach it are seen to be in good standing with the Church and actually on the payroll of the same.
At least with sede's it's already understood that they are outside the mainstream and cautiosness is already present before studying their position?

avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  Guest on Sun Jan 02, 2011 12:18 am

[quote="columba"]
Catholic_Truth wrote:
MRyan wrote: If I were a priest, I would forbid everyone in my parish, under pain of sin, from visiting any sedevacantist website, and from reading sede documents and publications without my express permission (it better be for a good reason). And when one of the traveling sedevacantists came rolling into town to give one of his “talks” about the “apostate Novus Ordo so-called Catholic Church”, I would forbid every parishioner, under pain of sin, from attending such events.

Step two - excommunication

I can't find where you originally posted this MRyan so I copied it from Catholi_Truth's post.

Would you also forbid them visiting certain Novus Ordo parishes where heresy is preached almost every Sunday but even in a more dangerous way as those who preach it are seen to be in good standing with the Church and actually on the payroll of the same.
At least with sede's it's already understood that they are outside the mainstream and cautiosness is already present before studying their position?


I am actually with Mryan on this point, but not so exteme, although Catholic_Truth makes a good point too. I would say sedes should not be recommended to the laity in general. They are a problem that the Church has not seen fit to address with any clarity. Catholic_Truth is correct that if MRyan were a priest forbidding it, he should feel the obligation to "vaccinate" his congregation against this error with clear arguments. The laity are not children and they interact with all sorts of people, by not addressing this error with good arguments, the danger is that it will only get worse and the laity will fall into the error more readily.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  columba on Sun Jan 02, 2011 4:43 pm

[quote="duckbill"]
columba wrote:
Catholic_Truth wrote:
MRyan wrote: If I were a priest, I would forbid everyone in my parish, under pain of sin, from visiting any sedevacantist website, and from reading sede documents and publications without my express permission (it better be for a good reason). And when one of the traveling sedevacantists came rolling into town to give one of his “talks” about the “apostate Novus Ordo so-called Catholic Church”, I would forbid every parishioner, under pain of sin, from attending such events.

Step two - excommunication

I can't find where you originally posted this MRyan so I copied it from Catholi_Truth's post.

Would you also forbid them visiting certain Novus Ordo parishes where heresy is preached almost every Sunday but even in a more dangerous way as those who preach it are seen to be in good standing with the Church and actually on the payroll of the same.
At least with sede's it's already understood that they are outside the mainstream and cautiosness is already present before studying their position?


I am actually with Mryan on this point, but not so exteme, although Catholic_Truth makes a good point too. I would say sedes should not be recommended to the laity in general. They are a problem that the Church has not seen fit to address with any clarity. Catholic_Truth is correct that if MRyan were a priest forbidding it, he should feel the obligation to "vaccinate" his congregation against this error with clear arguments. The laity are not children and they interact with all sorts of people, by not addressing this error with good arguments, the danger is that it will only get worse and the laity will fall into the error more readily.

I too am with MRyan on this. My point is, why limit this to sedevacantists?
I don't think they are half as dangerous as the mainstream clergy who promote false dctrine week in and week out.
If I were to take a poll outside church on any given Sunday and asked the question, "What do you think of sedevacantism?" I would put a bet on that 99% of the congregation would tell me they never heard of the term. I recently asked a priest who occasionally offers the TLM what he thought of sedevacantism. He had never heard of it.

There are more souls losing their faith through mainstream acceptible heretics than there are through sede's, That of course might change as the sede position becomes more known but as it stands presently this is the case.

avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  Guest on Mon Jan 03, 2011 7:23 pm

[quote="columba"]
duckbill wrote:
columba wrote:
Catholic_Truth wrote:
MRyan wrote: If I were a priest, I would forbid everyone in my parish, under pain of sin, from visiting any sedevacantist website, and from reading sede documents and publications without my express permission (it better be for a good reason). And when one of the traveling sedevacantists came rolling into town to give one of his “talks” about the “apostate Novus Ordo so-called Catholic Church”, I would forbid every parishioner, under pain of sin, from attending such events.

