Subjection to the Roman Pontiff.

During the Great Western Schism, was it permissible for an individual not to take sides as to whom he should acknowledge as true Pope? Being uneducated in the complexities of papal elections, the ordinary Catholic would have been in no position to decide for himself as to which pope he should give his allegiance therefore, how would he know which pope he should subject himself too? It is my contention that even though one of the popes was a true and valid Pope, this would have made no difference in practical terms for the faithful while both (and later 3) claimants were under suspicion of being invalid and it would have been a prudent and valid judgment on part of the individual to withhold his allegiance to any claimant while the crisis persisted and instead to revert back to previous papal teachings for day to day guidance if anything promulgated by either claimant was suspect of being not in conformity with already established Church teaching. This would hold true even if one had in fact made a percentage guess as to whom he should recognize as most likely to be the true successor of Peter.

My point being; It is claimed by those who say that the sedevancte position is an impossible one for any Catholic to hold because at any given time it is imperative for ones salvation that he be subject to the Roman Pontiff, however, it is quite possible (and history proves this) that a crisis could exist for a whole generation whereby one could validly refuse subjection to the Roman Pontiff and still remain a faithful Catholic. In fact, if this be true (which it is) there's nothing to say that a crisis could not persist for more than one generation where the same principle could apply -and prudently so- where it would be wise to withhold allegiance until ones doubts are addressed and resolved authoritatively. Because at present we have but one claimant doesn't detract from the fact that there is every bit (if not more) a crisis directly related to his pontificate and also that of his recent predecessors that gives ground for concern in considering -apart from anything else- their fruits, as it is by their fruits they will reveal themselve.

If Our Lords prophetic words are considered, “But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think ye, faith on earth?” and there be little faith on earth when He returns,where will that remnant of faith be found?
If He were to return tomorrow would He find this faith among the Novus Ordo millions, the new Mass and the other doubtfully potent sacraments, the predominantly emasculated priesthood and PC pandering teaching authority, in the feminized catechesis classes or the non-gender distinguishable “Catholic” populace? Or, would He find it in the disaffected minority who have decided to “take themselves out from among them, and be separated from them,” (2 Cor 6:17) lest they too become contaminated with all manner of ungodliness? This is the big decision that each Catholic is increasingly facing, and when the likes of the SSPX are being considered worthy or not of “full incorporation” into “mainstream” Church life, Benedict XVI in his Holy Thursday sermon/homily threatened some kind of censure against a group of heretical “bishops and priests” but in the meantime they are free to spurt out their heresies and -along with themselves- lead to hell many (and there are many as they consist of something like 300 “clergy”) gullible lay folk.

A line from a prayer to the holy angels (which I posted a few weeks ago) comes to mind when considering the warnings of Our Lord which could well apply to the broad road of salvation that has supposedly been granted us since Vat II.
“Open our ears, to even the gentle warnings and appeals of the loving Heart of Our Lord.” (prayer to the angels).

Lets consider these warnings:
“Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!
Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them.” (Matt 7:13-16)

Did Our Lord wish us to believe that those words of warning could never be applicable?

And speaking of pathetic...

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/brazilian-bishops-assault-on-catholic.html#more

From an article by Bishop Paulo Sérgio Machado,

São Carlos, São Paulo, Brazil – March 31, 2012

" I cannot understand how, in the very 21st century, there are people who wish the return of the Latin Mass, with the priest celebrating Mass “with his back facing the people”, wearing heavy “Roman” chasubles. This year we celebrate the fifth anniversary of the Second Vatican Council, when we already feel the need of holding a Third Vatican Council and we find people who wish to return to the past. And, what causes more concern, these are people who attend college; people who have entered the university, but the university has not entered into their minds. I think it is high time our scientists invented a device to “open their minds”. The “suspicion meter” does not work any longer, because these folks do not suspect that they are “out of line”, “in a wrong age”. They wish, at any rate, to go back to the past. They live on miracles and apparitions, devotions and slushy sentiment, which, happily, are outdated.

Let us imagine a priest celebrating Latin Mass in a rural chapel. “Dominus vobiscum”. “Et cum spiritu tuo”. Our humble people will think that the priest is crazy or, at least, that he is cursing. I remember of my childhood, when the mass was in Latin. The pious old ladies, unable to understand anything, used to pray the Rosary. I have nothing against the Rosary – yet, I pray the Rosary every day – but the Rosary is a prayer, not a celebration.

They need only to advocate the return of the famous “mantillas”, which covered the heads of women. I ask myself: why not the men’s head? It would even be beautiful to see men wearing “lace mantillas”. It would be hard to find who would wish to wear them, except for “wind heads”, who stroll around wishing to teach Our Father to the vicar.

However, the question remains - what is behind this agenda? A longing feeling? I don’t think so. It is more than that: it is a morbid desire, a fear of novelty, an aversion to change. It is what we could call – to use a French expression – a “laissez faire, laissez passer”, a “let things progress to see the results”. It is an attempt to keep the “status quo”, even if that “status quo” benefits half a dozen of people, and the others be damned.

For these puritans hell is full of people; when in fact, the heaven is full, because God wishes everybody to be saved. And not only a moralist minority who sees sin everywhere and to whom the devil is more powerful than God. “Tear up your hearts and not your garments”, says the prophet. These are people who worry to wash glasses and cups, rather than their minds and hearts. It is the old attitude of the Pharisees – who are still many nowadays – who used to criticize Jesus because he healed on Saturday. I remember the story of a person who, upon hearing the news that John had murdered Peter on a Holy Friday, said: “Why didn’t he wait to kill him on Saturday? “According to that person, the day was the most important concern.

I finish by quoting two sentences that are food for thought: 'The past is a lesson to be meditated, not to be reproduce' (Mário de Andrade — Author of Macunaíma);'Take the fire from the past altar, not the ashes' (Jean Jures — French socialist leader)."
END


Comments from Rorate Caeli:
"This diatribe was published only two months after the same bishop had claimed that spiritists can be Catholic. In an article published on February 1, 2012 (Espiritismo: teoria ou religião?, translated as Spiritism: a theory or a religion?) he tried to explain what the doctrine of spiritism is all about, emphasizing its charitable character and saying that the only point where it contradicts Catholicism is its belief in Reincarnation. He finishes this article by saying: “In my opinion, asking if a spiritist may be a Catholic is the same as asking if an evolutionist or a capitalist may be a Catholic, as well. Or, to be more radical, if a Corínthians (a Brazilian soccer team) fan may be a Catholic? Not only he/she may, but should.” (The original of this article on spiritism may be found in the same Fratres in Unum post where the original of "A Return to the Middle Ages" was posted.)"


This "bishop" was appointed to his post in 2006 by Benedict XVI.

Now it could be the case that this "bishop" was quite Catholic and turned aopostate only after his appointment. If that be so, no bad reflection on Benedict XVI. If however he remains in this position as bishop then I have neither respect or any affiliation with him, or he who allows him to so remain.

columba wrote:
During the Great Western Schism, was it permissible for an individual not to take sides as to whom he should acknowledge as true Pope?

Certainly, but having a “choice” between rival claimants to the papacy is not the same as refusing submission to the one visible successor to Peter whose election and universal acceptance is itself an infallible sign of God’s acceptance of His true Vicar.

The so-called Great Western Schism was a tragic misunderstanding fueled by politics and passions. The lessons learned from this unfortunate period were not lost on the Church or her theologians and served only to solidify the Church’s laws and understanding that confirmed that no power on earth can cause the removal of a once validly elected pope who is accepted by the Church as Peter’s true successor.

History attests to the indisputable fact that Pope Urban VI was validly elected and was accepted by the Church, and that “Urban was pope before his errors; he was still pope after his errors” (The Catholic Encyclopedia):

… there was not a single objection to or dissatisfaction with the selection of Bartolommeo Prignano, not a protest, no hesitation, and no fear manifested for the future. Unfortunately Pope Urban did not realize the hopes to which his election had given rise. He showed himself whimsical, haughty, suspicious, and sometimes choleric in his relations with the cardinals who had elected him. Too obvious roughness and blameable extravagances seemed to show that his unexpected election had altered his character… Some historians state that Urban openly attacked the failings, real or supposed, of members of the Sacred College, and that he energetically refused to restore the pontifical see to Avignon. Hence, they add, the growing opposition. However that may be, none of these unpleasant dissensions which arose subsequently to the election could logically weaken the validity of the choice made on 8 April.

In fact, St Antoninus places “the Great Western Schism” argument into proper perspective:

The question was much discussed and much was written in defence of one side or the other. For as long as the schism lasted each obedience had in its favour men who were very learned in scripture and Canon Law, and even very pious people, including some who – what is much more – were illustrious by the gift of miracles. Nonetheless the question could never be settled without leaving the minds of many still in doubt. Doubtless we must believe that, just as there are not several Catholic Churches, but only one, so there is only one Vicar of Christ who is its pastor. But if it should occur that, by a schism, several popes are elected at the same time, it does not seem necessary for salvation to believe that this or that one in particular is the true pope, but just in general whichever of them was canonically elected. The people are not obliged to know who was canonically elected, just as they are not obliged to know canon law; in this matter they may follow the judgment of their superiors and prelates." (pars 3, tit. 22, cap. 2)

So if you wish to excuse yourself from knowing who was canonically elected when there is only one legitimate pope recognized by the universal Church as Christ's true Vicar, have you resolved to follow the judgment of your superiors and prelates in this matter?

Would that be your Bishop who remains subject to the Roman Pontiff and whose Episcopal ordination you deemed “legitimate” enough that you acknowledge him as your Bishop?

