Questions for non-Sedevacantists

Catholic_Truth Wed Feb 16, 2011 4:04 pm

Again I would like everyone reading this thread to know that I am not a Sedevacantist. I make no judgement on anyone.

I would however like to know this,... if it is true that Sedevacantists are in schism, then can any of you answer these questions which they point to which they claim is evidence that Vatican 2 and its popes have gone against dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church ?

question #1: What about the Assisi Prayer meeting and why Pope John Paul 2 prayed with various false religions and recieved paganistic blessings from pagan priests even though the church has always condemned these things as being Idolatrous ?

question #2: Why the new code of canon law and vatican 2 allow for noncatholics to recieve holy communion in Mass from Catholic Priests, when dogmatic teaching of the Church has always been that one must be a Catholic in full communion to receive Holy Communion?

question #3: Why Pope Benedict 16 gave communion to the protestant "monk" Bro. Roger Shutz and then after he died told everyone, "Bro. Roger went straight to heaven, he has arrived at eternal joy." When there is no salvation outside the church, especially for those who knows of Catholic teachings and yet reject them ?

question #4: Why did Pope John Paul 2 approve of the Balamand Statement which was signed by Vatican officials saying that they will not try to convert the Eastern "Orthodox" ?

question #5: Why does Pope Benedict 16 constantly say that the "Orthodox" are part of the "true church" and that its bishops are "pastors in the church of Christ" ?

question #6: Why does Vatican 2 teach this about Buddhists, "with a devout and trustful spirit may be able to reach either a state of perfect freedom or relying ON THEIR OWN EFFORTS OR FROM A HIGHER SOURCE, THE HIGHEST ILLUMINATION" ?

question #7: Does Vatican II teach that "EVERY TYPE OF DISCRIMINATION, whether social or cultural, whether based on sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or RELIGION, is to be OVERCOME and ERADICATED as CONTRARY TO GOD'S INTENT" ?

question #8: Does Vatican II teach that Catholics are to "BLEND MODERN SCIENCE and its THEORIES(i.e.- Evolution) and the understanding of the most recent discoveries WITH Christian MORALITY and DOCTRINE, thus their religious practice and morality CAN KEEP PACE with their scientific knowledge and an ever-advancing technology"?

question #9: Did Vatican II teach that man "DEVELOPS ALL HIS GIFTS AND IS ABLE TO RISE TO HIS OWN DESTINY... through his dealings with others, through reciprocal duties, and through fraternal dialogue" which is essentially the same creed that the freemasons believe in?

question #10: Did Vatican II teach that "religious bodies also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their Faith" and that "the right of the human person to religious liberty is to be recognized by constitutional law whereby society is governed, and thus it is to become a civil right"?

question #11: Did Vatican II teach a "new humanism" where "MAN IS DEFINED FIRST OF ALL by his responsibility towards his brothers and towards history"?

question #12: Did Vatican II teach that "the human race has passed from a rather static concept of reality to a more dynamic and evolutionary one" ?

question #13: Did Paul VI say that Catholics need to "break with the habitual attachment of what WE USED TO DESIGNATE as the UNCHANGEABLE TRADITION OF THE CHURCH" ?

question #14: Did Paul VI teach that the "fundamental attitude of Catholics and the world is... ABOVE ALL... TO LOVE THE WORLD" ?

question #15: Did Paul VI say that the Second Vatican Council "PROMULGATED... A CHRISTIANITY that is exciting and positive, loving life, mankind and earthly values... an intention of making Christianity acceptable and lovable, indulgent and open, FREE OF MEDIEVAL RIGORISM AND OF A PESSIMISTIC UNDERSTANDING OF MAN AND HIS CUSTOMS"?

question #16: Did Paul VI tell the assembly of the United Nations that "We are conscious that YOU (the United Nations) ARE THE INTERPRETERS OF ALL THAT IS PARAMOUNT IN HUMAN WISDOM" and that "the goals of the United Nations are the ideal that mankind has dreamed of in its journey through history"?

question #17: Did John Paul II teach that loyalty to the Church was NOT to be defined "in a reduced sense as maintaining standards, NOR does it mean STAYING WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF ORTHODOXY - AVOIDING POSITIONS THAT ARE IN CONTRAST TO THE PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE APOSTOLIC SEE, THE ECUMENICAL COUNCILS, AND THE LEARNED DOCTORS OF THE CHURCH" ?

question #18: How can it be that the the recent popes ,JP2 and B16, say that the old covenant is still in effect for jews when dogmatic Catholic Church teachings have always said that the old covenant is no more ?

question #19:
Why is it O.K. to be liberal, pro-abortion(or at least pro obama) and yet the Pope says nothing to admonish those Catholics, but instead congradulates Obama for his election win ? Also, are those who support abortion ex-communicated from the Church? If not, why not ? If so, then why doesn't the Church tell Catholics that ?

Is not todays church teaching something different from what the Church previously taught;

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (#10), Jan. 6, 1928: the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it

Pope Pius XI taught that the only way to unite christians was to convert them to the Catholic Church

Does not the Vatican 2 popes reject these 2 statements from Pope Pius XI ? If not, then how do you explain their directive to all Catholics that they should not try to convert those in the Orthodox sect to Catholicism? Do all of you agree with Benedict XVI that the Orthodox are the 2nd lung of the Holy Catholic Church, thereby including the Orthodox within the "Body of Christ"?

Are all of you 100% positive that Benedict XVI in the following statement was saying what you think he was saying, or would you concede that maybe, just maybe he rejects converting others to Catholicism, now that you know about his position on the Orthodox? Why would the Protestants be any different in his mind? Aren't both sects non-Catholic? Here is his statement..........

Benedict XVI, Address to Protestants at World Youth Day, August 19, 2005: And we now ask: What does it mean to restore the unity of all Christians?... This unity, we are convinced, indeed subsists in the Catholic Church, without the possibility of ever being lost (Unitatis Redintegratio, nn. 2, 4, etc.); the Church in fact has not totally disappeared from the world. On the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject ones own faith history. Absolutely not! (LOsservatore Romano, August 24, 2005, p. 8.)

I repeat,..I make no judgement on anyone and I am not a Sedevacantist. I would just like to see how non-sedevacantists answer these questions that always seem to go unanswered. Thankyou and may God Bless all the sedevacantists and non-sedevacantists in this Forum. Questions for non-Sedevacantists 189770

Allie Wed Feb 16, 2011 5:44 pm

C_T:

Can you please provide links or at least provide the sources cited from where (what document/audience/internet link and so on) you have derived your questions?

Thank you and God bless,
Allie

Catholic_Truth Fri Feb 18, 2011 9:24 pm

Allie wrote:C_T:

Can you please provide links or at least provide the sources cited from where (what document/audience/internet link and so on) you have derived your questions?

Thank you and God bless,
Allie

Sure, Allie, ....in regards to question #2....

Vatican II Document, Orientalium Ecclesiarum # 27:

“Given the above-mentioned principles, the sacraments of Penance, Holy Eucharist, and the anointing of sick may be conferred on eastern Christians who in good faith are separated from the Catholic Church, if they make the request of their own accord and are properly disposed.”

Catechism of the Catholic Church (# 1401):

“When, in the Ordinary’s judgement, a grave necessity arises, Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing of the Sick to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who ask for them of their own will, provided they give evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding these sacraments and possess the required dispositions.”

Canon 844.3, 1983 Code of Canon Law:

“Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed. This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as these sacraments are concerned.”

Saviorsheart Sun Feb 20, 2011 1:02 pm

I've been reading many of these back and forth discussions lately and I really think you all should relax and just calm down. Change can be a good thing you know. So whats the problem with those who aren't catholic receiving the eucharist? Catholics can receive the eucharist in eastern orthodox churchs so why forbid the eastern orthodox and others who are outside the church to receive holy communion by the catholic church?

MRyan Mon Feb 21, 2011 11:36 am

Catholic_Truth wrote: Again I would like everyone reading this thread to know that I am not a Sedevacantist. I make no judgement on anyone.

I would however like to know this,... if it is true that Sedevacantists are in schism, then can any of you answer these questions which they point to which they claim is evidence that Vatican 2 and its popes have gone against dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church ?

question #1: What about the Assisi Prayer meeting and why Pope John Paul 2 prayed with various false religions and recieved paganistic blessings from pagan priests even though the church has always condemned these things as being Idolatrous ?

If you don't mind, C_T, I'd like to suggest that we take these one at a time so that we can give adequate attention to each question.

Fair enough?

The claim that Pope JPII “prayed with various false religions” is simply false. There is a profound difference in being present while others pray, and “praying with” false religious in common prayer, which never took place.

I call your attention once again to the post I (and James Larson) wrote on Assisi in the “OUR GOD OR THEIRES (SHORT STORY)” thread, where several quotes were provided from Pope JPII's Wednesday General Audience on Oct 22, 1986 (five days prior to the event) which were entirely devoted to this subject, one of which said:

"Certainly we cannot 'pray together' namely, to make a common prayer, but we can be present while others pray. In this way we manifest our respect for the prayer of others and for the attitude of others before the Divinity; at the same time we offer them the humble and sincere witness of our faith in Christ, Lord of the Universe.”

Pope JPII said that “we cannot 'pray together' namely, to make a common prayer”; meaning that communicatio in sacris would be entirely avoided.

Did Pope JPII violate his own word? What evidence is there for the charge besides a picture showing him in the midst of pagans and other religious holding a potted plant and the like?

As far Pope JPII having “received paganistic blessings”, this must be viewed in the context of his intention made manifest in the same General Audience just prior to Assisi:

"Precisely because Christ is the center of the whole created world and of history, and because no one can come to the Father except through Him (cf. Jn 14:6), we approach the other religions in an attitude of sincere respect and of fervent witness to Christ in Whom we believe. In them there are, in fact, the 'seeds of the Word', the 'rays of the one truth', to quote the words of the early Fathers of the Church who lived and worked in the midst of paganism . . .."

There were no acts of “idolatry” on the part of JPII when he allowed the pagans to bless him in their own false rituals as a sign of respect to “the seeds of the word” contained within them, while he, as Christ's Vicar, offered “sincere witness of our faith in Christ, Lord of the Universe.”