Step two - excommunication

I can't find where you originally posted this MRyan so I copied it from Catholi_Truth's post.

Would you also forbid them visiting certain Novus Ordo parishes where heresy is preached almost every Sunday but even in a more dangerous way as those who preach it are seen to be in good standing with the Church and actually on the payroll of the same.
At least with sede's it's already understood that they are outside the mainstream and cautiosness is already present before studying their position?


I am actually with Mryan on this point, but not so exteme, although Catholic_Truth makes a good point too. I would say sedes should not be recommended to the laity in general. They are a problem that the Church has not seen fit to address with any clarity. Catholic_Truth is correct that if MRyan were a priest forbidding it, he should feel the obligation to "vaccinate" his congregation against this error with clear arguments. The laity are not children and they interact with all sorts of people, by not addressing this error with good arguments, the danger is that it will only get worse and the laity will fall into the error more readily.

I too am with MRyan on this. My point is, why limit this to sedevacantists?
I don't think they are half as dangerous as the mainstream clergy who promote false dctrine week in and week out.
If I were to take a poll outside church on any given Sunday and asked the question, "What do you think of sedevacantism?" I would put a bet on that 99% of the congregation would tell me they never heard of the term. I recently asked a priest who occasionally offers the TLM what he thought of sedevacantism. He had never heard of it.

There are more souls losing their faith through mainstream acceptible heretics than there are through sede's, That of course might change as the sede position becomes more known but as it stands presently this is the case.


While I feel your pain. I can't agree that sedevacantism is less harmful. It is more than just saying the Pope was not legally elected/or a heretic. They dismiss the changes to the rites such as the Novus Ordo and the consecration of priests and bishops. So they hold that there are No! sacraments available to any Novus Ordo member other than baptism and marriage, unless they attend SSPX or something similar.... This to me is like Hussites on steroids---Jan Hus held that a priest could not effect the sacraments when in mortal sin.

Being a Feenyite I fear for them because they appear to have rejected the Church. To reject Peter is to reject the Church.

In a way the popes are ultimately to blame, because John XXIII to JpII they really haven't given us too much clarity. I mean the whole betrayal thing with altar girls was scandalous( although not heretical Wink) Mother Theresa ask JPII not to do it and he said to her don't worry! Paul VI and Communion in the hand! I know personally of sacrileges done with that change of disapline! not to mention th echild abuse cover-ups!

Yes the Church is a mess and bark of Peter is taking on water but we have to keep bailing and not bail-out! Sedes have appeared to have left the ship and have no idea where they are going.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  columba on Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:23 pm

Posted by Duckbill:
While I feel your pain. I can't agree that sedevacantism is less harmful. It is more than just saying the Pope was not legally elected/or a heretic. They dismiss the changes to the rites such as the Novus Ordo and the consecration of priests and bishops. So they hold that there are No! sacraments available to any Novus Ordo member other than baptism and marriage, unless they attend SSPX or something similar.... This to me is like Hussites on steroids---Jan Hus held that a priest could not effect the sacraments when in mortal sin.

The SSPX I've heard also do conditional ordinations on those priests who join them from the Novus Ordo rite. It seems that the sede's hold the new right of ordination invalid while the new rite of episcopal consecration they hold doubtful.
While the SSPX recognise Papal authority, they do dispute it's limits like when the mew mass was imposed, contrary to St Pius V Quo Prinum.
They, rather than dismissing some of the sacraments as invalid (as the sede's do), hold them as doubtful.

The FSSP on ther other hand hold the new rite sacraments to be valid, but in the case of the New Mass, valid but sacraligious.


In a way the popes are ultimately to blame, because John XXIII to JpII they really haven't given us too much clarity. I mean the whole betrayal thing with altar girls was scandalous( although not heretical Wink) Mother Theresa ask JPII not to do it and he said to her don't worry! Paul VI and Communion in the hand! I know personally of sacrileges done with that change of disapline! not to mention th echild abuse cover-ups!