Are we to understand that this same Bishop told you that it is OK to refuse submission to Pope BXVI because you doubt his legitimacy and the validity of the Ordination Rite and the New Mass?

Ah, that was your “Happy Easter” message, along with your accusation of “verging on Protestantism” against all of those who harbor no doubt as to the validity of the Sacraments, the rite of Ordination and the New Mass, over which the true Vicar of Christ exercises full and immediate power and Primacy, and to whom all Catholics are obliged to submit.

And is this the same Bishop (whose Episcopal Ordination you doubt) you will condemn for “verging on Protestantism” for harboring no doubt whatsoever over the legitimacy of his immediate superior Pope BXVI (without whom he has no lawful authority) and the validity of the Ordination rite and the New Mass?

Is this the same Bishop you will condemn for being a “modernist” and for participating and abetting everything you despise about the “conciliar Novus Ordo Church”? And is this the same Bishop you sought absolution from for “doubting” whether the Church has a true Pope?

What is there to confess if you have already convinced yourself that you cannot be guilty of sin in this matter? Why the “doubt” about your “doubt”?

Ah, a troubled conscience may be a good sign … and I will not be the one to try your conscience, but only report the objective truths of the Faith as I know them. I’ll leave the excuses for schism up to others, while exposing their false arguments.

Either Pope Benedict XVI is Christ’s true Vicar with full and immediate Primacy over the universal Church, or he is an imposter and a formal heretic who is NOT the “prince and head of the apostles”; who is NOT “the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church” and who has NOT “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”.

That is the “choice” you have before you, to acknowledge that “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.”

That is the “choice” you have before you, 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”.

That is the “choice” you have before you, for “it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body.”

That is the “choice” you have before you, for the “first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the Christian religion.”

That is the “choice” you have before you, for “all the venerable fathers” and “all the holy orthodox doctors … knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”

That is the “choice” you have before you, to acknowledge with divine and Catholic faith that “This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.” (VCI, First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, Pastor Aeternus)

Columba, you may cling to your excuses and your appeal to out-of-context citations from certain theologians, it matters not to me that you make such excuses with which to recuse yourself by pretending that Benedict XVI may not the true Pope; your objective schism is based on a lie, that the Pope is an obstinate public heretic who teaches heresy to the universal Church on matters of faith, and who presides over doubtful sacraments, doubtful ordinations and a doubtful New Mass.

The sede position is bad enough; trying to have it both ways is even more the spectacle.

columba wrote:
Lets consider these warnings:

“Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it! Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them.” (Matt 7:13-16)

Did Our Lord wish us to believe that those words of warning could never be applicable?

If Our Lords prophetic words are considered, “But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think ye, faith on earth?” and there be little faith on earth when He returns, where will that remnant of faith be found?

So, our Lord, speaking through Pope Pius IX at VCI, infallibly declared that the never-failing faith of the blessed Peter, who “perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received” can fail in the faith and he can abandon that guidance he once received by becoming a manifest obstinate public heretic.

That’s what our Lord declared through his Vicar at VCI, so by all means, columba, you are obliged to reject pope BXVI and the entire “Novus Ordo Church” and cling to the little sede enclave of your choosing (or your home-alone Church of one) where the true faith and the true Church can be found.

After all, when our Lord returns, who would like to be caught remaining in faith and communion with the visible successor to Peter when Peter, along with the entire “Novus Ordo Church” he presides over, are heretical frauds?

Please show us where the true Church of Christ actually resides, columba, for you have the authority and the wisdom to interpret Scripture and to show us the way.

columba wrote:And speaking of pathetic...

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/brazilian-bishops-assault-on-catholic.html#more

From an article by Bishop Paulo Sérgio Machado,
[...snip...]

Comments from Rorate Caeli:

"This diatribe was published only two months after the same bishop had claimed that spiritists can be Catholic. In an article published on February 1, 2012 (Espiritismo: teoria ou religião?, translated as Spiritism: a theory or a religion?) he tried to explain what the doctrine of spiritism is all about, emphasizing its charitable character and saying that the only point where it contradicts Catholicism is its belief in Reincarnation. He finishes this article by saying: “In my opinion, asking if a spiritist may be a Catholic is the same as asking if an evolutionist or a capitalist may be a Catholic, as well. Or, to be more radical, if a Corínthians (a Brazilian soccer team) fan may be a Catholic? Not only he/she may, but should.” (The original of this article on spiritism may be found in the same Fratres in Unum post where the original of "A Return to the Middle Ages" was posted.)"

This "bishop" was appointed to his post in 2006 by Benedict XVI.

Now it could be the case that this "bishop" was quite Catholic and turned aopostate only after his appointment. If that be so, no bad reflection on Benedict XVI. If however he remains in this position as bishop then I have neither respect or any affiliation with him, or he who allows him to so remain.

Finally, an affirmation by columba that he has rejected pope BXVI and refuses communion with him for having approved and/or for not having removed the “apostate” Bishop.

But where is the “apostasy”? Does columba even know the meaning of the word?

Is it apostasy to suggest that heaven is full because God is stronger than the devil? Has he denied hell or any dogma of the Faith?

And if “Spiritism” contradicts Catholicism only in “its belief in Reincarnation”, where is the apostasy? One could argue that Spiritism is inherently antithetical to Catholicism, but are there not certain truths and charitable elements (“its charitable character”) that are not antithetical to Catholicism and can be viewed constructively if not abused or turned to heresy? Wasn’t that the point of his article that we were given only a sound bite of? There is an inherent danger - of course; and that is the problem with such optimistic assessments of a system which poses a threat to the faith.

But is it “apostasy” to say that a spiritist may be a Catholic in the same sense that “an evolutionist or a capitalist may be a Catholic”?

Furthermore, are the views articulated in this irreverent mocking diatribe by a liberal Bishop who harbors an obvious disdain for tradition in any way binding on those who fall under his jurisdiction?

Are Catholics obliged to find humor in his mocking remark about men wearing mantillas?

But does he have a valid point when he suggests that a return to pious old ladies saying the Rosary during the celebration of the Mass is not a return anyone should take seriously?

And what is the deal with an “apostate” Bishop who says the Rosary everyday?

But good on ya, columba, you have found “apostasy” and you place it squarely in the lap of Pope BXVI with whom you can justify your refusal to remain in communion.

As our illustrious popes have said, schismatics always invent heresies with which to justify their schism.

But, at least you’ve come out of the closet.

Does this mean we can stop with the pretense?

MRyan wrote:

In fact, St Antoninus places “the Great Western Schism” argument into proper perspective:

The question was much discussed and much was written in defence of one side or the other. For as long as the schism lasted each obedience had in its favour men who were very learned in scripture and Canon Law, and even very pious people, including some who – what is much more – were illustrious by the gift of miracles. Nonetheless the question could never be settled without leaving the minds of many still in doubt. Doubtless we must believe that, just as there are not several Catholic Churches, but only one, so there is only one Vicar of Christ who is its pastor. But if it should occur that, by a schism, several popes are elected at the same time, it does not seem necessary for salvation to believe that this or that one in particular is the true pope, but just in general whichever of them was canonically elected. The people are not obliged to know who was canonically elected, just as they are not obliged to know canon law; in this matter they may follow the judgment of their superiors and prelates." (pars 3, tit. 22, cap. 2)

Following the judgment of superiors and prelates is of course a good policy when the vast majority of them are orthodox in belief. Do you think St Antoninus would advise those who are subjscts of "Bishop" Paulo Sérgio Machado that they should follow his counsel on matters pertaining to the faith whilst he himself has abandoned the faith yet nervertheless is permitted by Benedict XVI to operate in this capacity to the detriment of the souls under his care?
At times one must make ones own judgments when those who are meant to judge refuse to do so.

So if you wish to excuse yourself from knowing who was canonically elected when there is only one legitimate pope recognized by the universal Church as Christ's true Vicar, have you resolved to follow the judgment of your superiors and prelates in this matter?

I have resolved to follow those who still proclaim the true faith and would never excuse myself for placing my soul at the mercy of an apostate regardless of his title. Would you entrust the care of your soul to an apostate merely because he appeared to be canonically elected? Even if it were proved that he were canonically elected would it make you feel any more secure?

Would that be your Bishop who remains subject to the Roman Pontiff and whose Episcopal ordination you deemed “legitimate” enough that you acknowledge him as your Bishop?

Yes. That would be the same bishop.
Do you think that I think he is an evil man? I think there is a good chance that he is/was misled and a good chance that many of us have been misled. Doubt does not equal certainty. If I were certain of my doubts they would no longer be doubts but I will continue to follow the evidence while maintaining a healthy disregard for human respect.

Are we to understand that this same Bishop told you that it is OK to refuse submission to Pope BXVI because you doubt his legitimacy and the validity of the Ordination Rite and the New Mass?

No. He never told me that. He agreed with me though that there were many problems with the new Mass and he never ordered me under pain of sin to attend such a Mass.

Ah, that was your “Happy Easter” message, along with your accusation of “verging on Protestantism” against all of those who harbor no doubt as to the validity of the Sacraments, the rite of Ordination and the New Mass, over which the true Vicar of Christ exercises full and immediate power and Primacy, and to whom all Catholics are obliged to submit.

My “verging on Protestantism” accusation still stands while recognizing my judgment is not infallible. It is a relative judgment in accord with the individuals knowledge. As you Mike are quite knowledgeable then it should concern you that the sacraments have been tampered with and obviously not for the better.
Protestants do not have concern for validity or effectiveness and hence they don't worry about such things (bless their ignorance).