He did not “pray with” pagans in common prayer (communication in sacris), and he did not offer tribute or incense to false gods (idolatry).

While divine law strictly forbids communicatio in sacris, the Church's disciplines and laws governing interaction with false religious in the name of ecumenism (not false ecumenism) are prudential matters which are at the total discretion of the pope.

As I mentioned in the previous Assisi post, the 1917 code of canon law made some significant changes in providing direction to Catholics who are obligated to attend the various functions of other religions (weddings, funerals, etc), while Pope Pius XII provided further guidance and significant change through “An Instruction of the Holy Office On The Ecumenical Movement”.

(See http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFECUM.HTM)

As I also indicated, these new guidelines caused canonists and theologians to reconsider some of their traditionally held (western) beliefs with respect to certain actions which, heretofore, were considered communicatio in sacris, but were in actuality matters of positive ecclesiastical law, and as such:

“a positive ecclesiastical law is subject to a customary interpretation, to dispensations, to epikeia, to non-observance when there is a grave incommodum and so on and so forth”. (Canon E.J. Mahoney, Priests’ Problems, 1957., XXV. JOINT WORSHIP OR ACTION WITH NON-CATHOLICS)

Once again, just as Pope Pius XII provided guidelines to local Ordinaries for participation in joint religious conventions and the like, which included permission for the joint recitation of the Our Father at the opening or closing of such conventions, the “so on and so forth” is the exclusive prerogative and domain of the Pope who must weigh the dangers inherent in such joint assemblies against the positive good he believes can be derived from them.

We may question the prudence of John Paul II in some of these actions, but we should not question his stated intentions. The accusation of communicatio in sacris is without merit.

Lourdes Mon Feb 21, 2011 2:15 pm

Greetings everyone!

I will be interested in having the answers to these questions as well.

Thank you, Catholic Truth, for asking them.

MRyan Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:10 am

Lourdes wrote:Greetings everyone!

I will be interested in having the answers to these questions as well.

Thank you, Catholic Truth, for asking them.

Greetings, Lourdes.

I would be happy to continue to answer the rest of the questions (to the best of my ability) provided there is some form of acknowledgment (in agreement or not) to my first response by those who raise or want these questions answered.

tornpage Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:03 pm

Very good, MRyan. Excellent as usual - I agree with you.

I have a question. I seem to remember reports of crucifixes and sacramentals etc. which pay homage to Our Lord and Mother being removed from various locations at Assissi to acommodate this peace gathering.

I won't say anything about that until it's either established that it happened or not.

MRyan Tue Feb 22, 2011 1:31 pm

Thanks, Tornpage, and I did not mean to imply that I will be the only one answering these questions!

I heard the same thing about the removal of the sacramentals, etc., and if it did happen (it wouldn't surprise me), it was a bad decision on the part of those responsible for setting it up. But I do not think that such a directive, if there was one, came from the pope.

Lourdes Tue Feb 22, 2011 1:56 pm

I can't answer these questions as I have asked them myself and, depending on the "bent" of the person asked, have received different answers. For once and for all, I would appreciate the truth without the person that is providing the answers being influenced by the side of the fence (so to speak) he/she leans toward. I hope that I am making sense.

Thank you, MRyan, for the greeting. I am happy to be here and look forward to having unbiased discussions regarding our faith.

I am not very smart and am here to learn.

columba Tue Feb 22, 2011 7:11 pm

Lourdes wrote:I can't answer these questions as I have asked them myself and, depending on the "bent" of the person asked, have received different answers. For once and for all, I would appreciate the truth without the person that is providing the answers being influenced by the side of the fence (so to speak) he/she leans toward. I hope that I am making sense.

Thank you, MRyan, for the greeting. I am happy to be here and look forward to having unbiased discussions regarding our faith.

I am not very smart and am here to learn.

Good to have you here Lourdes. I don't think any of us here would claim to be smart and we can all learn from these discussion/debates.

I agree with MRyans response to the Assissi affair and I think the same type of response could be given to all the quotes provided by C.T.
Each issue taken on it's own can be interpreted in both orthodox and non-orthodox ways; it's when taking them all together that one can't help seeing a general trend towards a break with the traditionally held view of the Church.
And even if all those instances are declared heretical, who then has the power to unseat a Pope? No individual (even a Cardinal) could do that.

As up to the present no Vatican II Pope has declared any new dogma, I feel quite safe in ignoring any questionabley imprudent actions or words of recent Popes and I would go as far as saying that the general ambiguous language used throughout the past 50 years or so can be detrimental to one's own personal faith if not understanding how one is meant to interpret it.
Confussion never advances virtue but rather promotes laxity. I for one follow the traditional dogmas and understandings of them that have served the faithful well for many centuries.

The greatest injustice of Vat II IMHO, was the introduction of the Novus Ordo Missea to the almost total annihilation of the TLM.

Lourdes Tue Feb 22, 2011 7:26 pm

Thank you, Columba, for the welcome!

You wrote:

As up to the present no Vatican II Pope has declared any new dogma, I feel quite safe in ignoring any questionabley imprudent actions or words of recent Popes and I would go as far as saying that the general ambiguous language used throughout the past 50 years or so can be detrimental to one's own personal faith if not understanding how one is meant to interpret it.

Here is my question for what you wrote above. I thought that Vatican I taught that we are to give our assent even if we do not agree. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I spent many decades either picking and choosing what to ignore or follow, or just disregarding the popes all together. I didn't return to Holy Mother Church to continue doing that.

Maybe I am looking at the whole thing wrong. I have a lot to learn.

columba Tue Feb 22, 2011 8:53 pm

Lourdes wrote:
Here is my question for what you wrote above. I thought that Vatican I taught that we are to give our assent even if we do not agree. Please correct me if I am wrong.

The thing is, Vatican II has never promulgated anything new in dogma or doctrine demanding the assent of the faithful. The things quoted by C.T. are not put before us as "of the faith." We are still free to follow all the traditional teachings as we always have (even if the means to do so aren't universally avaivable and have to be sought out). However, if a Pope were to declare something concerning Faith, Morals or Discipline as Binding on all the faithful then we would be duty bound to humbly submit to any such declaration.

Catholic_Truth Thu Feb 24, 2011 4:43 am

I would have to disagree with you Columba. If Paul VI was not a true Pope, then you would be correct and a Catholic can disregard what is taught in the 2nd Vatican Council. But, If Paul VI was a true Pope, then he fullfilled what is taught below, and therefore all Catholics must assent to what is taught by the Vatican II Council.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 4, Chap. 4:
“… the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, [1] WHEN CARRYING OUT THE DUTY OF THE PASTOR AND TEACHER OF ALL CHRISTIANS [2] IN ACCORD WITH HIS SUPREME APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY [3] HE EXPLAINS A DOCTRINE OF FAITH OR MORALS TO BE HELD BY THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable. But if anyone presumes to contradict this definition of Ours, which may God forbid: let him be anathema.”

My point is this, that Paul VI’s promulgation of the documents of Vatican II fulfilled all three of these requirements, which would make the documents of Vatican II infallible if he had been a true pope.
1) A Pope must act as Pastor and teacher of all Christians
2) A Pope must teach in accord with his supreme apostolic authority
3) A Pope must explain a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church

Therefore all Catholics must believe and accept whatever is taught by the second Vatican Council if Paul VI was a true Pope, not to mention that each papal claimant after him also supports and believes in what is taught in Vatican II. So if the council claimed Muslims worship and adore the same God that Catholics worship and adore, then Catholics must accept that. If they claim Buddhists have reached the highest state of illumination on their own efforts, then Catholics must accept that. If they claim religious liberty to be a right for all false religions, then Catholics must accept that. If they claim heretics and schismatics can receive the Holy Eucharist from Catholic priests, then Catholics must accept that too, etc, etc......

Lourdes Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:02 pm

Therefore all Catholics must believe and accept whatever is taught by the second Vatican Council if Paul VI was a true Pope, not to mention that each papal claimant after him also supports and believes in what is taught in Vatican II. So if the council claimed Muslims worship and adore the same God that Catholics worship and adore, then Catholics must accept that. If they claim Buddhists have reached the highest state of illumination on their own efforts, then Catholics must accept that. If they claim religious liberty to be a right for all false religions, then Catholics must accept that. If they claim heretics and schismatics can receive the Holy Eucharist from Catholic priests, then Catholics must accept that too, etc, etc......

Catholic_Truth

Posts: 82
Join date: 2010-12-19
Location: Louisiana

Catholic Truth, the way you have described it is my understanding also. We can't pick and choose.

Regarding the above quoted part of your post, I cannot give my assent to that, and that puts me in a dilemma.

Saviorsheart Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:11 pm

I was born in 1972 so post Vatican II is all I know. I've heard of things pre Vatican II from my parents. I don't think there was any harm in the changes. It enabled the average Catholic to be a participant in his/her church, rather than a mere spectator. Besides, a more liberal catholic church is a good thing.

Allie Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:23 pm

Saviorsheart wrote:I was born in 1972 so post Vatican II is all I know. I've heard of things pre Vatican II from my parents. I don't think there was any harm in the changes. It enabled the average Catholic to be a participant in his/her church, rather than a mere spectator. Besides, a more liberal catholic church is a good thing.

Hello, Saviorsheart- I think you may be new (although I am not on too often) - so welcome to you!

In reading your response I was wondering if you could define/specify your view of "a more liberal catholic church is a good thing".

Allie Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:24 pm

dbl post= deleted

Elisa Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:07 am

Vatican II never said that Jews, pagans, Muslims or anyone who does not accept Christ and His Church will be saved where they are and that they do not have to have explicit faith in Christ and His Church to be saved. It talks only of the seeds of truth in those religions being “a preparation for the Gospel.”

One may criticize any ambiguous language, but Vatican II never taught heresy.

If they claim Buddhists have reached the highest state of illumination on their own efforts, then Catholics must accept that

Vatican II never said that. It says that Buddhism teaches it may lead to “supreme illumination.” The Council doesn’t say it does lead to "supreme illumination." It only recognizes that even pagans yearn for the true God and seek Him. Not that they have found Him. The Church recognizes their seeking.

Like when St. Augustine says, “We were made for you, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee.” All men are created in His image and He wrote Himself into our DNA, so men long for Him. Not all find Him or His truth.