Yes the Church is a mess and bark of Peter is taking on water but we have to keep bailing and not bail-out! Sedes have appeared to have left the ship and have no idea where they are going.

Yes, I agree totally with what you say. It would be more surprising if the likes of sedevicantism hadn't emerged from the mess and all the various forms in between. I admire the FSSP's ability to work within the structure while still holding on to tradition. (sometimes though they do seem to be walking a very norrow line) but theirs really is the most tenible position at present.
avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  Catholic_Truth on Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:38 am

MRyan wrote:
Catholic_Truth wrote: Plus you already have made the determination that Ratzinger has succeeded to the Papal office and is the "Vicar of Christ", but can a manifest public heretic who rejects traditional Catholic teaching validly be elected to that office?
Actually, I did not make this determination by my lonesome … the Catholic Church did when Pope BXVI was universally accepted as Christ’s true Vicar.

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

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;… (vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration , of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power…. 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.

avatar
Catholic_Truth

Posts : 115
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2010-12-19
Location : Louisiana

http://www.PaltalkExpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  Guest on Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:19 am

RashaLampa wrote:A basic premise of the Sedevacantists is that a Pope, when he becomes a heretic, losing his office.  Thus he loses his authority to make official and binding pronouncements.  Rather than argue against this, and it can be refuted or at least attacked, let me assume it to be true, for argument's sake, and continue.

Here is my premise.  What necessarily leads to nonsense or evil MUST be nonsense or evil in itself.  Thus, if this position of the Sedevacantists does this, then it MUST be wrong.

I take it as a given that we do NOT know EVERYTHING about earlier popes.  That is, not everything was recorded, and some things were were recorded incorrectly, and some were lost.  I am referring to personal actions, namely sins.  Therefore it is quite possible that some popes in the past were heretics, but we would not know for certain.  And thus, according to the Sedes, they lost their office and authority.  As we do not know when---or even if---this may have happened the following follows.  EVERY Papal decree, including the ones the Sedes use to support their position, may, or may not, be valid.  The same applies to bishops and other sources.  It is possible that every Pope was a heretic.  Can they prove otherwise?  They would need to document every action and thought of every one of them.  This is an impossible task.

Catholicism can NOT be based upon doctrines which may, or may not, be true.  Doctrinal statements are not things which have, at their very core, a profound and insoluble doubt.  Our doctrinal statements must be accepted as true and valid, or we all become Prots.  Yet this is precisely what the sedevacantist position leads to.  As it leads to nonsense, and destroys the Faith, it thus must be rejected as false.

Hi RashaLampa, I am a new comer to this website and after reading your very interesting statement above on the sedevacantists position it interests me when i read what necessarily leads to "nonsense" or "evil" must be "nonsense" or "evil" in itself. What i think is nonsense and evil (this is not an attack) is people following and supporting heresy and apostasy which Leeds souls to Hell. Is it not a proven and dogmatic fact that the election of a heretic as Pope would be totally null and void? And if becoming a heretic when Pope he "the pope" would automatically cease to be the Pope and head of the Church just as he would automatically cease to be a Catholic and a member of the Church?

The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.

Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt by a baptized person of an article of divine and Catholic Faith. In other words, a baptized person who deliberately denies an authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church is a heretic which i am sure you already know.

Without a doubt the last five climates to the Papacy have been and still are manifest heretics and apostates who totally reject Catholic dogma and Catholic teaching, therefor they must be totally rejected as being the heads of Christs Church. If you say that Benedict XVI is the true vicar of Christ on earth and the head of your Church then you are saying that you have the same faith as him. Benedict XVI teaches that our Lord may not be the Messiah, that the Old Covenant is valid, that Jews and others can be saved without believing in Christ, that schismatics and protestants don't need conversion, that non-Catholics are not bound to except Vatican I, that protestant monasteries should be formed, that protestantism itself is not even heresy, that Mass is valid without any words of consecration, that infant baptism has no purpose, that the dogma of the Mass is corrupt to the core, that scripture is filled with myths, that the false religion of Islam is noble, that pagan religions are high, that salvation can be had outside the Church, that Catholic dogmas need to be purged, that Vatican II rejected Catholic teaching on Religious Liberty, that the unity of the Church does not exist and that the resurrection of the body will not accrue just to name a few and that's not even going into his most resent heresys. If you say that you are in communion with Benedict XVI then you are following and adhering to all these heresys. Is that not true? If this is not true could you please explain to me how it is not true.