And is this the same Bishop (whose Episcopal Ordination you doubt) you will condemn for “verging on Protestantism” for harboring no doubt whatsoever over the legitimacy of his immediate superior Pope BXVI (without whom he has no lawful authority) and the validity of the Ordination rite and the New Mass?

Again yes.. This is the same bishop. Because he harbors no doubts is no surity of validity. He might (for all I know) have burried his head in the sand and refused to look at the evidence. He might (for all I know) have doubts but kept them to himself. There's a lot a stake for a bishop if he were to make known his true thougts. Look at Bishop williamson for a good example of this; and he merely disagreed with the accuracy of a recent historical event.

Is this the same Bishop you will condemn for being a “modernist” and for participating and abetting everything you despise about the “conciliar Novus Ordo Church”? And is this the same Bishop you sought absolution from for “doubting” whether the Church has a true Pope?

Yes again. This is the same bishop but I don't condemn him. I pray that God will not condemn him either as despite his embracing of the new Mass (and the NO inovations in general) I've never heard him preach anything contrary to the faith. In fact he is more orthodox than Benedict XVI. If he has a fault it would be that of lack of control over his priests but I think they wouldn't have listened to him anyway. Maybe that's why he requested early retirement.
I confess now to an older priest who I know for sure has been validly ordained.

Ooops. I deleted a good part of this post by mistake. Will have to continue in a later post.

And, what causes more concern, these are people who attend college; people who have entered the university, but the university has not entered into their minds. I think it is high time our scientists invented a device to “open their minds”. The “suspicion meter” does not work any longer, because these folks do not suspect that they are “out of line”, “in a wrong age”. They wish, at any rate, to go back to the past. They live on miracles and apparitions, devotions and slushy sentiment, which, happily, are outdated.

An "evolutionist" cannot be orthodox in his/her Catholic faith, because evolutionary theory denies the existence of Adam & Eve.

Jehanne wrote:

And, what causes more concern, these are people who attend college; people who have entered the university, but the university has not entered into their minds. I think it is high time our scientists invented a device to “open their minds”. The “suspicion meter” does not work any longer, because these folks do not suspect that they are “out of line”, “in a wrong age”. They wish, at any rate, to go back to the past. They live on miracles and apparitions, devotions and slushy sentiment, which, happily, are outdated.

An "evolutionist" cannot be orthodox in his/her Catholic faith, because evolutionary theory denies the existence of Adam & Eve.

No, not all "evolutionists" deny the existence of Adam & Eve - most notably Christians and most especially Catholic evolutionists - the very subject under discussion.

Misconception #3 - acceptance of Theistic Evolution means denying the existence of a literal Adam and Eve.

Not necessarily. The Theistic Evolution viewpoint can actually lean either way. Belief in a literal Adam and Eve and belief in an allegorical Adam and Eve are both complementary to Theistic Evolution. (http://www.theisticevolution.org/misconceptions.html)

By falsely stating that "An 'evolutionist' cannot be orthodox in his/her Catholic faith, because evolutionary theory denies the existence of Adam & Eve", you are simply proving my point about the rash accusation of "apostasy" against the subject Bishop.

Mike,

To say that Adam & Eve were only "allegorical" is formal heresy; if you don't agree, then I am done talking with you. As for the "science," here it is:

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/adam-and-eve-the-ultimate-standoff-between-science-and-faith-and-a-contest/

Unfortunately, the scientific evidence shows that Adam and Eve could not have existed, at least in the way they’re portrayed in the Bible. Genetic data show no evidence of any human bottleneck as small as two people: there are simply too many different kinds of genes around for that to be true. There may have been a couple of “bottlenecks” (reduced population sizes) in the history of our species, but the smallest one not involving recent colonization is a bottleneck of roughly 10,000-15,000 individuals that occurred between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago. That’s as small a population as our ancestors had, and—note—it’s not two individuals.

Of course, a miracle could explain things:

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/04/adam-eve-were-absolutely-real-as-was.html

Evolutionary theory and Catholic teaching are not compatible.

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

To say that Adam & Eve were only "allegorical" is formal heresy; if you don't agree, then I am done talking with you.

Oh, if only it were true!

I would agree that any "allegorical" reference to the persons of Adam and Eve constitutes heresy; but it is not heretical to ascribe evolutionary origins to his body
(even if I disagree). Pope Pius XII declared that:

"the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions ... take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God"

When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

(Pius XII, Humani Generis 36/37).

Now, if you are not done talking to me, you can accuse Pope Pius XII of "formal heresy", or you can agree that bodily evolution is not opposed to the Faith.

Once again, your statement that "Evolutionary theory and Catholic teaching are not compatible" is false. Like many evolutionists, you have assigned infallibility to your rigid definition of evolutionary theory.

Mike,

If you ever leave this forum, I will not be "pursuing" you, believe me. You really need to read more. Modern evolutionary theory, evolutionary genetics in particular, "disproves" the existence of humanity's first parents. Here is yet another link:

In terms of human genetics, the concept that all humans descended from two historical persons is impossible. Genetic evidence indicates humans descended from a group of at least 10,000 people due to the amount of human genetic variation. If all humans descended from two individuals several thousand years ago, as Young Earth creationism supposes, it would require an impossibly high mutation rate to account for the observed variation. This has caused some religious practitioners to move away from a literal interpretation and belief in the Adam and Eve creation myth. Other literalists continue to believe in what they see as a fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve

Note that Pope Pius XII was writing prior to the rise of modern genetics. Faith & Science are not compatible, so "take your pick."

columba wrote:
Following the judgment of superiors and prelates is of course a good policy when the vast majority of them are orthodox in belief.

Just like being in communion with the pope is good policy ... provided he is “orthodox in belief”!

And isn’t it odd that you sought your Bishop’s advise with respect to your troubled conscience in expressing “doubts” over valid sacraments, ordinations and the new Mass, but would refuse his advise on the matter of acknowledging the true Pope. So he is “orthodox” enough to forgive your refusal to attend the New Mass because you doubt its validity, but he is not orthodox enough that you can trust him to tell you that Pope Benedict XVI is in fact the true pope.

Tell us again why you even need a Bishop? To ease your conscience when you dissent from the Pope? Well, it seems he has a legitimate purpose after all. Perhaps you can place his cardboard caricature back in the closet along with that of the Pope until the next time you need someone in authority to ease your conscience.

columba wrote:
Do you think St Antoninus would advise those who are subjscts of "Bishop" Paulo Sérgio Machado that they should follow his counsel on matters pertaining to the faith whilst he himself has abandoned the faith yet nervertheless is permitted by Benedict XVI to operate in this capacity to the detriment of the souls under his care?

At times one must make ones own judgments when those who are meant to judge refuse to do so.

You mean in the same way that you “should follow [your Bishop’s] counsel on matters pertaining to the faith whilst he himself [may have] abandoned the faith”? Have you ever sought your Bishop’s counsel on matters pertaining to the faith? No? Then why would you seek the council of a Bishop like Paulo Sérgio Machado?

Would either Bishop bind you to his personal opinion on any matter of the faith?

Would you follow the advice of either of these prelates with respect to baptism of desire? How about religious liberty, ecumenism or implicit faith? If you would refuse the Pope’s counsel in these matters of faith and discipline, who are you trying to kid when you say you would seek the counsel of a single "orthodox" Bishop in today’s Church, each of whom remains in communion with the Pope?

I think St. Antonius would in fact tell you that you would be obliged to follow Bishop Paulo Sérgio Machado when he tells you that Pope Benedict XVI is Christ’s true Vicar on earth, and that this same Pope’s Supreme Primacy is not yours to give and to take away at your good pleasure.

Do his liberal sounding opinions and obvious disdain for a certain traditionalist mindset that sees the Catholic Church of he 21st century as a corrupted evil institution noted for its doubtful or invalid Pope, Sacraments, Orders and Mass make him an ipso facto apostate?

You have accused the Bishop of apostasy, but you have failed to identity where he has rejected the Catholic faith.

Guilty of bad taste and an irreverent mocking caricature of traditionalists he may be, but apostasy?

Of course, that’s what schismatics do: invent heresies to justify their rebellious schism.

St. Antoninus would probably flinch at the remarks of Bishop Paulo Sérgio Machado, but I am almost certain that he would not place his title of “Bishop” in quotations, and that he would certainly question the name “Catholic” that you take for your own, while refusing or “doubting” to give it to the Pope – all the while accusing him of presiding over doubtful sacraments, ordinations and the New Mass.

Funny how the “me and St. Athanasius” types always assume that because there are bad Bishops in every age, these saints would take their side against the Pope, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Jehanne wrote:

Mike,

If you ever leave this forum, I will not be "pursuing" you, believe me.

I’m crushed.

Promise?

You really need to read more. Modern evolutionary theory, evolutionary genetics in particular, "disproves" the existence of humanity's first parents. Here is yet another link:

In terms of human genetics, the concept that all humans descended from two historical persons is impossible. Genetic evidence indicates humans descended from a group of at least 10,000 people due to the amount of human genetic variation. If all humans descended from two individuals several thousand years ago, as Young Earth creationism supposes, it would require an impossibly high mutation rate to account for the observed variation. This has caused some religious practitioners to move away from a literal interpretation and belief in the Adam and Eve creation myth. Other literalists continue to believe in what they see as a fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve

Note that Pope Pius XII was writing prior to the rise of modern genetics. Faith & Science are not compatible, so "take your pick."

Actually, Jehanne, it is quite simple. Modern evolutionary genetics does not “disprove” the fact that the Church does "not forbid inquiries into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter —[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God".

The Church; however, does forbid Catholics from embracing “that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.”

