Catholic Church: now run by heretics?

[Jaypeeto3]

I am not here to shill for the sedevacantists or the SSPX’s positions. However, it is being asserted by some that if most of the bishops - hypothetically - are heretics, then somehow Christ has not fulfilled his promise to be with the Church always till the end of time. That is not a necessary conclusion.
Remember the Arian heresy?
My Lord, 99% of the once-Catholic Bishops had become heretics and were teaching Arianism !! It was St. Athanasius against the world and it appeared that the Catholic Faith and Church had been wiped out. Yet, Christ was still with his church and, several decades later, the Arian heresy was soundly defeated and the Catholic Church restored to it’s glory.
So, even IF a pope were to become a heretic along with 99% of the bishops for a few decades, that would NOT mean that Christ’s promise that the gates of hell would not prevail, had proven false.
The promise is that the gates of hell will not PREVAIL, not that the gates of hell won’t make a Herculean and TEMPORARILY successful effort, as happened in the awful Arian heresy.
Love, Jaypeeto3

 

[Jaypeeto3]

Rich, regarding your post about attending mass being an occasion of sin.
In all fairness, I have to acknowledge that in my Archdiocese (Miami) there are many fine parishes such as my own, or St. Michael the Archangel, or St. Louis, or Our Lady of the Lakes, etc. There are a couple of bad ones too, and I stay away from them. We have to be careful these days.
My first parish priest was a flaming modernist who opposed traditional Catholic morality and some doctrine. I reported him to the Archdiocese and got a curt and rude letter back, so yes there is also a leadership problem.
I wouldn’t advise, at this point, for anyone to despair though. There are good parishes out there. It’s a SHAME, however, that the word CATHOLIC on a church building these days is no guarantee that you’re going to hear CATHOLIC doctrine when you go inside. BIG leadership problem.
I would advise you to not make any rash decisions, study the issues out thoroughly, pray to the Lord for guidance, then do what he tells your conscience to do.
Love,
Jaypeeto3

 

[Pjs2ejs]

Gentlemen (I’m assuming),

Why is it that the magesterium is not allowed to set forth new rules on disiplines and call them doctrine? Is the church not allowed to bind and loose anymore? The church felt these changes were necessary for our time. Whether you like them or not. And I still repeat, no previous doctrines were contradicted or changed to mean something else.

You can parse the whole Jewish salvation thing, but you have not stated one doctrine that was changed to become something it previously wasn’t.

The St. Athanasius argument is not an issue. The Arians were CHANGING doctrine set forth by the church, early fathers and scripture. Right now, there are Secularists pushing abortion, contraception, euthenasia, and gay marriage, and I would bet a huge number of them are Catholics. Heck, the majority of Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence. The number of us who truly live by all of the church’s teachings (at least we try) are a small percentage, just like Athanasius.

You are caught up in a conspiracy theory that is very dangerous. You are defending the Sedevacantists whether you want to believe it or not.

Be careful, study the entire history, find out the reasons for the Vatican II changes and trust in Christ’s church, the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Jaypeeto3]

I am not defending any group of the sort.
I have merely pointed out that those who claim that the Old Covenant is still in force and salvific ARE directly contradicting the solemn teachings of 2,000 years of the Catholic magisterium. Heck, a few years ago Cardinal John O’Connor even publically gave his blessing to a Catholic man who apostasized back into Judaism (cf. Hebrews 6: 4 thru 8), and not one word of rebuke of him for such an atrocious thing from the higher-ups.

As for Athanasius, my point still stands:
99% of the once-Catholic bishops of the world were apostate heretics, yet Christ was still with his Church.

God bless,
Jaypeeto3

 

[LaSalle]

The main gist of the argument against the Vatican is JP II’s ecumenism. He is shown ‘praying’ with numerous leaders from other religions and acknowledging their spirituality.

It should be remembered that the RCC does not deny that salvation is only through the RCC. How it defines this happens takes into account the individual’s invincible ignorance, as such, JP II allows himself to participate in the truth in other religions. He does not deny RCC teaching.

Jesus knew that it would be difficult to follow Him, that’s why He gave us His Apostles and asked us to follow them.

I am a simpleton. I shall follow them till He comes, in the flesh, again to change that command.

If I am damned for that, so be it.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Jaypeeto3:

I am not defending any group of the sort.
I have merely pointed out that those who claim that the Old Covenant is still in force and salvific ARE directly contradicting the solemn teachings of 2,000 years of the Catholic magisterium. Heck, a few years ago Cardinal John O’Connor even publically gave his blessing to a Catholic man who apostasized back into Judaism (cf. Hebrews 6: 4 thru 8), and not one word of rebuke of him for such an atrocious thing from the higher-ups.