Besides antipopes reigning from Rome due to uncanonical elections, the Catholic Church teaches that if a pope were to become a heretic he would automatically lose his office and cease to be the pope as i have already stated. This is the teaching of all the doctors and fathers of the Church who addressed the issue:

St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and
head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church.
Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all
the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"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."

St. Francis De Sales (17th century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic Controversy, pp. 305-306: "Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from
his dignity and out of the Church..."

St. Antoninus (1459): "In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he
would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated
from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains
separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. A pope who would be
separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since
he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church." (Summa
Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)

That a heretic cannot be a pope is rooted in the dogma that heretics are not members of the Catholic Church.

It should be noted that the teaching from the saints and doctors of the Church, which is quoted above – that a pope who became a heretic would automatically cease to be pope – is rooted in the infallible dogma that a heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are
outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives…”

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943:
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

We can see that it’s the teaching of the Catholic Church that a man is severed from the Church by heresy, schism or apostasy.

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

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9):
“No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to a single one of these he is not a Catholic.”

Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208:
“By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”

Thus, it’s not merely the opinion of certain saints and doctors of the Church that a heretic would cease to be pope; it’s a fact inextricably bound up with a dogmatic teaching. A truth inextricably bound up with a dogma is called a dogmatic fact. It is, therefore, a dogmatic fact that a heretic cannot be the pope. A heretic cannot be the pope, since one who is outside cannot head that of which he is not even a member.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896:
“No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.”

Pope Paul IV issued a Papal Bull solemnly declaring that the election of a heretic as pope is null and void.

In 1559 Pope Paul IV issued an entire Papal Bull dealing with the subject and the
possibility of a heretic being elected pope. At the time that Paul IV issued the Bull (quoted below) there were rumors that one of the cardinals was a secret Protestant. In order to prevent the election of such a heretic to the Papacy, Pope Paul IV solemnly declared that a heretic cannot be validly elected pope. Below are the pertinent portions of the Bull.

Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “1… 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…

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

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the
unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless; (ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all,
nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation; (iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way… (vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power…

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

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

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

With the fullness of his papal authority, Pope Paul IV declared that the election of a heretic is invalid, even if it takes place with the unanimous consent of the cardinals and is accepted by all.

Pope Paul IV also declared that he was making this declaration in order to combat the arrival of the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel, in the holy place. This is astounding, and it seems to indicate that the Magisterium itself is connecting the eventual arrival of the abomination of desolation in the holy place (Matthew 24:15) with a heretic posing as the pope – perhaps because the heretic posing as the pope will give us the abomination of desolation in the holy place (the New Mass), as some believe is the case, or because the heretical antipope will himself constitute the abomination of desolation in the holy place.

The Catholic Encyclopedia repeats this truth declared by Pope Paul IV by asserting that the election of a heretic as pope would, of course, be completely null and void.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Papal Elections,” 1914, Vol. 11, p. 456: "Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female [as Pope] would be null and void."

In line with the truth that a heretic cannot be the pope, the Church teaches that heretics cannot be prayed for in the canon of the Mass.

A pope is prayed for in the Te Igitur prayer of the canon of the Mass. But the Church also teaches that heretics cannot be prayed for in the canon of the Mass. If a heretic could be a true pope, there would be an insoluble dilemma. But it’s actually not a dilemma because a heretic cannot be a valid pope:

Libellus professionis fidei, April 2, 517, profession of faith prescribed under Pope St.
Hormisdas: “And, therefore, I hope that I may merit to be in the one communion with
you, which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which there is the whole and the true solidity of the Christian religion, promising that in the future the names of those separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, those not agreeing with the Apostolic See, shall not be read during the sacred mysteries. But if I shall attempt in any way to deviate from my profession, I confess that I am a confederate in my opinion with those whom I have condemned. However, I have with my own hand signed this profession of mine, and to you, HORMISDAS, the holy and venerable Pope of the City of Rome, I have directed it.