“First parents” meaning, of course, the first parents (Adam and Eve) with embodied souls which were created immediately by God. Evolutionary science cannot speak to the latter but can only theorize about bodily creation.

If the two propositions of Pope Pius XII describing the freedom and limits of allowable scientific opinions cannot be reconciled with revealed truth; then the science is wrong.

“Modern evolutionary theory, evolutionary genetics in particular” cannot “disprove” the teaching of Pope Pius XII. That “all the genomic evidence that we've assembled over the last 20 years” makes it “not likely at all” that “we all descended from Adam and Eve” proves nothing except the science is only twenty years old and that the last chapter has not been written.

You are trying to tell us that theistic evolution (which I don't buy) cannot be reconciled with modern evolutionary genetics, as if modern evolutionary genetics "proves" that all humans cannot be descended from two individuals because "it would require an impossibly high mutation rate to account for the observed variations"; when it cannot "prove" any such thing if, as you also suggest, God programmed high variability into Adam and Eve without any need of endless "mutations" to get the variations He desired. And there is nothing "miraculous" about it.

Science can in no way "assume" that God is bound by the unproven "laws" of the young science called evolutionary genetics.

It is foolish to think modern evolutionary genetics (all of 20 years old) has rendered the declaration of Pope Pius XII obsolete; just as it is foolish to think that science has “proven” that the earth rotates around a stationary sun, that Einstein’s theory of relativity is not flawed, that the speed of light is constant and that science has proven that the laws of the universe are governed by Newtonian physics.

Yes, Mike, I promise, and if you make it to Heaven, I'll ignore you there as well (assuming, of course, that I make it), because I do not believe that any amount of time in Purgatory could "purge" me of my dislike of you; you'll knowledgeable in theology, quite so, but lack charity and basic decency. It would not surprise me at all if you ended-up burning in Hell forever (and, me, also, for the animosity that you have bred in me as well as many others), as I see nothing in you that would cause you to be a martyr for our Lord, for just remember, "How you treat the least of my brethren..." I will, of course, pray for you, and I hope that you do the same for me. Of course, with the One and Triune God, "nothing is impossible." I think that you (as well as myself and all of us) should spend more time in prayer and penance than arguing over theology. After all, the Truth, ultimately, will "take care of itself."

Yes, the Science is wrong; either that, or Catholicism is a lie. No one, and I repeat, no one, in evolutionary science "takes seriously" the idea that all of humanity descended from two individuals, for the simple and fundamental fact that the genetic evidence "unequivocally" contradicts such a notion. Now, you can "play games" with this, as you do with infant Baptism, and say that Adam & Eve were "just not defined," but I can show several canons from various Councils which state otherwise, not to mention the Catechism of the Catholic Church. So, evolution is out, and creationism is in; you can't have it "both ways." If Adam & Eve truly existed, then their existence was the result of a divine miracle, a very special act of creation, which, in and of itself, would explain the genetic diversity that is seen in the World today. For such would not be the result of natural selection via random mutation, but would be the result that Eve, when she was specially created fully grown, carried with her all the genetic variation that we see amongst human beings today. No compromise and no "middle ground" on this one, Mike; by the way, Dawkins and every other scientist in the World today would agree with me on this point.

If Pope Benedict and/or his successor would ever say that Adam & Eve were not real, physical human beings and the first parents of all of humanity, then the "Pope" would be a heretic, and the sede position must, therefore, be the correct one. Our "good bishop" whom Columba quoted is (and who, apparently, you are defending), seems to be of that mindset, also. As with so much of modernistic theology, it is difficult to tell "what the hell" (pardon the pun) the person in question is trying to say (or not to say.)

And, please, skip the insults from now on. Okay? I make this request of you, not as a Catholic, but simply as a human being.

Jehanne wrote:
Yes, Mike, I promise, and if you make it to Heaven, I'll ignore you there as well (assuming, of course, that I make it), because I do not believe that any amount of time in Purgatory could "purge" me of my dislike of you; you'll knowledgeable in theology, quite so, but lack charity and basic decency. It would not surprise me at all if you ended-up burning in Hell forever (and, me, also, for the animosity that you have bred in me as well as many others), as I see nothing in you that would cause you to be a martyr for our Lord, for just remember, "How you treat the least of my brethren..." I will, of course, pray for you, and I hope that you do the same for me. Of course, with the One and Triune God, "nothing is impossible." I think that you (as well as myself and all of us) should spend more time in prayer and penance than arguing over theology. After all, the Truth, ultimately, will "take care of itself."

The difference between us is I don’t think it necessary to talk to anyone outside this forum about you and to then broadcast someone's versions of facts and opinions.

Neither do I think it necessary, apart from the prayer thread, to broadcast my prayer intentions or to say that I pray for my enemies; neither do I speak of my protagonists as being fit only for hellfire and predict such a just end for them, while stating that prayers from heaven will never be forthcoming because of a personal dislike. I can’t think of anything less charitable than that.

For the record; and I’ll never say this publicly again, I remembered you (once again) in a special intention in my holy hour before the Blessed Sacrament last night between 1 and 2 am – and will continue to do so. I also remember everyone on this forum and beg forgiveness if I have caused anyone any harm.

I take no pleasure in saying that I’ve exposed your appalling theology, vapid theories, hypocrisy and diatribes against the popes too many times to expect anything but contempt from you - and I don’t care – except in the hope that you see your errors for what they are and return to unity with the Roman Pontiff.

Jehanne wrote:
Yes, the Science is wrong; either that, or Catholicism is a lie. No one, and I repeat, no one, in evolutionary science "takes seriously" the idea that all of humanity descended from two individuals, for the simple and fundamental fact that the genetic evidence "unequivocally" contradicts such a notion. Now, you can "play games" with this, as you do with infant Baptism, and say that Adam & Eve were "just not defined," but I can show several canons from various Councils which state otherwise, not to mention the Catechism of the Catholic Church. So, evolution is out, and creationism is in; you can't have it "both ways." If Adam & Eve truly existed, then their existence was the result of a divine miracle, a very special act of creation, which, in and of itself, would explain the genetic diversity that is seen in the World today. For such would not be the result of natural selection via random mutation, but would be the result that Eve, when she was specially created fully grown, carried with her all the genetic variation that we see amongst human beings today. No compromise and no "middle ground" on this one, Mike; by the way, Dawkins and every other scientist in the World today would agree with me on this point.

What do you mean “IF Adam & Eve truly existed”? It sounds like you’re starting to believe the propaganda wrapped in the name of “evolutionary genetics”.

Why do you act as if I am the one who is going to defend the “science” of "random mutation"?

Whatever science can tell us (without confusing “proof” with theory), I know for a fact that it cannot tell us that Adam and Eve did not exist or that they cannot be our first parents. And who cares if “no one” in evolutionary science "takes seriously" the idea that all of humanity descended from two individuals – the smug Einstein’s think they are smarter than God and His Church and fool Christians and Catholics into buying into their science as if they have incontrovertible “proof” that mankind could not have descended from Adam and Eve.

I knew instinctively without having to read a single article on the subject or consulting with Dawkins that God most likely built into Adam and Eve the genetic variation He so desired. I don’t think as a “scientist” devoid of faith, but as a Catholic who sees theology as “the mother of all sciences”.

True science and the Faith cannot be opposed; and, as I said, if “evolutionary genetics” cannot be reconciled with the Faith, then the former is in error. Every man is descended from Adam and Eve – period.

The “special creation” of Adam and Eve in the image and likeness of God was no more “miraculous” than the other special creation events recounted in Genesis.

I don’t even see where we have significant disagreement, though you are still wrong when you say that science no longer allows for theistic evolution and Adam and Eve as the first parents of the human race - it never took theistic evolution seriously to begin with, precisely because it interjects God into creation.

As Pope Pius XII suggested, the Church has no need of reconciling the Faith with unproven scientific theory, though it is the task of science and theology to reconcile theory with “the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church … with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.”

Any theory which “disproves” any of that is junk science. The Church will not allow Catholics to hold any other position until it becomes “apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled” with “the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church … with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.”

I wonder if you caught the nuance of what Pope Pius XII was actually saying - it does not appear that you did.

Anyway, here's the bottom line:

39. Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things ... our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers.

42. Let the teachers in ecclesiastical institutions be aware that they cannot with tranquil conscience exercise the office of teaching entrusted to them, unless in the instruction of their students they religiously accept and exactly observe the norms which We have ordained. That due reverend and submission which in their unceasing labor they must profess toward the Teaching Authority of the Church, let them instill also into the minds and hearts of their students.

43. Let them strive with every force and effort to further the progress of the sciences which they teach; but let them also be careful not to transgress the limits which We have established for the protection of the truth of Catholic faith and doctrine. With regard to new questions [such as genetic science], which modern culture and progress have brought to the foreground, let them engage in most careful research, but with the necessary prudence and caution; finally, let them not think, indulging in a false "irenism," that the dissident and the erring can happily be brought back to the bosom of the Church, if the whole truth found in the Church is not sincerely taught to all without corruption or diminution.

And please stop with the dire threats along the lines of "if the Pope denied this or denied that" then "the 'Pope' would be a heretic, and the sede position must, therefore, be the correct one."

The pope is always on trial, even when he is judged by "what ifs"; such as "if" he said God does not exist, "if" he "redefined" transubstantiation, "if" he said our Lord did not physically rise from the dead and "if" he said Adam and Eve are the products of over-active imaginations and mythical narratives.

The pope actually falling into manifest obstinate heresy is the real product of over-active imaginations - and the stuff of sede and rad-trad legend.