God has written Himself and His natural law into the hearts of men and the Holy Spirit has always whispered to men from ancient times, even before revealing Himself to Abraham, and because of that even false religions can have kernels of truth in them. The kernels that agree with the full Catholic truth can come only from God, like the falsehood in those faiths can come only from the evil one. Should we deny the truth that agrees with the Church, just because we share it with pagans? And can that truth come from anywhere else than God? The kernels of truth are “a preparation for the Gospel.” That they may one day believe in Christ and His Church and achieve salvation in Christ alone.

St. Paul says, "Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. . . .For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law." (Romans 1:20 and 2:14)

So the Church uses St. Paul as an example.

1 Corinthians 9:19-23:

“Although I am free in regard to all, I have made myself a slave to all so as to win over as many as possible.
To the Jews I became like a Jew to win over Jews; to those under the law I became like one under the law--though I myself am not under the law--to win over those under the law.
To those outside the law I became like one outside the law--though I am not outside God's law but within the law of Christ--to win over those outside the law.
To the weak I became weak, to win over the weak. I have become all things to all, to save at least some.
All this I do for the sake of the gospel, so that I too may have a share in it.”

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

Excerpt:

“Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing "ways," comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.”

So if the council claimed Muslims worship and adore the same God that Catholics worship and adore, then Catholics must accept that

Mohammedanism technically is a Christian heresy. It has distorted the one true God. They believe lies from the demons. But a distortion of the true God doesn’t mean that they are worshipping a different god or demon. Just that they believe some truth and some falsehood about God and don’t really know the God they worship.

Vatican II never said that the Muslims have a correct or full understanding of God, just that they “profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.” So they share some of the same beliefs about the one true God that we do. It doesn’t say that they do hold the faith of Abraham, but that they “profess” to hold it, so they are one step closer to Catholic truth than the pagans. All I’ve said above about pagans applies also to them. They don’t actually know the God of Abraham, who they claim as their father, but they know something about Him, an imperfect understanding, mixed with falsehood from the demons. So they do adore the one God, the Creator, whom they do not really know correctly.

Excerpts:
“The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.”

Elisa Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:14 am

If they claim heretics and schismatics can receive the Holy Eucharist from Catholic priests, then Catholics must accept that too, etc

Vatican II never said that. The Church specifically still teaches that Protestants are not allowed to receive Holy Communion.

Brother Roger Schutz (the only example you mentioned in your first post on this thread) was a defacto Catholic and, I imagine, for that reason they made a singular exception for him in allowing him to receive Holy Communion, even though he never formally converted to the Church and never broke ties with Protestants, with which he no longer agreed theologically. It was however publically known that he accepted all Catholic teachings and acceptance of the Pope as the head of the Church, to whom he personally conveyed submission. He believed everything about Mary and the Eucharist and had a devotion to both. He was a daily communicant. While his case is unusually and likely not to recur, and while some may validly argue an exception should not have been made, it is far from tantamount to saying that the Church now teaches that Protestants are allowed to receive Holy Communion. The Church specifically teaches the opposite still. No one can rightly say that this man was outside the Church.

The Orthodox receiving or not receiving Holy Communion from Catholic priests is a DISCIPLINE, NOT A FAITH BELIEF. A discipline can be changed at will by the Pope and the Church. So there is nothing wrong with the Orthodox being allowed to receive Communion in anticipation of full reunification one day, since we share that faith belief handed down from the Apostles. Although the SSPX is not in full communion with the Church and is in an informal schism (although they are not in formal schism), their priests are valid and Catholics may receive Communion from the Society’s valid Catholic priests and formal SSPX Catholic members may receive from Catholic priests in full communion with the Church.

The Orthodox hold ALL the same faith beliefs as we do including Sacred Tradition, Mary, the Eucharist and the other sacraments and have a valid priesthood. They are in schism over authority, not faith beliefs. Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are identical in faith beliefs except for recognizing the authority of the Pope. The filioque, Immaculate Conception and Purgatory are all believed by the Orthodox identically as the Eastern Catholics believe them, just described in different theological language than the West uses. Any heresy on morals which cropped up only in the last century (contraception and remarriage) would disappear once that blessed day comes when we have reunification with them. In fact, Orthodox divorce tribunals are taken very seriously and are not that different from Catholic annulment tribunals and Orthodox divorce is rare.

While the Orthodox Churches are not in full communion with us, it is important to remember 2 things.

One is that, while you will find vehement anti-Catholic Orthodox on the internet, most individual Orthodox are friendly and respectful towards the Church, and may not even understand what separates us. Some devoted faithful may even be Catholic in their hearts in the eyes of Our Lord, baptized as infants into the Church and never having rejected the Pope and holding the same faith beliefs of the Church. As Pascendi on his forum once taught me, only Churches are in full or partial communion, not individuals.

The Orthodox formally have always considered the Bishop of Rome to be first among equals, a brother Bishop with a place of honor. However, they don't believe he has authority over them. The hierarchy is becoming more and more friendly to the Pope. Now even the Russian Orthodox is becoming friendlier to Rome, something that seemed impossible only a couple decades ago. (Please God we be reunified soon.)

Secondly, an Eastern Catholic, Gabriel, from another website explained to me once that the Orthodox Churches have NEVER FORMALLY rejected the Pope, as it is assumed. In practice they act as such and their writings say as much. Material schism, yes, but formally, no.

In 1965 it was formally declared by both Churches, “They had directed their censures against the persons concerned and not the Churches. These censures were not intended to break ecclesiastical communion between the Sees of Rome and Constantinople.”

Here is a post from Gabriel:

“What I would like to do at this juncture is provide some evidence from the Orthodox side that the schism is not formal but material (to use the Latin scholastic terminology which is not part of the Eastern tradition).

Every year on the First Sunday in Lent, a document of truly formal authority is read, the Synodicon. This is a catalog of all the errors condemned by the seven councils (synods) recognized by the Orthodox as ecumenical. Every heresy is condemned therein, but there is NO MENTION OF PAPAL PRIMACY. Now, do the Orthodox clergy in fact reject papal primacy? Yes. They are materially in schism. But by the grace of God that schism has never become a formal act.”

Elisa Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:20 am

If they claim religious liberty to be a right for all false religions, then Catholics must accept that.

I’ll leave the “religious liberty” one for Mike, if he gets a chance. He knows more about that than me and I’m tired. But from what I remember reading, the council never said that all religions were equal or they deserve equal footing, only that man should not be forced to believe a religion, it should come from his free will, by the grace of God. There should be no coercion.

In fact, while the Catholic countries in the past treated nonChristians as second class citizens or asked them to leave a country, they allowed them freedom of religion and did not force them to convert. They were never killed them because they did not convert. They were killed (by the state after undergoing a Church trial, which was the most just court of the day) when they lied about their Christian conversion and tried to undermine Christianity with their heresy. Not that they should have been killed at all, but I’m just talking saying they were not killed because they were not Catholic. Jailed or denounced might have been more appropriate.

Vatican II’s reason for insisting on “religious liberty” was because it was Christians, and Catholics specifically, who in the last century (and today) were being targeted by atheists’ secular governments and Muslim governments for persecution and martyrdom.

Hope these 3 posts help.

Good night and God bless you all.
Love,
Elisa

PS Jim, after reading the thread, I had it on my mind and got my second wind, I guess. lol

MRyan Tue Mar 01, 2011 2:42 pm

Catholic_Truth wrote:I would have to disagree with you Columba. If Paul VI was not a true Pope, then you would be correct and a Catholic can disregard what is taught in the 2nd Vatican Council. But, If Paul VI was a true Pope, then he fullfilled what is taught below, and therefore all Catholics must assent to what is taught by the Vatican II Council.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 4, Chap. 4:
“… the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, [1] WHEN CARRYING OUT THE DUTY OF THE PASTOR AND TEACHER OF ALL CHRISTIANS [2] IN ACCORD WITH HIS SUPREME APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY [3] HE EXPLAINS A DOCTRINE OF FAITH OR MORALS TO BE HELD BY THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable. But if anyone presumes to contradict this definition of Ours, which may God forbid: let him be anathema.”

My point is this, that Paul VI’s promulgation of the documents of Vatican II fulfilled all three of these requirements, which would make the documents of Vatican II infallible if he had been a true pope.
1) A Pope must act as Pastor and teacher of all Christians
2) A Pope must teach in accord with his supreme apostolic authority
3) A Pope must explain a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church

Unfortunately, the propaganda from a certain sede sect is, once again, represented here as Catholic truth, when it is anything but.

It is a shame that C_T keeps falling for this nonsense, this time by trying to demonstrate that the documents of VCII represent ex cathedra “definitions of the Roman Pontiff” that render them infallible by the divine charism of papal infallibility.

Of course, every one knows that there is not a single formal ex cathedra defintion within the documents of VCII, and there was no intention of the pope to invoke his divine and personal charism of infallibility, as popes John XXIII and Paul VI made abundantly clear, as did subsequent popes who confirmed this fact.

It is easy to spot the error when the “explanations” presented by an Ecumenical Council are mistaken for “solemn definitions”, and thus, we end up with an appalling “interpretation” of Papal Infallibility by those whose mission in life is to tear down the visible Catholic Church.

Catholic_Truth wrote:Therefore all Catholics must believe and accept whatever is taught by the second Vatican Council if Paul VI was a true Pope, not to mention that each papal claimant after him also supports and believes in what is taught in Vatican II. So if the council claimed Muslims worship and adore the same God that Catholics worship and adore, then Catholics must accept that. If they claim Buddhists have reached the highest state of illumination on their own efforts, then Catholics must accept that. If they claim religious liberty to be a right for all false religions, then Catholics must accept that. If they claim heretics and schismatics can receive the Holy Eucharist from Catholic priests, then Catholics must accept that too, etc, etc......

While VCII did not “define” any doctrines, the general infallibility of an Ecumenical Council, be it pastoral or dogmatic, prevents a Council from teaching heresy (as a moral consensus of theologians affirm), though the presentation of certain teachings may be ambiguous, and even so poorly presented that it appears to conflict with traditional teaching.