Pope Benedict XIV, Ex Quo Primum (# 23), March 1, 1756:
“Moreover heretics and schismatics are subject to the censure of major excommunication by the law of Can. de Ligu. 23, quest. 5, and Can. Nulli, 5, dist. 19. But the sacred canons of the Church forbid public prayer for the excommunicated as can be seen in chap. A nobis, 2, and chap. Sacris on the sentence of excommunication. Though this does not forbid prayer for their conversion, still such prayer must not take the form of proclaiming their names in the solemn prayer during the sacrifice of the Mass.”

Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra (# 9), January 6, 1873:
“For this reason John, Bishop of Constantinople, solemnly declared – and the entire
Eighth Ecumenical Council did so later – ‘that the names of those who were separated
from communion with the Catholic Church, that is of those who did not agree in all
matters with the Apostolic See, are not to be read out during the sacred mysteries.’”

RashaLampa if you can explain to me otherwise than what you have just read i would deeply appreciate it. The sedevacantist position seems to me to be the correct position to hold in these pagan times that we are living through. If you think that i am in error i would like nothing else than to be corrected if i am misstaken and put back on the right path again. Thank you for taking the time out of your day to read through and respond to this message.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  Guest on Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:23 am

RashaLampa wrote:A basic premise of the Sedevacantists is that a Pope, when he becomes a heretic, losing his office.  Thus he loses his authority to make official and binding pronouncements.  Rather than argue against this, and it can be refuted or at least attacked, let me assume it to be true, for argument's sake, and continue.

Here is my premise.  What necessarily leads to nonsense or evil MUST be nonsense or evil in itself.  Thus, if this position of the Sedevacantists does this, then it MUST be wrong.

I take it as a given that we do NOT know EVERYTHING about earlier popes.  That is, not everything was recorded, and some things were were recorded incorrectly, and some were lost.  I am referring to personal actions, namely sins.  Therefore it is quite possible that some popes in the past were heretics, but we would not know for certain.  And thus, according to the Sedes, they lost their office and authority.  As we do not know when---or even if---this may have happened the following follows.  EVERY Papal decree, including the ones the Sedes use to support their position, may, or may not, be valid.  The same applies to bishops and other sources.  It is possible that every Pope was a heretic.  Can they prove otherwise?  They would need to document every action and thought of every one of them.  This is an impossible task.

Catholicism can NOT be based upon doctrines which may, or may not, be true.  Doctrinal statements are not things which have, at their very core, a profound and insoluble doubt.  Our doctrinal statements must be accepted as true and valid, or we all become Prots.  Yet this is precisely what the sedevacantist position leads to.  As it leads to nonsense, and destroys the Faith, it thus must be rejected as false.

Hi RashaLampa, I am a new comer to this website and after reading your very interesting statement above on the sedevacantists position it interests me when i read what necessarily leads to "nonsense" or "evil" must be "nonsense" or "evil" in itself. What i think is nonsense and evil (this is not an attack) is people following and supporting heresy and apostasy which Leeds souls to Hell. Is it not a proven and dogmatic fact that the election of a heretic as Pope would be totally null and void? And if becoming a heretic when Pope he "the pope" would automatically cease to be the Pope and head of the Church just as he would automatically cease to be a Catholic and a member of the Church?

The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.

Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt by a baptized person of an article of divine and Catholic Faith. In other words, a baptized person who deliberately denies an authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church is a heretic which i am sure you already know.