Mike,

For the record, "I forgive you," and I have no problem in stating publicly that I do pray for you and for everyone else on the forum. For the record, "I do not talk about you 'behind your back'," because this is the only forum that I post on, other than the occasional post on the St. Benedict Center forum. Still, let's not jeopardize our eternal salvation or scandalize others in the process. For me, this forum is sometimes an "occasion of sin."

Okay, we agree, great, and always have; my argument isn't with you, it's with that bishop who said,

And, what causes more concern, these are people who attend college; people who have entered the university, but the university has not entered into their minds. I think it is high time our scientists invented a device to “open their minds”. The “suspicion meter” does not work any longer, because these folks do not suspect that they are “out of line”, “in a wrong age”. They wish, at any rate, to go back to the past. They live on miracles and apparitions, devotions and slushy sentiment, which, happily, are outdated.

Address the two statements in bold if you wish to continue to "defend" this heretic bishop.

Jehanne wrote:
Okay, we agree, great, and always have; my argument isn't with you, it's with that bishop who said,

And, what causes more concern, these are people who attend college; people who have entered the university, but the university has not entered into their minds. I think it is high time our scientists invented a device to “open their minds”. The “suspicion meter” does not work any longer, because these folks do not suspect that they are “out of line”, “in a wrong age”. They wish, at any rate, to go back to the past. They live on miracles and apparitions, devotions and slushy sentiment, which, happily, are outdated.

Address the two statements in bold if you wish to continue to "defend" this heretic bishop.

I have no need or desire to “defend” the Bishop's caustic remarks about traditionalists; he should know better – I am protesting the unjust charges of heresy and apostasy against him. You have not produced any evidence for heresy.

Are the bolded statements supposed to represent “heresy” - the denial of an article of faith; much less "apostasy", a rejection of the Catholic Faith? Where?

What does this statement represent except a “rhetorical flourish”: “I think it is high time our scientists invented a device to 'open their minds'”. Heresy? Where?

Is it not true that some rad-trads live in the past and disdain any such concept of a true development in doctrine? Aren't these the same rad-trads who see Pius XII as a weak and erring pope who paved the way for the VCII “modernists”? Do they not "reject" his accommodation to the science of theistic and bodily evolution, just as "genetic science" rejects the same?

And is it not true that there are rad-trads who “live on miracles and apparitions, devotions and slushy sentiment, which, happily, are outdated” in the sense that both the unapproved and approved apparitions and devotions can consume certain Catholics to an exaggerated and unhealthy extent?

In other words, do the Bayside, Medjugorje and even the “third secret of Fatima” obsessions ring a bell? Are there not Catholics who are totally fixated on such apparitions, devotions and sloppy sentiments? Are there not Catholics who obsess about a return to the past and consider anything “conciliar” as being from the devil?

Is the Bishop rejecting the fact of true miracles and apparitions – or are the popular apparitions and reported miracles now matters of Catholic faith?

Tell us, Jehanne, if the Bishop does not accept the Fatima "miracle of the sun" as a true miracle, is he a "heretic" for denying an article of faith?

Why are you reading more into his remarks than is there? Do bad manners, caustic remarks and rhetorical flourishes constitute heresy? Has he rejected the actual message of our Blessed Mother at Fatima, or only the danger of Fatima obsession?

Again, please identity the actual heresy. Just bolding his remarks as if they represent heresy is not going to cut it. If you are going to make the charge, produce the actual evidence for a denial of an article of faith.

Well, "you've got me"; the bishop's comments are too vague, too "slippery" to pin him down on. I doubt that Bill Clinton, the "master," could do better. Still, if the bishop doesn't like women coming to Mass in veils and skirts, a many centuries-old custom, that's his problem; it's (still) a "free country" where we live. As for "universal salvation," I am at least willing to admit my "agnosticism" on the subject, while acknowledging that most (but not all) of the Doctors of the Church were "Puritanical pessimists" on the question.

By the way, an interesting piece from Father Harrison on the International Theological Commission:

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/04/correspondence

Circling the Square

Commenting on Benedict XVI’s endorsement of the International Theological Commission (ITC)’s 2007 document on infants who die without baptism, Joseph Bottum says that “Benedict explained why limbo is unnecessary . . . for Catholics to believe in” (“The Papal Difference,” February 2010). But ascribing the commission’s explanation to the Holy Father himself could suggest magisterial status—something the said document no more enjoys than does, say, Pope Benedict’s book Jesus of Nazareth. An ITC document, even with papal endorsement, has no authority, pace Mr. Bottum, to “downgrade” or “toss aside” an existing doctrine.

Indeed, it seems questionable whether even the Catechism of the Catholic Church has the authority officially to change Catholic teaching on those rare occasions when it enunciates some doctrinal novelty. For a catechism is intended to be a pastoral, educationally oriented compendium of already existing and settled doctrine. Its authority depends on that of previous teachings of the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium that it can appeal to.

Now, in stating that Catholics are “permitted to hope” for the salvation of infants dying without baptism, the Catechism (#1261) cites not one previous magisterial statement—for the very good reason that there are none to cite. The Catechism is at odds with the only previous universal catechism of the Church, that of the Council of Trent, which affirmed categorically that “no means for attaining salvation remains for infant children other than baptism” (II, II, 33).

And that teaching certainly did have previous magisterial authority behind it: As early as 417 Pope St. Innocent I rejected as “utterly foolish” (perfatuum) the idea that unbaptized infants may be saved, and their exclusion from heaven remained the firm doctrine of the ordinary magisterium in both East and West until at least the pontificate of Pius XII, who confirmed the catechism of Trent’s teaching in a 1951 allocution. Pope Sixtus V affirmed, in a 1588 constitution, that the “certain” destiny of aborted (and therefore unbaptized) infants is exclusion from the beatific vision. And according to the 1860 Provincial Council of Cologne, whose acts were subsequently confirmed by the See of Peter, “faith teaches [fides docet] that infants, since they are not capable of this desire [for baptism], are excluded from the heavenly kingdom” if they die without the sacrament.

Is Benedict XVI aware of the above documents from Catholic tradition ruling out that “hope” which the new Catechism permits? If he has trusted and depended on theological advice like that given him by the International Theological Commission, probably not. For, astonishingly, not one of the five statements mentioned in the previous paragraph is referred to in the ITC’s thirty-eight-page study. While the natural happiness of limbo was and is only a hypothesis, that is the case only because the Church never condemned St. Augustine’s alternative hypothesis (revived by some Catholic theologians as recently as the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries) that unbaptized infants suffer, albeit very mildly, in hell. Both permissible hypotheses excluded them eternally from heaven. The Church traditionally taught that exclusion as doctrine, not mere opinion.

Brian W. Harrison
St. Louis, Missouri

Perhaps we should view #1261 as simply making a historical observation -- Theologians (and, by extension, everyone else) were still "allowed to hope" even though it was defined as de fide that infants who die without Baptism do not go to Heaven.

Continuation of my previous response to Mike.

MRyan wrote:

What is there to confess if you have already convinced yourself that you cannot be guilty of sin in this matter? Why the “doubt” about your “doubt”?

Believe me I am never without ample material for confession. In examination of conscience, refusing to being party to irreverence toward God or holding firmly to the revealed truths of the Catholic faith, do not register as sins. I've no need to convince myself in these matters; the Church has already done so. Sins of omission (in what I have failed to do) are every bit as serious as those sins committed actively. Likewise, to neglect to correct error is (at the very least) to tacitly condone it. When it is the case that ones actual job description (to protect and pass on intact the faith of the Church as received) requires one to condemn error but the one holding that office refuses to do so, that's every bit as much a heretical act as is the active promoting of error as pope Honorius was to find out.

“Why doubt about your doubt?” That's a silly question Mike don't you think?
I have doubt because I am not privy to every last detail surrounding the activities or the motives of certain popes. I have however in the external forum (the only forum in which I can judge) moral certainty that sins against the faith have been committed, either by neglect of duty or active participation, even when these (with great effort) can be viewed in the best possible light; however, when judging their fruits (which Our Lord has told us to do) one can't fail to see that these fruits are rotten and are the cause of an almost universal loss of faith.

Ah, a troubled conscience may be a good sign … and I will not be the one to try your conscience, but only report the objective truths of the Faith as I know them. I’ll leave the excuses for schism up to others, while exposing their false arguments.

I have no schism to excuse. If holding the faith is now considered schismatic then I accept the charge with joy.
When the only defined dogma remaining intact (and suspiciously so) is that of obedience to the pope, one wonders how the implementation of non-orthodox teachings could ever have succeeded if they hadn't upheld this one dogma and retained it as the only remaining untouchable. If all other dogmas can be developed to such an extent that they be unrecognizable in relation to their original definition, why has subjection to the Roman Pontiff remained as it was? Of course I mean that in the sense that it is now only binding on Catholics where previously it was binding on all human creatures.

Either Pope Benedict XVI is Christ’s true Vicar with full and immediate Primacy over the universal Church, or he is an imposter and a formal heretic

I agree. I'm still studying the evidence from those of your opinion (who maintain that he is a true Vicar of Christ) and those who believe he is not. Ultimately my verdict will be a personal one as I am definately not the Vicar of Christ with the authority to proclaim my personal verdict as bindng on anyone, even if that verdict is in agreement with yours. I will however give an anccount of why I reached a particular verdict (if I ever do) if asked.

That is the “choice” you have before you, to acknowledge that “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.”

I 100% agree Mike.
If Peter does not persevere in the rock-like strength he was granted and does in fact abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received, I will have to conclude that he was/is not Peter. That also is the choice you have before you.

That is the “choice” you have before you, 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”.