For example, with respect to the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on Religious Liberty Dignitatis Humanae, there is no doubt that his document has been difficult to reconcile with previous teaching. But, does that mean that it is opposed to Tradition and to the teachings of previous declarations of the Magisterium? It does not, and in fact:

The teaching that error has no rights remains untouched; one finds it not only in Leo XIII's social encyclicals but also in Pius XII's Ci Riesce and in John Paul II's Veritatis Splendor and Evangelium Vitae[/i]. But the Church adds (and this is a central point in Dignitatis Humanae): Although error as such has no rights, the erring person does have rights, and his errors do not strip away those rights. The reason is that the erring person is, as a human person equipped with intellect and free will, naturally ordered to the truth by his conscience and by the author of his nature; no external agent can force him either to reach that truth or to renounce his errors, although certain errors may be judged sufficiently harmful to the common good that the expression and inculcation of these errors may be lawfully prohibited. (Dignitatis Humanae, The Interpretive Principles, by Peter A. Kwasniewski)

Having said that, Kwasniewski also says:

When all is said and done, Dignitatis Humanae remains a problematic document if only because its own scope and method are left unclear to the reader and, as a result, its interpretation has been terribly, but predictably, vexed. It has given rise to acrimonious debate, intense partisanship, and even to real or emergent schism: leaders of the Society of Saint Pius X have pointed above all to Dignitatis Humanae as undeniable proof of the doctrinal discontinuity that justifies skepticism about the Second Vatican Council.

Of course, sede's have done the same thing, and they are wrong.

Though his primary reason for submission to VCII is erroneous (papal infallibility), C_T is not far off the mark when he says:

Catholic_Truth wrote: Therefore all Catholics must believe and accept whatever is taught by the second Vatican Council if Paul VI was a true Pope, not to mention that each papal claimant after him also supports and believes in what is taught in Vatican II.

While Catholics must accept the binding nature of the Council, not everything taught within the Council is a binding matter of faith (revealed truth or a definitive act). As such, the assent of faith is not always required, and the degree of required submission will vary according to the manifested will of the Pope and the Bishops in union with him at the Council, which can be known (not always with certainty) “either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.” (LG 25)

C_T is correct when he says that Catholics must accept the following teachings, though I would add “when properly understood with the mind of the Church”:

- the council claimed Muslims worship and adore the same God that Catholics worship and adore,
- Buddhists have reached the highest state of illumination on their own efforts
- they claim religious liberty to be a right

With respect to the last, C_T misrepresents the Council when he suggests that it teaches that religious liberty is a right for all false religions, for it never said that.

He is also in error when he said that “If they claim heretics and schismatics can receive the Holy Eucharist from Catholic priests, then Catholics must accept that too”.

No, heretics and schismatics cannot receive the Eucharist. Of course, C_T believes that the Orthodox, for example, are still classified by the Church as heretics and schismatics, when they are not. They are not “members” in full communion with the Church, but “These Churches [the Eastern Churches], although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all – by apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy.” (CCC, 238)

As such, the Church is the sole divinely mandated authority for legislating the changeable disciplines governing the dispensing of her sacraments, and we are not free to accuse her of communicatio in sacris, heresy, schism or apostasy in this regard.

Well, we are free, just as we are free to join the sede sects and the semi-sede false traditionalists.

Catholic_Truth Thu Mar 10, 2011 10:35 pm

MRyan wrote:No, heretics and schismatics cannot receive the Eucharist. Of course, C_T believes that the Orthodox, for example, are still classified by the Church as heretics and schismatics, when they are not.

Maybe the Orthodox are not heretics and schismatics in some alternate universe, but I live in this universe. Any traditional Catholic can look at the traditional Catholic Church's dogmatic definition of what a schismatic and heretic is and will see that the orthodox, who reject Catholic teaching and submission to the Pope, clearly fit the bill. So, vatican II and the new code of canon law teaches that its OK to administer Holy Communion to those who are in a state of sin(heretics and schismatics), and therefore enabling these souls to commit another grave sin by receiving the Holy Eucharist unworthily.

Elisa Fri Mar 11, 2011 12:09 am

You simply restate your initial opinion and error of fact without addressing any specific points in our posts here, as if you didn’t even read them.

Again, Protestants are NOT allowed to receive Holy Communion.

It is a discipline of the Church that allows the Orthodox to receive Holy Communion, since they have valid sacraments and a valid priesthood, share Sacred Tradition in full with us - all our theological faith beliefs, in particular about the Eucharist.

They are separated from us on matters of authority, not faith, and the schism is material schism, not formal schism.

Disciplines are not the same things as the faith beliefs of Sacred Tradition. It is within the prerogatives of the Church (and the Church alone, not individual Catholics) to decide, approve and change disciplines.

See my posts here for details. I’m not going to repeat myself.

MRyan Fri Mar 11, 2011 11:29 am

Elisa,

You are of course correct when you say that the Orthodox are in a state of material schism, for the Church no longer assumes the moral culpability of those who belong to Churches in schism from Rome, and thus no long refer to them as “schismatics”.

However, I disagree with you when you say that “They are separated from us on matters of authority, not faith”, when the very issue of authority that separates them stems from their false and at least materially heretical denial of Papal Primacy as defined by the Church.

If the Church no longer holds them morally culpable for their denial of Papal Primacy (do deny the full, immediate and universal authority of Peter is to deny his Primacy), this does not change the objective nature of the heresy itself, for schism never exists in a vacuum without a heresy to justify it, as Pope Pius IX taught: "Every schism fabricates a heresy for itself to justify its withdrawal from the Church." (Quartus Supra)

As an example, people forget that AB Lefebvre was not excommunicated for an objective act of schism only; but that “such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman Primacy - constitutes a schismatic act." (Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei)

Such “rejection of the Roman Primacy” in practice constitutes not only a schismatic act, but also a heresy, at least materially.

The Catholic Encyclopedia:

“But as St. Jerome remarks, practically and historically, heresy and schism nearly always go hand in hand; schism leads almost invariably to denial of the papal primacy. Schism, therefore, is usually mixed [a mixture of schism and heresy], in which case considered from a moral standpoint, its perversity is chiefly due to the heresy which forms part of it."

The Orthodox are in a state of material schism as a result of material heresy. One cannot deny the supreme authority and Primacy of Peter without denying the foundational dogma on which it rests.

MRyan Fri Mar 11, 2011 12:03 pm

Catholic_Truth wrote:
MRyan wrote:No, heretics and schismatics cannot receive the Eucharist. Of course, C_T believes that the Orthodox, for example, are still classified by the Church as heretics and schismatics, when they are not.

Maybe the Orthodox are not heretics and schismatics in some alternate universe, but I live in this universe. Any traditional Catholic can look at the traditional Catholic Church's dogmatic definition of what a schismatic and heretic is and will see that the orthodox, who reject Catholic teaching and submission to the Pope, clearly fit the bill. So, vatican II and the new code of canon law teaches that its OK to administer Holy Communion to those who are in a state of sin(heretics and schismatics), and therefore enabling these souls to commit another grave sin by receiving the Holy Eucharist unworthily.

The “alternate universe” of which you speak is the universal Catholic Church. Once again you reveal your defective understanding of Church teaching, this time as it relates to heresy and schism, and thus do you deny the authority of the Church to determine those non-Catholic Churches she no longer views as formally schismatic and heretical. Since one error leads to another, you also deny the Church her supreme authority over the administration of her sacraments.

And you call yourself a “traditional Catholic”? Please cite the “tradition” that allows you to deny the Church the authority to render judgments of moral culpability or non-culpability for heresy and schism, and please cite the “tradition” that denies the Church her full and immediate authority over the administration of her own sacraments.

The only “tradition” C_T appeals to is that of schismatics, heretics and rad-Trads who believe they are smarter than the Church. Just ask them.

columba Fri Mar 11, 2011 7:04 pm

MRyan from your above post a nagging question comes to mind. Is it not the case that a material heretic becomes a formal heretic once made aware of the heresy but still refuses to accept the teaching in question? What are your thoughts regarding this? Like you say, every schism has a herersy attatched.

MRyan Fri Mar 11, 2011 7:58 pm

columba wrote:MRyan from your above post a nagging question comes to mind. Is it not the case that a material heretic becomes a formal heretic once made aware of the heresy but still refuses to accept the teaching in question? What are your thoughts regarding this? Like you say, every schism has a herersy attatched.

Yes, but not every schism is “formal”; and in this case the Church has weighed-in with her judgment by telling us that the Orthodox Churches are not to be considered formally schismatic – (not to be considered morally culpable for the sin of heresy and schism) – so there is no “nagging” question to resolve.

The Church has the authority to answer such nagging questions, and she did so, even if there are many “traditionalists” who reject her judgments and hold the Orthodox as formally heretical and schismatic.

This always comes back to the authority of the Church – does it not?

MRyan Sat Mar 12, 2011 10:27 am

The title of this thread is “Questions for non-Sedevacantists”, and the first and second questions (on Assisi and Canon Law's provisions for the administration of Communion to certain non-Catholic Christians) have been addressed in detail.

You may remember that I respectfully suggested “that we take these one at a time so that we can give adequate attention to each question", which questions represent the canned charges of sedevacantists against the Roman Pontiffs and the Church.

As I expected, there has been no response from the questioner to the detailed explanation of Assisi and to the various proofs that demonstrated there was no communicatio in sacris and no idolatry. The clear intentions and goals of Pope JPII for these events were also cited.

With respect to canon law and the changes in the Church's discipline in the administration of sacramental Communion, the only response from C_T to the explanation and fact that the Church no longer holds the Orthodox Churches in formal schism (though material schism remains), was this:

Maybe the Orthodox are not heretics and schismatics in some alternate universe, but I live in this universe. Any traditional Catholic can look at the traditional Catholic Church's dogmatic definition of what a schismatic and heretic is and will see that the orthodox, who reject Catholic teaching and submission to the Pope, clearly fit the bill. So, vatican II and the new code of canon law teaches that its OK to administer Holy Communion to those who are in a state of sin (heretics and schismatics), and therefore enabling these souls to commit another grave sin by receiving the Holy Eucharist unworthily.

Is such a response indicative of someone actually looking for the truth, or of someone who has already made up his mind that he does not need the “Catholic Church” to tell him what constitutes formal heresy and schism, and that he knows that the “Catholic Church” is sanctioning communication in sacris and sacrilege.