Without a doubt the last five climates to the Papacy have been and still are manifest heretics and apostates who totally reject Catholic dogma and Catholic teaching, therefor they must be totally rejected as being the heads of Christs Church. If you say that Benedict XVI is the true vicar of Christ on earth and the head of your Church then you are saying that you have the same faith as him. Benedict XVI teaches that our Lord may not be the Messiah, that the Old Covenant is valid, that Jews and others can be saved without believing in Christ, that schismatics and protestants don't need conversion, that non-Catholics are not bound to except Vatican I, that protestant monasteries should be formed, that protestantism itself is not even heresy, that Mass is valid without any words of consecration, that infant baptism has no purpose, that the dogma of the Mass is corrupt to the core, that scripture is filled with myths, that the false religion of Islam is noble, that pagan religions are high, that salvation can be had outside the Church, that Catholic dogmas need to be purged, that Vatican II rejected Catholic teaching on Religious Liberty, that the unity of the Church does not exist and that the resurrection of the body will not accrue just to name a few and that's not even going into his most resent heresys. If you say that you are in communion with Benedict XVI then you are following and adhering to all these heresys. Is that not true? If this is not true could you please explain to me how it is not true.

Besides antipopes reigning from Rome due to uncanonical elections, the Catholic Church teaches that if a pope were to become a heretic he would automatically lose his office and cease to be the pope as i have already stated. This is the teaching of all the doctors and fathers of the Church who addressed the issue:

St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and
head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church.
Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all
the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"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."

St. Francis De Sales (17th century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic Controversy, pp. 305-306: "Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from
his dignity and out of the Church..."

St. Antoninus (1459): "In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he
would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated
from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains
separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. A pope who would be
separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since
he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church." (Summa
Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)

That a heretic cannot be a pope is rooted in the dogma that heretics are not members of the Catholic Church.

It should be noted that the teaching from the saints and doctors of the Church, which is quoted above – that a pope who became a heretic would automatically cease to be pope – is rooted in the infallible dogma that a heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are
outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives…”

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943:
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

We can see that it’s the teaching of the Catholic Church that a man is severed from the Church by heresy, schism or apostasy.

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

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9):
“No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to a single one of these he is not a Catholic.”

Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208:
“By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”

Thus, it’s not merely the opinion of certain saints and doctors of the Church that a heretic would cease to be pope; it’s a fact inextricably bound up with a dogmatic teaching. A truth inextricably bound up with a dogma is called a dogmatic fact. It is, therefore, a dogmatic fact that a heretic cannot be the pope. A heretic cannot be the pope, since one who is outside cannot head that of which he is not even a member.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896:
“No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.”

Pope Paul IV issued a Papal Bull solemnly declaring that the election of a heretic as pope is null and void.

In 1559 Pope Paul IV issued an entire Papal Bull dealing with the subject and the
possibility of a heretic being elected pope. At the time that Paul IV issued the Bull (quoted below) there were rumors that one of the cardinals was a secret Protestant. In order to prevent the election of such a heretic to the Papacy, Pope Paul IV solemnly declared that a heretic cannot be validly elected pope. Below are the pertinent portions of the Bull.

Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “1… 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…

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

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the
unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless; (ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all,
nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation; (iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way… (vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power…

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

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

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

With the fullness of his papal authority, Pope Paul IV declared that the election of a heretic is invalid, even if it takes place with the unanimous consent of the cardinals and is accepted by all.

Pope Paul IV also declared that he was making this declaration in order to combat the arrival of the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel, in the holy place. This is astounding, and it seems to indicate that the Magisterium itself is connecting the eventual arrival of the abomination of desolation in the holy place (Matthew 24:15) with a heretic posing as the pope – perhaps because the heretic posing as the pope will give us the abomination of desolation in the holy place (the New Mass), as some believe is the case, or because the heretical antipope will himself constitute the abomination of desolation in the holy place.

The Catholic Encyclopedia repeats this truth declared by Pope Paul IV by asserting that the election of a heretic as pope would, of course, be completely null and void.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Papal Elections,” 1914, Vol. 11, p. 456: "Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female [as Pope] would be null and void."

In line with the truth that a heretic cannot be the pope, the Church teaches that heretics cannot be prayed for in the canon of the Mass.