As for Athanasius, my point still stands:
99% of the once-Catholic bishops of the world were apostate heretics, yet Christ was still with his Church.

God bless,
Jaypeeto3

Can you cite a source for the 99% number? Also, I’m fuzzy on this, but had Arianism already been condemned by a Council at the time of Saint Athanasius. I mean, were these bishops doing something that had already been clearly anathematized?

 

[Franze]

LaSalle:

The main gist of the argument against the Vatican is JP II’s ecumenism. He is shown ‘praying’ with numerous leaders from other religions and acknowledging their spirituality.

It should be remembered that the RCC does not deny that salvation is only through the RCC. How it defines this happens takes into account the individual’s invincible ignorance, as such, JP II allows himself to participate in the truth in other religions. He does not deny RCC teaching.

Jesus knew that it would be difficult to follow Him, that’s why He gave us His Apostles and asked us to follow them.

I am a simpleton. I shall follow them till He comes, in the flesh, again to change that command.

If I am damned for that, so be it.

I think that these things are correcting. Thanks

 

[Jaypeeto3]

historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ac61

JKirk:
Here is a link to a long article about it.
The catholic encyclopedia online also has a good article.

I can’t find a direct source for the 99% number (I’m at work now), but I’ve seen it in articles many times. The popular description of this time was “Athanasius against the whole world.”

Even prior to the Nicene definition, Arianism was still heresy, because it was the exact opposite of the universal tradition (that Christ is God) that was handed down in the church everywhere from apostolic times.

God bless,
Jaypeeto3

 

[Pjs2ejs]

Jayeeto3,

Welcome to the church of human beings, where, yes, our members are falible, even bishops too. To discount the entire Catholic Church (or imply that the Church contradicts itself) because of what Bishop Kaspar said, or one or two other members, is naive and downright silly.

Your Athanasius allegation is a strong one too and I would like the proof that 99% of the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church left because of the Arian heresy.

Did you read the Sedavacantists’ JPII contradictions? Talk about a little context problem. They may be well intentioned in their love for Catholic tradition but they have now crossed the line into heresy with the Pope Pius XIII thing. I can’t believe that people are letting an ambiguous vision dictate their religion.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

I certainly have not discounted or disavowed the Catholic religion.
I realize that bishops are fallible, but fallibility doesn’t change the fact that heresy is heresy. And it is not one or two bishops espousing heresy today, it’s quite a few. And I didn’t say that nearly all the bishops “left” the church for Arianism. Quite the contrary, they REMAINED bishops and EMBRACED the Arian heresy (although in some cases, the emperor installed Arian bishops in sees once held by a Catholic bishop. Athanasius himself was driven from his See).
God bless,
Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3 on my work computer)

 

[Tarsicius]

Hi all,
someone mentioned a "dogmatic council’? I don’t believe there is such a distinction.
Anyway, what I wanted to say was welcome to the church. In acts chapter two it was a love in, and by chapter six there’s trouble. Jesus said there would be wheat and tares, and he told us to repect religious authority with the caveat that we “do as they say, not as they do”.

This is not a banner time for the church in many respects, I have been to mass where the priest ( who teaches at a catholic school ) invited everyone to say the words of consecration with him. Or where the priest,deacon,and alter girls all hold hands for the our father. young girls wearing outfits that would make Brittany Spears blush at mass. There are many I’d like to beat over the head with a copy of redemptionis sacramentum. The point is the “purer” church that the sedevacantists are looking for doesn’t exist, in fact I believe it’s St. Paul who warns of this (someone help me with a scripture quote). So no matter what they say there is only church and Rome can quite easily show apostolic succsesion and validity of councils and conclaves. God’s faithful promise holds this barque of Peter together. So to the man with five kids, I aplaude you for taking your role as head of the domestic church seriously. Remember faith preceeds understanding, you can find sound teaching ( you just have to search more than you used too these days).

I recall in “this Rock” a while back there was a good brief refutation of the sedevacantists.

God’s love to all

 

[pnewton]

Jaypeeto3:

I can’t find a direct source for the 99% number (I’m at work now), but I’ve seen it in articles many times.

So it is unsubstantiated. And (unrelated to your post)

You might be a sedevacantist if:

Dinner conversation revolves around whether you or Bob down the block should be pope next.