The one being referred to here is Christ who will, "to this day and forever preside and exercise judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood.” He will always have such bishops to retain the faith and spread it abroad and He can do this even when the Chair of Peter is vacant whether that be due to an interregnum (there have been quite a few extended interregnums) or due to a false claiment usurping the chair.
The keys will always be there as during an interregnum when they are kept in the custody of those who are tasked with the electon of a new successor. Could a heretic or apostate validly hold those keys? Many Doctors and theologians don't seem to think so.
This is also the choice that you have before you Mike. Either to subject yourself out of a false sense of obedience (against the advice of many a holy Doctor) to one who would take away your faith or, to fall back on the security of a 2,000 yr old body of inerrant teaching until such times as the Lord deems it appropriate to correct things. As St Pope Pius X said concerning a time of crsis, "For the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but traditionalists."

That is the “choice” you have before you, for “it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body.”

Can you show me where the post conciliar Church is in agreement on any doctrine and where it is showing any signs of effective leadership? all of which are signs of the true Church. If I am in agreement with Benedict XVI that elements of Catholic truth exist outside the Catholic Church, then I am in disagreement with many of his predecessors.

MRyan wrote:

That is the “choice” you have before you, for the “first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the Christian religion.”

Yes. Maintaining the rule of the true faith is the primary condition of salvation because without holding complete the Catholic faith no one can be saved. I have never disputed that though those in the Apostolic See seem have great trouble with this teaching. Preserving unblemished the Catholic religion has proved a mighty challenge for them too. Being that they have never made binding any of their strange doctrines, gives one hope that their authority is valid even if detrimental to the preservation of the purity of the Catholic faith,

That is the “choice” you have before you, for “all the venerable fathers” and “all the holy orthodox doctors … knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”

And it is by this that we can determine whether or not the See of St. Peter is in the hands of a genuine successor.

That is the “choice” you have before you, to acknowledge with divine and Catholic faith that “This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.” (VCI, First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, Pastor Aeternus)

Yes. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors and it is by this statement that we can recognize a true Peter.

Columba, you may cling to your excuses and your appeal to out-of-context citations from certain theologians, it matters not to me that you make such excuses with which to recuse yourself by pretending that Benedict XVI may not the true Pope; your objective schism is based on a lie, that the Pope is an obstinate public heretic who teaches heresy to the universal Church on matters of faith, and who presides over doubtful sacraments, doubtful ordinations and a doubtful New Mass.

I'm not pretending that Benedict XVI is not true Pope, I'm saying that there's good reason to believe the contrary. This is no pretense on my part and the “out-of-context citations” you say I use to support my flawed understanding would be rendered meaningless if corralled within the misleading context by which you would have us understand them; that being the presumption that every occupant of the chair of Peter will always be a legitimate one. Why ever bother speculating on the matter at all if your understanding be true? The Doctors and saints were never renowned for being time-wasters.

The sede position is bad enough; trying to have it both ways is even more the spectacle.

Silly words again Mike.
The sede position would not only be bad enough but absolutely unforgivable if it were arrived at without consideration. No one ever went to bed at night and woke up next morning a sede. There was a period of first weighing the evidence (and much prayer I hope) before reaching any conclusions. Debating with the likes of you (and no disrespect intended by that term) for me, is a part of that process.
I still have options other than sedevacantism such as lawful resistance (which is my current position) but like someone else mentioned, those who practice this lack consistancy and make the sede position look all the more credible.
My final resolution will ultimately be either the embracing of Pope Benedict XVI and all post conciliar teachings, including baptism of desire, Invincible Ignorance, salvation for all religions -which would require the acceptance of part-truth (even though I already know that this would constitute a lie)- being more conducive to salvation than no truth at all; the embracing of the NO Mass as being every bit as acceptable to God as the Mass of Pope Pius V, and last but not least, my partaking in worship with Sr. Deidre the femanist "choir master nun" and Pearse the lay reader and mutilator of God's holy word. This is scary; I'm shuddering at the thought. Either that or become a sede. The fence sitting (as you say Mike) is a place no one really should be hanging out for too long; full of compromises, people and societies who I don't particularly like (yet still love), but still, it's the place one must inhabit til doubts are settled.
Sr. Deidre vs the bros Dimond.. What a choice aye? Though I must say that the brothers do in fact have soft hearts underneath their harsh exterior. They love animals (see their latest article) and so do I.

In regards to Bishop Paulo Sérgio Machado, I am deeply saddened , deeply hurt and very disappointed in his words. He must be aware of what he is truly saying.
It is his responsibility to lead the flock in spiritual matters , not to scatter them to the four winds. He should be ashamed of himself. He is mocking Heaven. I pray that he comes to his senses. These are truly sad times but truth will prevail.

I somewhat feel the the Ark of Salvation has had so many rats on board for so long that we are now living in the time when they will completely come out of hiding for all to see them for what they are; rats. Perhaps some great good can come from them to hold office so all may know them by their words, thoughts and deeds. Maybe Our Holy Father has been surrounded by so many enemies of the Church that the best solution might be for evil to totally show its ugly face. I can not believe that our Pope could possibly approve of this example and the countless others like it. Full exposure as hard as it might be to comprehend may prove to be a blessing. But we have waited so long.

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:
Lets consider these warnings:

“Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it! Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them.” (Matt 7:13-16)

Did Our Lord wish us to believe that those words of warning could never be applicable?

If Our Lords prophetic words are considered, “But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think ye, faith on earth?” and there be little faith on earth when He returns, where will that remnant of faith be found?

So, our Lord, speaking through Pope Pius IX at VCI, infallibly declared that the never-failing faith of the blessed Peter, who “perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received” can fail in the faith and he can abandon that guidance he once received by becoming a manifest obstinate public heretic.

That’s what our Lord declared through his Vicar at VCI, so by all means, columba, you are obliged to reject pope BXVI and the entire “Novus Ordo Church” and cling to the little sede enclave of your choosing (or your home-alone Church of one) where the true faith and the true Church can be found.

After all, when our Lord returns, who would like to be caught remaining in faith and communion with the visible successor to Peter when Peter, along with the entire “Novus Ordo Church” he presides over, are heretical frauds?

Please show us where the true Church of Christ actually resides, columba, for you have the authority and the wisdom to interpret Scripture and to show us the way.

We know for sure that it doesn't reside in modernism and change for the sake of change (read Pascendi dominici gregis for ref. Always worth doing when tempted to compromise).
http://www.freecatholicebooks.com/books/piusx.pdf

As to where the Church of Christ actually resides; Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." (St. Athanasius)
"Religious people keep silence, but every blaspheming tongue is let loose. Sacred things are profaned; those of the laity who are sound in the Faith avoid the places of worship as schools of impiety, and raise their hands in solitude, with groans and tears to the Lord in Heaven.... Only one offense is now vigorously punished an accurate observance of our fathers' traditions." (St. Gregory Nazianzen)

No doubt there were plenty of Mikes around the 4th century reassuring the little remnant that all was well, telling them that they and their little clique were heritical pompous asses for not following the multitude. I don't think that if Saints Athanasius and Gregory Nazianzen were alive on earth today they would retract a single word. Nor would St Pope Pius X.

columba wrote:

This "bishop" was appointed to his post in 2006 by Benedict XVI.

Now it could be the case that this "bishop" was quite Catholic and turned aopostate only after his appointment. If that be so, no bad reflection on Benedict XVI. If however he remains in this position as bishop then I have neither respect or any affiliation with him, or he who allows him to so remain.

MRyan wrote:

Finally, an affirmation by columba that he has rejected pope BXVI and refuses communion with him for having approved and/or for not having removed the “apostate” Bishop.

If remaining faihful to Christ and His Church means resisting those who could rob one of the faith with their gobbledygook teachings, for the sake of my own salvation I will certainly do so.

But where is the “apostasy”? Does columba even know the meaning of the word?

A sincere Protestant could likely answer that. I'm wondering if Mike with all his knowledge has lost his sensus fidei.

Is it apostasy to suggest that heaven is full because God is stronger than the devil? Has he denied hell or any dogma of the Faith?

Heaven is full when the last member of the elect enters in. Full in this sense could mean 1000 or 1000 to the power of 1000 so his words are totally nonsensical and teach abosute zilch. His objective was obviously not to teach but rather to confuse and attack traditional understandings. To me he is a dangerous wolf and an enemy of Christ and his Church, as are those to permit him to be so without censure.

And if “Spiritism” contradicts Catholicism only in “its belief in Reincarnation”, where is the apostasy?

Spiritism is man inventing or deciding what he himself should believe concerning God. therefore all their gods are man-made and false gods. Or as St. Paul would have it, demons. Where's the apostacy? Don't dig too deep or you just might find it.

One could argue that Spiritism is inherently antithetical to Catholicism, but are there not certain truths and charitable elements (“its charitable character”) that are not antithetical to Catholicism and can be viewed constructively if not abused or turned to heresy?

No... Charity without truth is not charity and an element of charity is not charity. The supernatural virtue of charity is not made up of elements just a God is not the sum of elementary parts. Something that already is heresy can't be abused or turned to hersey. The truth when divided is no longer the truth.

Wasn’t that the point of his article that we were given only a sound bite of? There is an inherent danger - of course; and that is the problem with such optimistic assessments of a system which poses a threat to the faith.

I disagree (surprize surprize). The point of his article was to denigrate the traditions of the Church and mock those who adhere to them. Offensive to pius ears would be an understatement.

But is it “apostasy” to say that a spiritist may be a Catholic in the same sense that “an evolutionist or a capitalist may be a Catholic”?

But is it “apostasy” to say that a spiritulist may be a Catholic in the same sense that “an evolutionist or a capitalist may be a Catholic”?