A pope is prayed for in the Te Igitur prayer of the canon of the Mass. But the Church also teaches that heretics cannot be prayed for in the canon of the Mass. If a heretic could be a true pope, there would be an insoluble dilemma. But it’s actually not a dilemma because a heretic cannot be a valid pope:

Libellus professionis fidei, April 2, 517, profession of faith prescribed under Pope St.
Hormisdas: “And, therefore, I hope that I may merit to be in the one communion with
you, which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which there is the whole and the true solidity of the Christian religion, promising that in the future the names of those separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, those not agreeing with the Apostolic See, shall not be read during the sacred mysteries. But if I shall attempt in any way to deviate from my profession, I confess that I am a confederate in my opinion with those whom I have condemned. However, I have with my own hand signed this profession of mine, and to you, HORMISDAS, the holy and venerable Pope of the City of Rome, I have directed it.

Pope Benedict XIV, Ex Quo Primum (# 23), March 1, 1756:
“Moreover heretics and schismatics are subject to the censure of major excommunication by the law of Can. de Ligu. 23, quest. 5, and Can. Nulli, 5, dist. 19. But the sacred canons of the Church forbid public prayer for the excommunicated as can be seen in chap. A nobis, 2, and chap. Sacris on the sentence of excommunication. Though this does not forbid prayer for their conversion, still such prayer must not take the form of proclaiming their names in the solemn prayer during the sacrifice of the Mass.”

Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra (# 9), January 6, 1873:
“For this reason John, Bishop of Constantinople, solemnly declared – and the entire
Eighth Ecumenical Council did so later – ‘that the names of those who were separated
from communion with the Catholic Church, that is of those who did not agree in all
matters with the Apostolic See, are not to be read out during the sacred mysteries.’”

RashaLampa if you can explain to me otherwise than what you have just read i would deeply appreciate it. The sedevacantist position seems to me to be the correct position to hold in these pagan times that we are living through. If you think that i am in error i would like nothing else than to be corrected if i am misstaken and put back on the right path again. Thank you for taking the time out of your day to read through and respond to this message.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  Guest on Tue Jan 11, 2011 12:20 pm

MAN, Dude you need to calm down and relax.

We need to have a dialog and not make posts longer than the Mississippi. Make a point and wait for a response. Then your opponent will make a point. You know most people won't read what you just posted because it looks like a tirade.

We all want to see the Church organization and functioning fixed.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  MRyan on Tue Jan 11, 2011 1:38 pm

Another copy and paste job straight from the same the notorious sede pasture.

Lies, lies and more lies.

One would think that sede's could learn to think for themselves and to put an original thought together ... or two.

Rasha, why not make a permanent link on this thread to you-know-where and save us from all of these worthless lengthy c & p exercises in sophistry, fallacious arguments, non-sequiturs, exaggerations, factual errors, and tendentious distortions.



avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  columba on Tue Jan 11, 2011 2:11 pm

Lets hear some refutations rather than name calling. If it's such a lie then it should be easily exposed as that.

My refutation is that no one can unseat a Pope even if (God forbid) he be the devil himself. God alone can do the necessary if the people so deserve it. Until then, the Pope is the Pope for better or worse and I must submit to his legal authority when there be no sin in doing so. Even the Pope can't order me to do something sinful like deny a Church dogma.
avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  MRyan on Tue Jan 11, 2011 2:30 pm

columba wrote:
Lets hear some refutations rather than name calling. If it's such a lie then it should be easily exposed as that.
Sorry, but "exercises in sophistry, fallacious arguments, non-sequiturs, exaggerations, factual errors, and tendentious distortions" is not "name calling"; its the truth.

columba wrote:
My refutation is that no one can unseat a Pope even if (God forbid) he be the devil himself. God alone can do the necessary if the people so deserve it. Until then, the Pope is the Pope for better or worse and I must submit to his legal authority when there be no sin in doing so. Even the Pope can't order me to do something sinful like deny a Church dogma.
That's not a "refutation", its a cop-out. You must submit to his supreme Primacy and authority over the universal Church -- to include his supreme authority over all of her laws, disciples and teachings.