As I suspected, any good-willed effort to answer the individual questions is a total waste of time since it is clearly evident that C_T is not interested in his questions being answered, for the questions themselves already presuppose guilt and require no explanation beyond what the 'evidence' clearly suggest to C_T.

This is the methodology of the sede sect to which C_T is obviously infatuated: Throw lots of “heretical” looking stuff on the wall and then sit back and scoff at the Church's explanations for what the sede sees as damnable evidence of an “apostate” Church.

And to these sede's I say, begone Satan, stop wasting our time, and take your lies with you.

columba Sat Mar 12, 2011 8:17 pm

MRyan wrote:
columba wrote:MRyan from your above post a nagging question comes to mind. Is it not the case that a material heretic becomes a formal heretic once made aware of the heresy but still refuses to accept the teaching in question? What are your thoughts regarding this? Like you say, every schism has a herersy attatched.
Yes, but not every schism is “formal”; and in this case the Church has weighed-in with her judgment by telling us that the Orthodox Churches are not to be considered formally schismatic – (not to be considered morally culpable for the sin of heresy and schism) – so there is no “nagging” question to resolve.

The Church has the authority to answer such nagging questions, and she did so, even if there are many “traditionalists” who reject her judgments and hold the Orthodox as formally heretical and schismatic.

This always comes back to the authority of the Church – does it not?

Does this mean that the Orthodox Chuches do not know they are in schism?
If they do know then logically they would be culpable. Would they not?

Elisa Sat Mar 12, 2011 10:49 pm

Elisa:
The Orthodox hold ALL the same faith beliefs as we do including Sacred Tradition, Mary, the Eucharist and the other sacraments and have a valid priesthood. They are in schism over authority, not faith beliefs. Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are identical in faith beliefs except for recognizing the authority of the Pope. The filioque, Immaculate Conception and Purgatory are all believed by the Orthodox identically as the Eastern Catholics believe them, just described in different theological language than the West uses. Any heresy on morals which cropped up only in the last century (contraception and remarriage) would disappear once that blessed day comes when we have reunification with them. In fact, Orthodox divorce tribunals are taken very seriously and are not that different from Catholic annulment tribunals and Orthodox divorce is rare.

Mike,

I do agree with your point. Schism does leads to heresy and heresy to schism. And the Eastern separation on authority has led it to heresy on the primacy of Peter. I have said that in the past and should have said it here.

But since the authority “schism” and the heresy are so intertwined, I assumed it wasn’t necessary. I’m glad you pointed it out, because not everyone reading here can read my mind. lol My thoughts were that once the East Orthodox recognize the authority of Rome which is the ONLY thing that separates them, then the heresy vanishes. There would be no heresy if we agreed on authority. And the authority issue came first in the division between the East and the West.

In fact, as I mentioned, the Orthodox already agree to the primacy of Rome in certain respects. They see the Pope as the leader with honor who can preside and be spokesman and initiate course of action or discussion. He can be arbiter or chief reconciler amongst the particular Churches. But not exert total rule over their particular Churches and not hold a supremacy over the whole Church and infallibility of the Pope alone, apart from the other bishops.

(Note to Columba: Maybe this helps answer your question. The Orthodox don’t feel they separated from Rome or left the Church of Christ. They think that Rome changed and assumed authority it never had and they thought that was heresy. They think they have just followed the course of the Church of Christ unaltered. They believe they are the “traditionalist” in a way.)

For anyone reading who doesn’t know the history, the things that separated the Churches a thousand years ago came from personalities and regional political and cultural conflicts, where one side tried to exert power over the other in Church matters.

But in faith beliefs, they were not apart. Even the filioque. The East didn’t want to add the filioque to the Creed, since it originally was not in the Creed. And the East didn’t have the problem that parts of the West had of some of the faithful denying the belief that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father “and the Son.” So they thought the West’s pastoral addition of the filioque to the Creed was necessary only for them. But the East always believed that the Holy Spirit proceeded from both the Father “and the Son.” There was no heresy on this in the East. So the West’s insistence that they also alter the original Creed seemed unnecessary and presumptuous to them.

Hot heads on both sides pushed things too far. It’s important to remember that when the Pope’s legate on his own spontaneously and arrogantly marched into the Church during the sacred liturgy in 1054AD and excommunicated the Eastern Patriarch (who himself was arrogant about unleavened bread and hotheaded towards the West) the Pope had already died. The mutual excommunications of the individuals were invalid and there were never any excommunications of the Churches themselves.

Also, while the Primacy of Peter was an accepted Christian doctrine from the beginning, it was not formally and clearly defined until after the Orthodox split a thousand years ago.

My point in saying that it is authority that separates us rather than faith beliefs is to stress something I bring up to Protestants. Catholics and the Orthodox have been separated on matters of authority for a thousand years, but since both still hold to Sacred Tradition, the Holy Spirit has preserved the Orthodox from further heresy. They agree with us on everything else. They are indistinguishable from Eastern Catholics.

Yet Protestants separated from the Church only 500 years ago, and since they dropped Sacred Tradition, they have themselves fractured on so many faith beliefs that resulted in multiple denominations all with differing faith beliefs from each other, certainly different from Catholics and Orthodox.

Once the Orthodox are reunited with Rome (may that day come soon, Lord), any heresy about the Pope would vanish, ipso facto. And (as I mentioned earlier in the quote above) any recent heresy on morals (contraception and remarriage) would dissolve very easily.

God bless you and may Our Lord send the grace needed to melt hearts and open minds to full reunification soon.
Love,
Elisa

columba Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:38 pm

Elisa wrote:
Note to Columba: Maybe this helps answer your question. The Orthodox don’t feel they separated from Rome or left the Church of Christ. They think that Rome changed and assumed authority it never had and they thought that was heresy. They think they have just followed the course of the Church of Christ unaltered. They believe they are the “traditionalist” in a way.

Hmmm... Sounds exactly like modern day sedevacantism.
I'll try Mryans method and replace "Orthodox" with "CMRI" in your quote just to emphasize what I mean.

Maybe this helps answer your question. The CMRI don’t feel they separated from Rome or left the Church of Christ. They think that Rome changed and assumed authority it never had and they thought that was heresy. They think they have just followed the course of the Church of Christ unaltered. They believe they are the “traditionalist” in a way.)

Does schism or heresy then become more acceptable the longer it has been held?
IMHO intercommunion with the Orthodox will gradually lead to intercommunion with other "Christian" sects. Even if not officially approved it will be ignored to the point where it will be generally held as acceptable thus weakening the claim of the Roman Catholic Church to be the one true Church of Christ. All the while the heirarchy will declare, "We never sanctioned this" but by that time the damage will be irreversable.

If this doesn't happen I'll eat my hat. jocolor

Looks tasty.

Elisa Sun Mar 13, 2011 2:35 am

Columba,

That’s precisely the point I was making to you. That the Orthodox consider themselves the Traditionalists, like a sede would.

Several things you are missing in your analogy.

The Eastern schism occurred before the doctrine of Papal Primacy was formally defined.

The separation did not occur all at once or even over a few decades, like sedes who see Vatican II as the demarcation line. It took centuries to manifest itself. It didn’t just happen in 1054 or was it finalized at that time. One reason it wasn’t formal schism, but manifest schism.

Sedes today are operating on their own, not following their bishops, as the Orthodox did/are.

No Orthodox living today left the Church. They were born into valid particular Churches that were not in full communion with Rome. Sedes today are actively leaving communion with Rome.

Finally, the Orthodox are considered to be in material schism or not in full communion (whichever you want to call it). And they are in discussions with Rome for future reunification. They are in fact more charitable and affectionate and respectful of Rome that sedes are.

If you want to put sedes in the same category as the Orthodox (manifest schism or not in full communion) that is fine with me, because I personally do put them in that same category. But much more personally culpable for all the reasons I mentioned.

Following the established Church discipline of allowing the Orthodox Catholic communion has in no way led to Protestants allowed communion. The 2 are entirely different. That is something you have made up in your own mind.

Night and God bless.
Love,
Elisa

Guest Sun Mar 13, 2011 9:15 am

Elisa wrote:They are in fact more charitable and affectionate and respectful of Rome that sedes are.

Hmm, I guess you have not had much experience with Orthodox, especially the Old Calendrists.

Elisa Sun Mar 13, 2011 10:38 am

Rasha,
There are about 300 million Orthodox in the world. There several Orthodox Churches in my area. Actually, I've known a good number of Orthodox people.

Don't confuse online Orthodox people with the Orthodox in general. Or one Orthodox Church with all the various particular Orthodox Churches.

They are protective and proud of their faith, but the vast majority do not hate Rome.

Even their heirarchy is getting friendlier to Rome. Actually, I'm stunned at the recent change in the attitude of the Russian Orthodox heirarchy. I see the Holy Spirit working there. They used to hate Rome.

The most vocal (especially online) are usually the malcontents. But most Orthodox just love Christ and follow their Bishops and don't care one way or the other.

Have a good day.
God bless you.
Love,
Elisa

Catholic_Truth Sun Mar 13, 2011 12:06 pm

Elisa wrote: The Eastern schism occurred before the doctrine of Papal Primacy was formally defined.

Then you are actually making the case against your own argument since the Orthodox living today reject Papal Primacy over God's one true Church, even though it has since been dogmatically declared and defined by the Catholic Church. Therefore the Orthodox living today are even more culpable than the Orthodox who lived 1000 years ago.

Elisa wrote: Sedes today are operating on their own, not following their bishops, as the Orthodox did/are.

I see, so if Sedes were to follow a Sede Bishop then that would make it all better and then Rome would have to accept them the same way they are accepting of the Orthodox.

Elisa wrote: No Orthodox living today left the Church.

So you are claiming that all Water baptized individuals(Catholics) to whom were raised in the Orthodox sect, at the age of reason chose to reject even just one dogma of the Catholic Church and refused to submit to the Roman Pontiff, haven't left the Catholic Church and are not formal heretics? So you believe persons can obstinatly reject the dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church and submission to the Pope, and yet they shouldn't be considered formal heretics and schismatics, even though the Catholic Church has already dogmatically defined such individuals as being formal heretics?

Elisa wrote:They were born into valid particular Churches that were not in full communion with Rome.