Apostasy rarely comes without a disguise (again read Pascendi).
Evolutionism is not a religion (even though some have made it so). Spiritulism is, and as such is a false one. A Catholic does not call himself a spiritualist without reference to which spirit he is referring, even then the term is not understood in that way today and the wolf knows it.

Furthermore, are the views articulated in this irreverent mocking diatribe by a liberal Bishop who harbors an obvious disdain for tradition in any way binding on those who fall under his jurisdiction?

Binding or not makes no excuse nor detracts from their danger. He is a "leader" within a "church" of his own making and should be ousted from the Church that calls itself Catholic.

Are Catholics obliged to find humor in his mocking remark about men wearing mantillas?

I should think not. In this he is not mocking men but rather the woman who wear them. He is an utter devil.

But does he have a valid point when he suggests that a return to pious old ladies saying the Rosary during the celebration of the Mass is not a return anyone should take seriously?

No validity whatsoever. I sometimes pray the rosary at the TLM and offer it in union with the Holy sacrifice of the Mass. A practice many of the saints recommended.

And what is the deal with an “apostate” Bishop who says the Rosary everyday?

The problem is; He is a liar. Someone who prayed the rosary every day could not say what he said. He may say it, but he certainly doesn't pray it.

But good on ya, columba, you have found “apostasy” and you place it squarely in the lap of Pope BXVI with whom you can justify your refusal to remain in communion.

And good on ya Mike, you have once again managed to defend the indefensible and excuse Benedict XVI of all responsibilty for the "shepherds" he chooses to place over his flock. I pray God will view the whole fiesco as lightly as you and grant them the grace of repentance. Meanwhile members of the flock are led astray who cannot distinguish a wolf from a sheep.

As our illustrious popes have said, schismatics always invent heresies with which to justify their schism.

If only I had to invent these heresies. It's when you don't have to invent them that you know you've got problems. and not of your own making.

But, at least you’ve come out of the closet.

Does this mean we can stop with the pretense?

I'd sooner stay locked in a closet (as in home alone) while I value my soul.
There are a lot of pretenders abounding presently. There's always room for one more but I'll pass on the offer.

Dear Bishop Paulo Segio Machado,

My prayers go for your intention today and you will be in my prayers every day going forward. You are accountable and responsible before God for the souls that you shepherd. Why are you persecuting the Church and causing so much pain for our Holy Father? With love and humility I implore you to do some soul searching as you carry your shepherds staff. You absolve sinners in confession in the name of Jesus. As long as our heart beats any and all stages of grace are possible. I love you not as my enemy for you are not my enemy but you are currently no friend and advocate for our One , Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. If you do not change you will be my spiritual enemy, God forbid. We are all sinners and fight an intense battle against the snares of the devil every minute. I pray that like one of our great Church Saints, St Augustine that you may find your way back to your calling and be the Bishop and Saint for which I pray that you might become.

In the name of Jesus, Mary, Joseph and St. Augustine, I pray

George Brenner


Pertinent address information:


Nunciature
Av Nations, Lt. Quadra 801 01 / Cep 70401-900 Brasília - DF
Cx Postal 0153 Cep 70359-916 Brasília - DF
Phone: (61) 3223-0794 or 3223-0916
Fax: (61) 3224-9365
Email: nunapost@solar.com.br
SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE HOLY SEE:
Eminence Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone Don
Palazzo Apostolico Vaticano
00120 Città del Vaticano - Rome
Phone 06.6988-3438 Fax: 06.6988-5088
06.6988-3014 Tel 1st Section
2nd Section 06.6988-5364 Tel
e-mail: vati026@relstat-segstat.va ; vati023@genaff-segstat.va ; vati032@relstat-segstat.va
Congregation for LA DOTTRINA DELLA FEDE
Eminence Bishop William J. Levada, Prefect of the Congregation egregious,
Palazzo del Sant'Uffizio, 00120 Città del Vaticano
E-mail: cdf@cfaith.va
IL Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline LA DEI Sacramenti
Eminence Cardinal Archbishop Antonio Canizares Llovera, Prefect of the Congregation egregious,
Palazzo delle Congregazioni
Piazza Pio XII, 10th
the 00,120th CITTÀ DEL VATICAN - Holy See
Congregation for I Vescovi
Eminence Marc Cardinal Ouellet Don
Palazzo della Congregazioni, 00193 Roma, Piazza Pio XII, 10
Phone: 06.69.88.42.17
Fax: 06.69.88.53.03
CONGREGAZIONE PER IL CLERO
Eminência Reverendíssima Dom Mauro Cardeal Piacenza
Palazzo delle Congregazioni, 00193 Roma, Piazza Pio XII, 3
Telefone: 06.69.88.41.51
Fax: 06.69.88.48.45
SUPREMO TRIBUNAL DA ASSINATURA APOSTÓLICA
Eminência Reverendíssima Dom Raymond Cardeal Leo Burke.
Piazza della Cancelleria, 1 – 00186 ROMA
Tel. 06.6988-7520 Fax: 06.6988-7553

Questions and considerations concerning Lumen Gentium 25.

"Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith."

So let me see! Is this what bishops do? If so, are they still bishops if they don't do this? Are they still bishops if they do the opposite. If they still remain Bishops in union with the pope (which they must do if they have never been declared otherwise) then we must accept what they say and obey, even if they preach nonsense.


"They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(Cf. Mt 13,52)"

The reference here is from Matt 13:52. "Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is a householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old." If they don't bring forth these treasures but instead bring forth rubish they must not have been instructed unto the kingdom of heaven and so cannot instruct others unto the kingdom. No?

"making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(Cf. 2Tm 4,1-4)"

So when did they last do this?

"Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent."

Are we talking here of all bishops are only those in union with the Roman Pontiff?
How do we discern which of these bishops are in union with the Roman Pontiff? Are they those who have not been declared otherwise? If so, those who are preaching contrary or harmful things to the faith are to be obeyed as long as the Roman Pontiff has not publicly declared otherwise, therefore what they preach must be accepted as being in conformity with the mind and will of the Roman Pontiff.

"This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra;"

How so? Does that mean we must submit mind and will to all he may write in a book or to those things which he might say in an interview?

"that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will."

What if he manifests his mind and will and this mind and will does not conform with the mind and will of his predecessors?

His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

On frequent repetition: If a pope were to repeat a falsehood often enough it would follow that we must accept the faslehood as de fide? I for one don't think so. Rather, if it were the case that a pope repeated a falsehood often enough it would be proof that he was not a legitimate holder of the office. Would that not be the case?

Does Lumen Gentium teach something different about subjection and the authority of the papacy and bishops than was previously taught?

Some might argue that Jesus chose and was surrounded by less then desired men of character for His hand chosen apostles. Of course this would be nonsense. And yet lets look at the facts or a least just a few of the very well documented ones. Would it not be bad enough to deny the teachings of the son of God, let alone deny the Teacher Himself three times. And in spite and not because of this Peter becomes the First Pope and a great Saint. If your trusted co workers told you that Jesus has risen from the dead would you tell them that although you trust them with your life that unless you personally examine the wounds, you are at best a skeptic. Another great Saint did this. Did Jesus fire or remove Judas from Apostle status or go on to tell him that what he was about to do, to do quickly. Sounds like many bishops throughout history to me. While Jesus was suffering and alone in the garden, could not at least one apostle have had the spiritual common sense to run to the drug store and purchase some no doze. And yet all go on to become great Saints except one.

Thou art Peter, Clement, Sixtus, Soter, Donus, Agatho, Fabian, Mark, Damascus, Martin, Eugene,Boniface, Urban, Gregory, Innocent Felix, Gregory, Eugene , Pius, John, Paul, John Paul , Benedict .....................and the gates of hell will not prevail.

Hate the sin, Love the sinner.......... Love and pray for our Enemy as impossible as this sounds.

Columba, you sound more and more like a sede everyday -- complete with their nonsensical arguments about blind obedience to wayward Bishops.

But, like all sede’s, you say that if your Bishop said you have to worship “with Protestants”, then you are obliged in obedience to worship with Protestants. And, if your Bishop tells you that you are obliged to send your child to a certain notorious parochial school where he will most likely lose the faith, you are obliged to do so.

Nonsense.

Nowhere does the Church say that filial obedience to one's Bishop includes obedience to his liberal “nonsense”, which is binding on no one. One should be able to easily discern when a Bishop is speaking in his capacity as a teacher in union with Christ and His Vicar, and when he is spewing political propaganda or PC theological novelty, to which he can bind no one.

Please give me just one example of your local Bishop demanding that you submit to a single discipline or teaching that he has tried to impose on you that is opposed to the faith. If the “N.O.” abuses are as bad as you allege, who said that you MUST attend? But your issue has nothing to do with abuses, but with the “abuse” (“likely invalid”) called the N.O. itself, for which no one here can help you.

Your problem isn’t with the liberals and the modernists who infect the Church, it is with the liberal and modernist you call the Pope, and the liberal and modernist Liturgy, official teachings and the Mass he is responsible for. So let’s stop with the games.

Oh yes, it is so bad that you have to vent your spleen over some obscure diocese in Brazil (which has more Bishops than most countries have priests) about a bad Bishop who is not in the least sympathetic to traditionalists. Yes, that really affects you in Ireland, I know. How can the pope put up with this? Well, he’s NOT my pope if he does!

Why don’t you stay home and take on your own Bishop where you live if it is as bad as you say? No one is forcing you to go to the Novus Ordo, and the fact that you do not have a TLM within easy reach can be resolved … if your really wanted to resolve the dilemma, instead of constantly whining about it.