When did the pope order you "to do something sinful like deny a Church dogma"? What a totally inane and wretched thing to say.




avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  columba on Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:30 pm

When did the pope order you "to do something sinful like deny a Church dogma"? What a totally inane and wretched thing to say.

I know that does sound inane and wretched but I wasn't referring to any specific Pope. I was alluding to the concept of a Pope teaching error as not being an imposibilty. If it is an impossibility then it was pretty inane and wrecthed of the Doctors to imply that it could be possible and to outline precautions if such a thing as this should ever happen.
What of those inane and wretched folk of the 7th century under Pope Honorious I?

But if you want a theoretical example of when I would refuse obedience to Pope or Bishop I'll offer you this one. If a Pope where to decalre that all diocese should have an interfaith celebration in thier Churches to coincide with a papal one going on elsewhere and all the faithful of able body should attend, then I would refuse to go; not out of arrogance but out of fear for my soul and that of my family. I'd draw the lne at worshiping false gods.
avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  Guest on Wed Jan 12, 2011 12:31 am

MRyan wrote:Another copy and paste job straight from the same the notorious sede pasture.

Lies, lies and more lies.

One would think that sede's could learn to think for themselves and to put an original thought together ... or two.

Rasha, why not make a permanent link on this thread to you-know-where and save us from all of these worthless lengthy c & p exercises in sophistry, fallacious arguments, non-sequiturs, exaggerations, factual errors, and tendentious distortions.

That's a nice way to welcome a newcomer to the site. It's also a nice cold first impression you have just made too. I take it by the sarcastic, pretentious wording that you use you think you know it all. Let me tell you something now MRyan before i get one foot in the door, i have a sharp tongue too at times and ill use it on the likes of yourself if i have to, who are one to make rash judgements on a person you know nothing about.

What you are saying is "worthless," "exaggerated" and "lies, lies and more lies" etc is the teachings of Pope Eugene IV, Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius XII, Pope Inocent III, Pope Paul IV, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Francis De Sales, St. Antoninus and the Catholic Encyclopedia. Think about that for a second.

You are right about one thing though, it is a copy and paste job. If you think you can refute these teachings of the Popes and Saints and explain away the heresys coming from Vatican II by all means bring your debate forward for all to see and we can take it from there. I am keeping an open mind on everything and i think we are all in search of the Whole Truth here.










Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  Guest on Wed Jan 12, 2011 7:15 am

Welcome to the forum!
One thing that all you long posts don't address is who has the power to rule, who is a heretic and who isn't?

One of the qualification you wrote:

Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt by a baptized person of an
article of divine and Catholic Faith. In other words, a baptized person
who deliberately denies an authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church
is a heretic which i am sure you already know.

Obstinate cannot be used for our present Pope. He seems to change his opinions often. He didn't wear clerics to Vatican II now he wears traditional "funny" hats.
He reinstated the Good Friday prayer for the Jews; kneeling and receiving only on the tongue. And I am sure a number of other things you accuse him of could be brought into doubt.

Another thing that was brought up earlier, was who gave you the right to excommunicate the Pope?
The Church doesn't even give that power to a parish priest, so unless your a bishop I doubt you have the power to excommunicate anyone.

What is your criteria for excommunicating?
Was Pius XII pope? He reversed the ruling of worshiping family members in China. A ruling, when first made, got a lot of Jesuits martyred, when they first attempted to evangelize China.

If sedevacantism is the true Church then you would have to show you are: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic.

From my little reading on the subject there is no Oneness in Sede groups. You keep excommunicating each other.

While I sympathize with your frustration of the confusion in the Church, I think you are taking the "Luther way" of reform('private interpretation' not of scripture but of excommunication--it leads to the same confusion) and not the traditional way or working within the structure.

Finally Sedes are going against scripture and basic charity:
"But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him
between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy
brother.

[16] And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.

[17]
And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear
the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

[18]
Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound
also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be
loosed also in heaven."

This shows that the so called heretics have a right to to be confronted and charged and tried by the Church, which Sedes are not doing.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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