So you disagree with the traditional Catholic teaching that there is only one valid Church established by God on Earth or are you claiming that the Orthodox "churchs" are the same Church as the Catholic Church? Elisa, there is only ONE valid Church of God on Earth and that is the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. All others are false religions leading souls to Hell. Hence, "Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation". One Water Baptism, One Faith, One God, ONE CHURCH.

Elisa wrote: Finally, the Orthodox are considered to be in material schism

Then I guess you reject what the Catholic Church has already defined dogmatically as a "formal heretic/schismatic", which is anyone who obstinatly rejects any dogma of the Church and rejects submitting to the Roman Pontiff. Its ridiculous to claim that the Orthodox as a whole are all material heretics since a material heretic is nothing more than a WATER baptized Catholic, within the Church, who has a wrong understanding of the faith, but would immediately accept the truth if it were presented to him or her.

Elisa wrote:Following the established Church discipline of allowing the Orthodox Catholic communion has in no way led to Protestants allowed communion.

The Church can't claim its a discipline which they can change at will, such as changing the policy of refraining from eating meat on Fridays. No, this is quite different since the Church already has dogmatically taught that it is a grave sin for anyone to receive Holy Communion in a state of sin. Formal heretics/schismatics are in a state of sin. This is why when the Orthodox receive the Eucharist within their own Churchs, then they receive it illicitly, due to their formal schism/heresy. Since they are committing a sin by receiving the Eucharist illicitly within their own "churchs" due to their formal heresy/schism, then obviously they are committing a sin by receiving the Holy Eucharist from a Catholic Priest in a Catholic Mass due to their formal heresy/schism.

MRyan Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:06 pm

Elisa,

Take my advise and ignore C_T. It is a total waste of time refuting the "Magisterium of the Experts", especially the sede sect to which C_T has been "incorporated" hook, line, and sinker.

He is not fooling anyone.

Elisa Sun Mar 13, 2011 10:54 pm

C_T:
Then you are actually making the case against your own argument since the Orthodox living today reject Papal Primacy over God's one true Church, even though it has since been dogmatically declared and defined by the Catholic Church

That doesn’t make any sense. When the separation occurred a thousand years ago, Papal Primacy and Infallibility weren’t formally defined. Any Orthodox alive today was never taught by their priests and Bishops to believe in Papal Primacy, in the same way Catholics believe it, even though they have followed Sacred Tradition in all other things and they have the Eucharist.

Who is more culpable? Someone who was never taught to believe something or someone who was taught to believe the Holy Spirit worked through the magesterium and the Pope was infallible and had jurisdiction and authority, but rejects the current Pope and doesn’t believe the Holy Spirit is alive in today’s Church and it has no authority over him, by his own private interpretations?

If a Protestant denomination tells me I’m going to Hell for believing heresy and idolatry, am I supposes to care or give any credence to a group I don’t believe is teaching truth?

God will read the hearts and minds of the individual Orthodox alive today and He will judge who is actively rejecting His Church and who is outside it.

If you want to carefully reread my and Mike’s posts here, you will find the answers to the rest of your post. Including who has the authority in deciding these matters and who doesn’t. (disciplines, pronouncing who is a heretic and who is outside the one Church of Christ, the Catholic Church.)

I’m tired, sick and am way too busy lately to repeat things I’ve already said. Especially when I don’t think the person is really listening. Maybe after April 15th I’ll return.

But for now, I will take my friend, Mike’s advice.

God bless you and everyone here.

Love,
Elisa

Catholic_Truth Mon Mar 14, 2011 12:05 am

Elisa wrote:
C_T:
Then you are actually making the case against your own argument since the Orthodox living today reject Papal Primacy over God's one true Church, even though it has since been dogmatically declared and defined by the Catholic Church

That doesn’t make any sense. When the separation occurred a thousand years ago, Papal Primacy and Infallibility weren’t formally defined. Any Orthodox alive today was never taught by their priests and Bishops to believe in Papal Primacy, in the same way Catholics believe it, even though they have followed Sacred Tradition in all other things and they have the Eucharist.

Again, all infants who are properly WATER baptized automatically become Catholics, so if any of these persons are raised in the Orthodox sect and have not heard of any Catholic teachings, then these individuals can be considered "material heretics". But remember, a "material heretic" is a Catholic who simply has a wrong understanding of the faith, but would gladly accept the truth if it were shown to them. On the other hand, if an infant who has been WATER baptized; again which makes that infant a Catholic; and raised in the Orthodox sect who later reaches the age of reason and knows of Catholic teachings but rejects them, then at that point the individual ceases to be "Catholic" and becomes a "formal heretic".

But Canon Law and Vatican II isn't speaking about "material heretics"(Catholics) being allowed Holy Communion in this situation, but instead is clearly speaking about those who are "NOT IN FULL COMMUNION" and those who are "SEPARATED FROM THE CHURCH". So Vatican II and Canon Law is attempting to justify "NON-Catholics" receiving Holy Communion as long as those NON-Catholics only hold the belief that the Eucharist is the actual body, soul and divinity of Christ. So an Orthodox can reject the dogma of the immaculate conception, reject the dogma of Papal Infallibility, reject the dogma of the Pope being the visible head over God's entire Church, reject all the Catholic Church's councils since 1050 A.D., reject submission to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and yet still be able to receive the Holy Eucharist from a Catholic Priest in a Catholic Mass just as long as they proclaim to hold a belief in the sacrament of the Eucharist.

There is nothing you or MRyan can say in defense of this because it is clearly a teaching whereby Formal Heretics/Schismatics are being allowed to receive Holy Communion within the Catholic Church while in a state of sin, and thereby committing another grave sin by receiving the Holy Eucharist unworthily. This is obviously why MRyan has chosen to run from this particular subject and not debate it, since any honest traditional Catholic can clearly see that the Orthodox, who reject Catholic teaching and reject submission to the Pope, clearly fall under the category of Formal heretics and schismatics.

MRyan Mon Mar 14, 2011 11:49 am

Catholic_Truth wrote: There is nothing you or MRyan can say in defense of this because it is clearly a teaching whereby Formal Heretics/Schismatics are being allowed to receive Holy Communion within the Catholic Church while in a state of sin, and thereby committing another grave sin by receiving the Holy Eucharist unworthily. This is obviously why MRyan has chosen to run from this particular subject and not debate it, since any honest traditional Catholic can clearly see that the Orthodox, who reject Catholic teaching and reject submission to the Pope, clearly fall under the category of Formal heretics and schismatics.

Oh, please. Let's address the real issue.

First Vatican Council
Session 4 : 18 July 1870

First dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ

Chapter 1
On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter

1. We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the lord.

3. And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of Supreme Pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying: Feed my lambs, feed my sheep.

Chapter 2.
On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs

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

3. Therefore 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.

Chapter 3.
On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff

1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence, which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.

To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church. All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

3. 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.

4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

In the 1983 Code of Canon Law the following is prescribed:

Canon 844 (c.671 in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)

1. Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments to Catholic members of the Christian faithful only and, likewise, the latter may licitly receive the sacraments only from Catholic ministers with due regard for parts 2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and can. 861, part 2.

2. Whenever necessity requires or genuine spiritual advantage suggests, and provided that the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, it is lawful for the faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose churches these sacraments are valid.

3. Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed. This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as these sacraments are concerned.

4. If the danger of death is present or other grave necessity, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops, Catholic ministers may licitly administer these sacraments to other Christians who do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it, provided they manifest Catholic faith in these sacraments and are properly disposed.

5. For the cases in parts 2, 3, and 4, neither the diocesan bishop nor the conference of bishops is to enact general norms except after consultation with at least the local competent authority of the interested non- Catholic Church or community.

C_T denies the episcopal and immediate jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff that has been given directly to him by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.

C_T denies that both clergy and faithful are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

C_T believes that Popes JPII and Benedict XVI are manifest heretics who approved, in the name of Christ and with the jurisdictional power inherent in their supreme office, the administration of the sacraments to “formal heretics and schismatics” who are at all times in a state of mortal sin.

But wait, C_T can make these vile accusations because he makes no “judgment” about the Roman Pontiff and is simply looking for the “truth” and an explanation to these “questions” where he now regurgitates the specious accusations as matters of known fact, and not the disgusting ill-formed “opinions” of rabid sedevacantists who recognize no authority but their own “Magisterium of the Experts”.

I “have chosen to run” when you have refused to address my previous responses? You obviously have me confused with some weak-kneed apologist who trembles at the sede slop that keeps being thrown on the wall.

As I said, C_T, you are fooling no one with your “I make no judgments” mantra as you hurl the most abusive and heretical accusations against the Church and the popes.

You are nothing but a parrot for a certain sede sect ... so let's stop with the games and start telling the truth.

Catholic_Truth Thu Mar 17, 2011 9:58 pm

MRyan wrote:not every schism is “formal”; and in this case the Church has weighed-in with her judgment by telling us that the Orthodox Churches are not to be considered formally schismatic – (not to be considered morally culpable for the sin of heresy and schism) – so there is no “nagging” question to resolve.

Here we see MRyan making the claim that the Orthodox are "material heretics" and not "formal heretics". So either MRyan doesn't know what a "material heretic" is or MRyan believes that all the Orthodox are Catholics, since a "material heretic" is nothing more than a WATER baptized Catholic who simply has a false understanding of Church teaching and would gladly accept such teachings if it were revealed to them. A "formal heretic", however, is someone who is made aware of the Church's teachings and obstinately rejects them , which the Orthodox are guilty of. So MRyan, along with Vatican II and the new Code of Canon law, is attempting to "re-define" what the Church has previously already infallibly and dogmatically defined. This is a tactic which the modernists have been trying to get away with.

MRyan wrote: C_T denies that both clergy and faithful are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

I agree with MRyan that a Catholic must assent to the Ordinary Magisterial teachings(Church's teachings from today's Pope and Bishops), but only if those teachings do not conflict with what the Universal Magisterium(Church's authority from it's beginning to present day) has always taught. Yet, MRyan denies what the Church has already infallibly established as the infallible dogmatic truth, and he does so all in the name of "obedience". This is also another tactic used by the modernists.

The Ordinary Magisterium's teachings have been shown to be wrong at certain periods throughout the Church's history, whereas the Universal Magisterium's teachings of the Church have never been wrong.