Your arguments are even juvenile. You are simply looking for excuses to justify your unsteady footing on sede ground. I say, jump in with both feet, the schizophrenia is getting a bit annoying.

George Brenner wrote:
Hate the sin, Love the sinner.......... Love and pray for our Enemy as impossible as this sounds.

George.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that I hate sinners. I'm one myself and hate ny own sins but still love myself enough keep well away from the bad road of dispair at least for the sake of Christ who (as St. Paul would say) loved me and sacrificed Himself for me. But to equate love with the toleration of sin or falsehood would be to redifine what is meant by the theological term "Christian charity."
Fr Corapi used to say that, "Love has a back bone, and that back bone is truth."
In quoting Fr Corapi I may hate the sins he has been (rightly or wrongly) accused of committing; I can make it clear that susch a lifestyle is (objectively) gravely sinful and condemn it as such, but how could I hate him or anyone else for being a sinner like me?
It seems to be becoming more and more the fashion to attribute lack of charity to anyone who condemns actions or words that lack charity; such as teachings which are meant to set forth the truths of the faith but instead become a source of confussion and mistrust among the very people who are meant to receive enlightenment and comfort from them . Then to add insult to injury, those who have received such scrambled teachings are called disloyal for not understanding or accepting them as good. Enough of this twisting of truth. The ones who are disloyal to the Church are none other than those who deliberately teach with forked tongues.

MRyan wrote:
Columba, you sound more and more like a sede everyday -- complete with their nonsensical arguments about blind obedience to wayward Bishops.

I couldn't care less Mike whether I sound like a sede, saint or sinner when asking the above questions which you haven't addressed anywhere in your reply. Regarding blind obedience to bishops, my question was, how do we discern who is in union with the pope and who is not when making our own private judgment as to the soundness of their teaching, especially when that teaching has not received any censure from the pope? Is the pope then in agreement with the teaching we discern in our own private judgment as not consistant with traditional Church teaching, and is the pope then himself liable to our own private judgment along with the questionable bishop? If not, how can the pope be correct and the bishop wrong if they are both in agreement?
How can you judge a bishop to be wayward if his teaching has not been condemned as such by a higher authority than you or I?

But, like all sede’s, you say that if your Bishop said you have to worship “with Protestants”, then you are obliged in obedience to worship with Protestants. And, if your Bishop tells you that you are obliged to send your child to a certain notorious parochial school where he will most likely lose the faith, you are obliged to do so.

Where have I said that?
I've said the very opposite and don't agree that we should obey him. I've said as much concerning any bishop even if he be the bishop of Rome. It is in fact you who say that we should obey and now you make fun of the fact that it should be obvious that we don't obey such bishops.

Nowhere does the Church say that filial obedience to one's Bishop includes obedience to his liberal “nonsense”, which is binding on no one.

When I produce evidence that confirms that you are correct in what you say above, and correct even when it be the bshop of Rome, you tell me I've taken it out of context and am showing a schismatic attitude.

One should be able to easily discern when a Bishop is speaking in his capacity as a teacher in union with Christ and His Vicar, and when he is spewing political propaganda or PC theological novelty, to which he can bind no one

.

At long last we have agreement.

Please give me just one example of your local Bishop demanding that you submit to a single discipline or teaching that he has tried to impose on you that is opposed to the faith. If the “N.O.” abuses are as bad as you allege, who said that you MUST attend? But your issue has nothing to do with abuses, but with the “abuse” (“likely invalid”) called the N.O. itself, for which no one here can help you.

He imposed the NO Mass and in so doing he was in obedience to the pope at the time and in so doing he opened the door for all the present abuses and supplied a platform (in the form of the holy sanctury) from which the propagation of every heretical opinion a "priest" could hold could be spewed out to the masses.
His predecessor sold out the catholic schools in the late 80's for government funding and accepted their curriculum which included the introduction of sex education, the adoption of secular humanism and interreligious studies into the religious education classes. Not a record I would relish bringing with me to judgment day but he could always play the blame game and say that Vat II theology allowed for this. I pray a lot for these men and for forgiveness for my own contribution to such evils during my NO days. My damage limitation strategy (as accompanying action) is to oppose the disasterous council in the limited way that I can.

Your problem isn’t with the liberals and the modernists who infect the Church, it is with the liberal and modernist you call the Pope, and the liberal and modernist Liturgy, official teachings and the Mass he is responsible for. So let’s stop with the games.

What games? I've never denied where I see the problem originating.

Oh yes, it is so bad that you have to vent your spleen over some obscure diocese in Brazil (which has more Bishops than most countries have priests) about a bad Bishop who is not in the least sympathetic to traditionalists. Yes, that really affects you in Ireland, I know. How can the pope put up with this? Well, he’s NOT my pope if he does!

Are you saying/asking, "Am I my brothers keeper?"
Not only does this affect Ireland but also America and indeed the whole Church. When one part of the body is infected the whole body suffers. Haven't you read the epistle of St. Paul on the Mystical Body? (1 Cor 12).

Why don’t you stay home and take on your own Bishop where you live if it is as bad as you say? No one is forcing you to go to the Novus Ordo, and the fact that you do not have a TLM within easy reach can be resolved … if your really wanted to resolve the dilemma, instead of constantly whining about it.

I don't recall whining about anything in my OP. I asked a few general questions concerning Lumen Gentium 25 and you have inserted a whole host of characters none of whom I mentioned in the post. I was writing in general concerning LG and you supplied zero answers. All you've done is whine and then accuse me of being the whiner.

Columba said:

This "bishop" was appointed to his post in 2006 by Benedict XVI.

Now it could be the case that this "bishop" was quite Catholic and turned aopostate only after his appointment. If that be so, no bad reflection on Benedict XVI. If however he remains in this position as bishop then I have neither respect or any affiliation with him, or he who allows him to so remain.

Columba, I do not accuse you personally of any hatred of sinners. I was simply stating the standard and expectations for all Catholics to live by. I think that it would wise for all of us to remember that every word and sentence is not intended as a rebuke or disagreement. Some remarks pertain to the subject and not to the person, as we quote our sources, state our opinions, convictions, thoughts or rock solid beliefs. My personal opinion based on years and years of listening, reading and watching sedevacanist and "Home Aloner's" is that although I find them accurate in many of their examples of abuse and also share in the great sorrow in the crisis of faith, we then go our completely different and separate ways. I have been more open and blunt than anyone on this forum in posting just some of the letters or e mails that I send to clergy who openly defy, attack or ridicule our Catholic teachings. I do not mince words with them and have to reflect and pray that what I do is not sinful. I alone will be judged for that. You on the other hand are constantly making blanket judgements as in the example of when you speak of Bishop Paulo Sérgio Machado and say:

" If however he remains in this position as bishop then I have neither respect or any affiliation with him, or he who allows him to so remain

If you do not like or respect a particular Bishop, there is a very good chance that you and I would be in total or partial agreement in which case , just ease on down the road. Your words of dismay would better be addressed to the Bishop, personally then implying that you hold the Pope accountable when you do not even have the slightest idea nor do I of what the Pope knows or does not know about this particular case. The Pope owes us no explanation and I for one think that his heart is broken with the abuses and outright enemies in clerical garb that he is surrounded with in todays Church. Another thing, for the most part, way too much time is spent on trying to justify your position of how bad things are rather then posting and rejoicing in the good, the brave, the Holy, the defenders of the faith who stay in the Church, subject to the Vicar of Christ with prayers and support. I am talking about true love and understanding that the Pope suffers much and not some half hearted at best approach that you are on the sidelines waiting for the Pope to come around.

If you want someone to tell you that it is not even possible for one to be saved by God and God alone due to Invincible Ignorance, Baptism of Blood, Baptism of desire and if you want to be told that you should not hold out hope for aborted or miscarried babies and all the other concocted scenarios brought up on this forum; well you will not hear that from me. Would you find comfort in being told by enough people that yep, case close, the Church is through discussing and studying with the help of the Holy spirit these situations. I need to know today, cut and dry , sorry but to Hell with the whole bunch or would you rather teach and live the Catholic Faith with the hard and fast teachings of No Salvation Outside of the Catholic Church and Baptism by water and leave eternal judgement and mercies totally, completely and without reservation to God Almighty?

Very nicely and firmly put George. Anyone who waits alone on the sidelines ,waiting for his particular type of Pope and Catholic Church to suddenly emerge, one that ticks all the boxes for their own conceived notion of perfection, will have a very long wait. If they wait long enough, they should get such a perfect church, after the Second Coming, but by then it may be too late, having already rejected the Vicar of Christ.

simple Faith wrote:Very nicely and firmly put George. Anyone who waits alone on the sidelines ,waiting for his particular type of Pope and Catholic Church to suddenly emerge, one that ticks all the boxes for their own conceived notion of perfection, will have a very long wait. If they wait long enough, they should get such a perfect church, after the Second Coming, but by then it may be too late, having already rejected the Vicar of Christ.

You've picked me up wrong SF if you think I'm waiting for a perfect sinless pope. If I were doing so I'd be denying the dogma of original sin and its consequences. I've recently read a book recommended to me by a member here titled "The Bad Popes." There were plenty of notorious sinners among them, the majority of them unquestionably valid with only a few of dubious validity. Even among the dubious claimants and the notirious sinners, one would be hard pressed to find heresy being taught. A thousand mortal sins doesn't make an invalid pope but a single publically proclaimed heresy does. You've once agian set up a straw man and ignored the real issue which isn't (as you would suggest) concerned with the moral/immoral character of a pope but has everything to do with his profession of faith.

In accepting heretical teaching from one particular pope you may find that it is actually you who have rejected the teachings of up to 250 other popes.