The Universal Magisterium has infallibly and dogmatically defined to whom formal heresy applies. Therefore, any honest traditional Catholic knows that the Orthodox fall into the category of formal schism/heresy since they refuse to recognize and submit to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, and they reject certain dogmas of the Catholic Church.

MRyan wrote: The Church has the authority to answer such nagging questions, and she did so, even if there are many “traditionalists” who reject her judgments and hold the Orthodox as formally heretical and schismatic.

This always comes back to the authority of the Church – does it not?

MRyan is saying that a Catholic should reject already established dogmatic teaching handed down to us by the Universal Magisterium of the Church in regards to the definition to whom formal heresy/schism applies, and to do this all in the name of obedience to any present day individual claiming to be Pope, while ignoring all previous Popes and Councils. So he believes the Ordinary Magisterium supersedes the Universal Magisterium which is completely ludicrous. I guess if we all lived long ago, then MRyan would have accused us all of heresy if we didn't believe in and accept what used to be the Ordinary Magisterium's teaching on Geocentrism. Ofcourse we know the Universal Magisterium can't be accused of having taught Geocentrism. So a Catholic can always know that they are following true traditional Catholic teaching as long as he or she adheres to what the Universal Magisterium has always and constantly taught.

So, if tomorrow Benedict XVI speaks to all the Church and says that all protestants are not to be considered morally culpable for the sin of heresy and can now receive Holy Communion, then MRyan is saying that we all must accept and submit to that teaching. If Benedict XVI tomorrow speaks to all the Church and says that condom use is OK, then MRyan is saying we must accept it. If Benedict XVI tomorrow speaks to all the Church and says that the Church has no need to pursue the conversion of the jews, then MRyan says that we all must accept that also. If Benedict XVI says tomorrow that Father Feeney was a formal heretic and that Baptism of Desire is to be understood as a dogmatic truth of the Church which God has used and continues to use as a means of salvation, then MRyan says that you all must accept that too. If Benedict XVI tomorrow says to all the Church that the blessed virgin Mary was not born of immaculate conception, then MRyan says we all must accept that. If Benedict XVI tomorrow claims that the Holy Eucharist is not the actual body, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, but is only symbolic, then MRyan says that we must accept that as well.

MRyan wrote: You are nothing but a parrot for a certain sede sect

MRyan, if I am a parrot for the Dimond brothers, then you are nothing more than a parrot for all the liberal modernists who are trying to "redefine" what the Church has always traditionally and dogmatically taught. The Dimond brothers may not recognize the recent Papal claimants as being legitimate Popes, but at least they recognize what the Church has always traditionally and infallibly taught, ....unlike you.

gara3987 Sun Apr 17, 2011 9:04 pm

I personally have to admit that the Position of sede-Vacantism is quite iffy if anything else. I personally feel that it is completely what our Lord Himself said:

dicens : Super cathedram Moysi sederunt scribæ et pharisæi. Omnia ergo quæcumque dixerint vobis, servate, et facite : secundum opera vero eorum nolite facere : dicunt enim, et non faciunt. [Matthæus xxiii. 2-3]

(Upon the chair of Moses have sitten the Scribes and Pharisees. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe ye and do ye: but according to their works do ye not, for they say and do not.)

That alone is a very Power Statement and Command. The way I see it, the Pope holds two positions, A Legal Position (He was Elected), and a Moral Positions. We as the Laity do not have any authority to judge the Pope. To Resist a Pope Is Not to Judge Him as St. Robert Bellarmine states:

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

I believe that Saint Bridget of Sweden [Birgitta] is a perfect example for us. She was not sparing of her criticisms, and did not fear to denounce a pope (Urban V) "as a murderer of souls, more unjust than Pilate and more cruel than Judas." [Butler's Lives of the Saints, Vol. 4, p. 55-56] Yet never once did she declare that Pope Urban V was not a Pope.

I personally believe that SedeVacantist are in Heresy based upon Vatican I: Dogmatic Constitution "Pastor Aeternus" §2 (July 18, 1870)

Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that Blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

Sedevacantism is a radical position, it seems to be a bit irrational, kind of like leaping off of a ledge without looking first. But they believe we have no Pope, thus they are no better than the Eastern Orthodox. Also if there has been no Pope since Pope Pius XII, (who has also had his hand it the modernization of the Church when he introduced the "New" Latin Psalter back in 1945, though most don't seem to know about it or over look it), then the Roman Catholic Church has fallen since then. Which goes against what Christ said: et portæ inferi non prævalebunt adversus eam. (and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.)

The Problem with Sedevacantism, it causes great diversity, but then again the Indult Novus Ordo has done the same thing. The New Liturgy completely goes against the Bull Quo Primum of Pope St. Pius V.

Those are my views on the subject.

Guest Mon Apr 18, 2011 11:39 am

Welcome Gara,
I didn't quite understand your point at the end:

The Problem with Sedevacantism, it causes great diversity, but then again the Indult Novus Ordo has done the same thing. The New Liturgy completely goes against the Bull Quo Primum of Pope St. Pius V.

What do you mean by that?

gara3987 Mon Apr 18, 2011 2:06 pm

First off, thanks for the welcome duckbill.

duckbill wrote:Welcome Gara,
I didn't quite understand your point at the end:

The Problem with Sedevacantism, it causes great diversity, but then again the Indult Novus Ordo has done the same thing. The New Liturgy completely goes against the Bull Quo Primum of Pope St. Pius V.

What do you mean by that?

Both [groups] cause a great division amongst Catholics. Catholics should be one, as the Church is One. I should have used better wording. I say both because you have SedeVacantist who tell Traditional Catholic who are in union with Rome, that they are "Roman Protestants" and are going to hell (this is from my personal experience, I was told if I recognize Pope Benedict XVI and his Predecessors as legal Popes, I was against Catholicism altogether and and Enemy of the True Church).

Novus Ordo on the other had, has broken Divine Traditions, Tradition [Doctrine & Dogma] that are infallible. An example, it teaches indifferentism, which is heresy, and they are doing it under the guise of oecumenism. There is a true form of oecumenism, that is, The Catholic Church is the True Church and everyone needs to become a Catholic. Not what they are teaching now under the form of oecumenism, i.e., All religions [i.e., Protestants, Muslims, Jews] are equal to the Catholic Religion (I do not bring up Hinduism and Buddhism, &c., as to my knowledge they have not been announced equal to Catholicim), I was taught this in Catholic School. JPII taught that the Holy Spirit works effectively a common root in all religions. (cƒ. Crossing the Threshold of Hope, by John Paul II, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. 1994) where as St. Pius X taught "It is heresy to say: all religions are true." (cƒ. Pascendi, the Encyclical of Pope St. Pius X, Sept. 8, 1907, AAS 40 (1907), 593ff)

I have met people who are die hard Novus Ordo and stated that they prefer the modernization and changes even if they are contrary to Divine Catholic Dogma. They even mentioned that if the Church ever reverted back to pre-Vatican II teachings, they would leave the Church. The Novus Ordo has broken the identity of the Church, but then again it is in fact the product of Protestant Theologians.

The Point that I am trying to make, they are both problems. They consist of irrational people, one group is way too far to the left while the other is way to far too the right.

And then you have the Conclavists who follow Anti-Pope Pius XIII and Anti-Pope Michael.

A major problem is, you have your Traditional Catholics who are still in union with Rome, but many don't see the crisis going on! How does one fix a problem that they will not acknowledge? Instead of the Sedevacantist trying to correct the issues from within the Church (as all Saints have done before), like they should, they break away, similar to what the Eastern Orthodox did, what good is that going to do? How is that going to correct the issue? If anything it causes a greater issues.

About the Bull Quo Primum (It's fairly long, but I will try to cut it down to the main points):

Now therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than that of this Missal published by Us; this ordinance to apply to all churches and chapels, with or without care of souls, patriarchal, collegiate, and parochial, be they secular or belonging to any religious Order, whether of men (including the military Orders) or of women, in which conventual Masses are or ought to be sung aloud in choir or read privately according to the rites and customs of the Roman Church; to apply, moreover, even if the said churches have been in any way exempted, whether by indult of the Apostolic See, by custom, by privilege, or even by oath or Apostolic confirmation, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them in any other way whatsoever, saving only those in which the practice of saying Mass differently was granted over 200 years ago simultaneously with the Apostolic See's institution and confirmation of the Church, and those in which there has prevailed a similar custom followed continuously for a period of not less than 200 years; in which cases We in no wise rescind their prerogatives or customs aforesaid.

All other churches aforesaid are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be wholly and entirely rejected; and by this present Constitution, which shall have the force of law in perpetuity. We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered therein...

Furthermore, by these presents and by virtue of Our Apostolic authority We give and grant in perpetuity that for the singing or reading of Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal may be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may be freely and lawfully used. Nor shall bishops, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious of whatsoever Order or by whatsoever title designated, be obliged to celebrate Mass otherwise than enjoined by Us.

We likewise order and declare that no one whosoever shall be forced or coerced into altering this Missal and that this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall for ever remain valid and have the force of law, notwithstanding previous constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the usage of the churches aforesaid, established by very long and even immemorial prescription, saving only usage of more than 200 years....

Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree and prohibition. Should any person venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

Given at St. Peter's, Rome, in the year of Our Lord's Incarnation one thousand five hundred and seventy, on the fourteenth day of July in the fifth year of Our Pontificate.

Compare the Latin Rite Liturgy with the Novus Ordo.

At any rate it is a very complex situation. I am mainly trying to study up on the situation and thus is one of the main reason why I am looking through the forum. I just wanted to explain the way that I see the situation at this present time (from everything that I've gathered so far).

Oremus pro Invicem

Lourdes Mon Apr 18, 2011 3:21 pm

Both [groups] cause a great division amongst Catholics. Catholics should be one, as the Church is One. I should have used better wording. I say both because you have SedeVacantist who tell Traditional Catholic who are in union with Rome, that they are "Roman Protestants" and are going to hell (this is from my personal experience, I was told if I recognize Pope Benedict XVI and his Predecessors as legal Popes, I was against Catholicism altogether and and Enemy of the True Church).

I know quite a few sedevacantists, and not one of them would say such a thing. You must have met up with some Dimond Brothers' fanatics.

On the other hand, I have met up with many in the Church and in the SSPX, who have said that sedevacantists are going to hell. If so, they will be quite lonely, as someone here once posted that the Church never ever said anyone was there, not even Judas.

Gara, it is all very confusing, I agree, but be careful in your search for the truth. Here's my two cents: stay in the Church and don't budge. If you can't trust Holy Mother Church and the promises of Our Lord, you sure as hell can't trust the others.

gara3987 Mon Apr 18, 2011 8:32 pm

Lourdes wrote:
I know quite a few sedevacantists, and not one of them would say such a thing. You must have met up with some Dimond Brothers' fanatics.

On the other hand, I have met up with many in the Church and in the SSPX, who have said that sedevacantists are going to hell. If so, they will be quite lonely, as someone here once posted that the Church never ever said anyone was there, not even Judas.

Gara, it is all very confusing, I agree, but be careful in your search for the truth. Here's my two cents: stay in the Church and don't budge. If you can't trust Holy Mother Church and the promises of Our Lord, you sure as hell can't trust the others.

Yes you are correct, the ones that I ran into were Diamond Brother fanatics. I have had a run in with the Diamond Brothers themselves also, and they threw me into a state of confusion, and mental anguish. At any rate I went and spoke with a Priest I knew and he clear up the confusion very quickly. I learned that the Diamond Brothers like to take many statements out of context and use only the parts of the statement that suit their personal beliefs. Upon reading the entire statement e.g., Papal Encyclical, you are able to read everything within its true context and have a full understand of the Theology behind it. It is something that I learned very quickly.

At any rate thank you for the very sound advice, I agree with you 100%.

Take Care and God Bless. Pax Christi.

Lourdes Mon Apr 18, 2011 8:45 pm

...they threw me into a state of confusion, and mental anguish.

There's your first clue (and the only one anyone would need) that what the Dimond Brothers espouse, could not be from Our Lord.

Peace to you as well, and may you have a most blessed Holy Week!

Catholic_Truth Tue Apr 19, 2011 1:24 am

gara3987 wrote: I have had a run in with the Diamond Brothers themselves also, and they threw me into a state of confusion, and mental anguish.

I have had numerous email discussions with the Dimond brothers over this past year and not once have they accused me of being a heretic for choosing not to judge Benedict XVI. Infact they told me that there have been saints in the Church's history who thought certain anti-popes were true Popes, and that these saints were simply mistaken. The Dimond brothers only consider individuals to be heretics if such individuals reject Catholic dogmatic teachings of the Church.

I don't agree with many of the Conspiracy theories that the Dimond brothers propose and nor do they suggest that anyone has to accept their theories, but I do agree with them when it comes to their beliefs on what the Catholic Church has always infallibly and dogmatically taught. So, gara, can you name any supposive "Fanatical" belief on Faith and Morals that the Dimond brothers hold, but that you disagree with?

gara3987 Wed Apr 20, 2011 3:03 pm

Catholic_Truth wrote:
I have had numerous email discussions with the Dimond brothers over this past year and not once have they accused me of being a heretic for choosing not to judge Benedict XVI. Infact they told me that there have been saints in the Church's history who thought certain anti-popes were true Popes, and that these saints were simply mistaken. The Dimond brothers only consider individuals to be heretics if such individuals reject Catholic dogmatic teachings of the Church.

I don't agree with many of the Conspiracy theories that the Dimond brothers propose and nor do they suggest that anyone has to accept their theories, but I do agree with them when it comes to their beliefs on what the Catholic Church has always infallibly and dogmatically taught. So, gara, can you name any supposive "Fanatical" belief on Faith and Morals that the Dimond brothers hold, but that you disagree with? [/size] [/b]

I have never said the Dimond brothers themselves stated this, and the people who I have come across, I will not reveal their names on a public forum. Though come to think of it, they also bring up Rev. Cekada. I will admit that there are certain things that I do not disagree with in concerns with some of the subjects that the Dimond Brothers bring up, the one that really got me, was their "Extra ecclesiam nullus omnino salvatur," it really threw me for a spin. They brought up Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441. Though I have no problems with "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus," one must understand that it is not just cut and dry and that there is great amount of Theology behind it. However "Extra ecclesiam nullus omnino salvatur." leaves no room for such theology. A good example, I was advised [by them] to stay away from books written by St. Anne Catherine Emmerich because it was against Catholic Dogma. The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ was used as the example, there was a paragraph:

St. Anne Catherine Emmerich., Dolorous Passion... wrote:
"I next saw our Lord, with his triumphant procession, enter into a species of Purgatory which was filled with those good pagans who, having had a faint glimmering of the truth, had longed for its fulfillment: this Purgatory was very deep, and contained a few demons, as also some of the idols of the pagans. I saw the demons compelled to confess the deception they had practised with regard to these idols, and the souls of the poor pagans cast themselves at the feet of Jesus, and adored him with inexpressible joy: here, likewise, the demons were bound with chains and dragged away. I saw our Saviour perform many other actions; but I suffered so intensely at the same time, that I cannot recount them as I should have wished."

Most Holy Family Monastery wrote:
The visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich are not trustworthy. Catholics should not read them. The vision that you quoted is heretical for saying that there are pagans in Purgatory, which is contrary to Catholic Faith. The fact is that there are no pagans in Purgatory, as all who die as pagans go to the fires of hell (de fide, Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence). It is necessary to have the Catholic Faith to be saved.

The above quote was sent to me via email. That quote alone is "Extra ecclesiam nullus omnino salvatur."

If one looks into the theology in concerns with "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus," they would understand that, anyone unaware of Jesus or not having the proper witness to be Catholic but never the less doing what Jesus intended can enter Heaven. This includes not only figures from the Old Testament but also those of other faiths or beliefs unintentionally believing falsely. If one is open to truth and upon finding it puts it into practice and does the best he or she can to love their neighbor as themselves, they will now or eventually be in Heaven.

If however a Catholic raised in the truth and then departs from it and fails to return confessing his sins then he or she comes under the concept of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. This applies to those of other faiths who know the truth of the Catholic Church but fail to accept the true faith.

After that, I have not particularly kept up with the Dimond Brothers.

☧ Pax Christi ☧

Guest Wed Apr 20, 2011 5:18 pm

gara3987 wrote:
Catholic_Truth wrote:
I have had numerous email discussions with the Dimond brothers over this past year and not once have they accused me of being a heretic for choosing not to judge Benedict XVI. Infact they told me that there have been saints in the Church's history who thought certain anti-popes were true Popes, and that these saints were simply mistaken. The Dimond brothers only consider individuals to be heretics if such individuals reject Catholic dogmatic teachings of the Church.

I don't agree with many of the Conspiracy theories that the Dimond brothers propose and nor do they suggest that anyone has to accept their theories, but I do agree with them when it comes to their beliefs on what the Catholic Church has always infallibly and dogmatically taught. So, gara, can you name any supposive "Fanatical" belief on Faith and Morals that the Dimond brothers hold, but that you disagree with? [/size] [/b]

I have never said the Dimond brothers themselves stated this, and the people who I have come across, I will not reveal their names on a public forum. Though come to think of it, they also bring up Rev. Cekada. I will admit that there are certain things that I do not disagree with in concerns with some of the subjects that the Dimond Brothers bring up, the one that really got me, was their "Extra ecclesiam nullus omnino salvatur," it really threw me for a spin. They brought up Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441. Though I have no problems with "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus," one must understand that it is not just cut and dry and that there is great amount of Theology behind it. However "Extra ecclesiam nullus omnino salvatur." leaves no room for such theology. A good example, I was advised [by them] to stay away from books written by St. Anne Catherine Emmerich because it was against Catholic Dogma. The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ was used as the example, there was a paragraph:

St. Anne Catherine Emmerich., Dolorous Passion... wrote:
"I next saw our Lord, with his triumphant procession, enter into a species of Purgatory which was filled with those good pagans who, having had a faint glimmering of the truth, had longed for its fulfillment: this Purgatory was very deep, and contained a few demons, as also some of the idols of the pagans. I saw the demons compelled to confess the deception they had practised with regard to these idols, and the souls of the poor pagans cast themselves at the feet of Jesus, and adored him with inexpressible joy: here, likewise, the demons were bound with chains and dragged away. I saw our Saviour perform many other actions; but I suffered so intensely at the same time, that I cannot recount them as I should have wished."

Most Holy Family Monastery wrote:
The visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich are not trustworthy. Catholics should not read them. The vision that you quoted is heretical for saying that there are pagans in Purgatory, which is contrary to Catholic Faith. The fact is that there are no pagans in Purgatory, as all who die as pagans go to the fires of hell (de fide, Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence). It is necessary to have the Catholic Faith to be saved.

The above quote was sent to me via email. That quote alone is "Extra ecclesiam nullus omnino salvatur."

If one looks into the theology in concerns with "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus," they would understand that, anyone unaware of Jesus or not having the proper witness to be Catholic but never the less doing what Jesus intended can enter Heaven. This includes not only figures from the Old Testament but also those of other faiths or beliefs unintentionally believing falsely. If one is open to truth and upon finding it puts it into practice and does the best he or she can to love their neighbor as themselves, they will now or eventually be in Heaven.

If however a Catholic raised in the truth and then departs from it and fails to return confessing his sins then he or she comes under the concept of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. This applies to those of other faiths who know the truth of the Catholic Church but fail to accept the true faith.

After that, I have not particularly kept up with the Dimond Brothers.

☧ Pax Christi ☧

Dude you are one confusing guy to read. I thought you were agreeing with the Dimonds on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Then at the end you wrote:

If one looks into the theology in concerns with "Extra Ecclesiam nulla
salus," they would understand that, anyone unaware of Jesus or not
having the proper witness to be Catholic but never the less doing what
Jesus intended can enter Heaven. This includes not only figures from
the Old Testament but also those of other faiths or beliefs
unintentionally believing falsely. If one is open to truth and upon
finding it puts it into practice and does the best he or she can to love
their neighbor as themselves, they will now or eventually be in Heaven.

So do you think there is salvation outside the Church?

In another post you said the Pope had not the authority to change the mass. But I don't think that is right. Jesus didn't say a Latin Mass. I think it was Aramaic. The Slavic people seems to have quite a different liturgy from the Roman rite.

Sponsored content