You have to schedule your conclave around the Lion’s Club who booked the conference center first.

You have to have a friend on the newspaper to come out and take photos instead of having millions gather to watch.

Your mom sews all your vestments or, alternatively, you buy them on eBay.

You have ever driven the wrong way down a one way street and been convinced that everyone else is wrong, including the bozos who put up the signs.

Instead of making notes in your Bible you make corrections.

 

[Coder]

blessedrosary:

I found a disturbing website and it basically says that pope pious XII was our last true pope and that every Pope after Vatican II are heretics… truecatholic.org

It’s nonsense.

For example regarding freedom of religion look further at what the Vatican II document says:

In human society and** in the face of government the Church claims freedom for herself in her character as a spiritual authority**, established by Christ the Lord, upon which there rests, by divine mandate, the duty of going out into the whole world and preaching the Gospel to every creature.(32) The Church also claims freedom for herself in her character as a society of men who have the right to live in society in accordance with the precepts of the Christian faith.(33)
In turn, where the principle of religious freedom is not only proclaimed in words or simply incorporated in law but also given sincere and practical application, there the Church succeeds in achieving a stable situation of right as well as of fact and the independence which is necessary for the fulfillment of her divine mission.

Scripture tells us that Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light. These self-proclaimed “true Catholics” who say the Church has softened too much on Protestantism etc. are themselves simply more “Protestants” who broke away from the Church.

The Vatican II document about ecumenism does not say Protestantism is OK. It simply recognizes that many Protestants today were born and raised that way. They are not as responsible as the early Protestants who created the initial schism.

It’s a lot of hype and nonsense. In typical Protestant fashion they take text out of context and don’t give you the whole picture. If you want to read the ***fullness ***of the truth, here’s the Vatican II link:
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/

Yes Vatican II set a calm tone. For one thing, the world was under the threat of nuclear war!

I find this self-proclaimed “true Catholic” nonsense to be dispicable. It’s more deception. Humbug!!!

 

[Jaypeeto3]

So it is unsubstantiated

That is certainly an overstatement, as it is generally accepted by all Catholic scholars that nearly the entire Episcopate had gone over to the Arian heresy. You can find references to this fact in the writings of St. Jerome.

As for heretical bishops today, let us remember when Paul the VI issued the encyclical HUMANAE VITAE in 1968 which correctly reaffirmed the universal ordinary infallible magisterial teaching that artificial contraception is mortal sin. Hundreds of bishops around the world went into open dissent and rebellion against this teaching. (( By the way, I don’t recall most of them ever recanting their rebellion, either )). Well guess what? This teaching is DE FIDE. To go against a DE FIDE teaching of the Catholic church is to become a formal and pertinacious HERETIC, which is what those rebellious bishops became by their rebellion against the teaching in HUMANAE VITAE. Guess what else? As defined solemnly by Pope Paul the IV in his bull CUM EX APOSTOLATUS OFFICIO, by DIVINE LAW any bishop, priest, cardinal who becomes a formal heretic AUTOMATICALLY FALLS FROM HIS OFFICE, and this WITHOUT ANY need for a formal declaration from the Church that they have lost their office.
So, in 1968 hundreds of Bishops became Heretics and LOST their office by Divine Law, even if and though the Church never officially declared that they had lost their office.
The same applies to heretical Priests. I have had priests openly and persistently oppose the Church’s de fide moral teachings.
I have had the experience of a priest tell me to my face that the Church’s teaching on homosexual acts is wrong. I have also had a priest tell me in the Confessional that I SHOULD commit sexual immorality !! In the eyes of God, these men are NO LONGER CATHOLICS even if the Church refuses to remove them from office and refuses to remove them from their parishes.
Incidentally, I reported one of the priests in question to the archbishop and got a curt and rude reply back in the mail. The heretical priest is still pastoring (poisoning really) a parish full of catholic souls in this diocese.

Anyway, I don’t want to ramble on any more than I have to.
God bless,
Jaypeeto3

 

[pnewton]

So it is unsubstantiated

That is certainly an overstatement, as it is generally accepted by all Catholic scholars that nearly the entire Episcopate had gone over to the Arian heresy.

Once again, where. I believe this has reached a level of urban legend in your mind. I went to five different sites after googling Arianism and all coincided that the church was fairly evenly split. (which is why it was such a major heresy) In no case was Arianism part of the deposit of faith, much less held by 99% of the church.

It makes a big difference because these little splinter groups today are such a small part the church as to be inconsequential.

You might be a sedevacantist if:

your percentage of the church carries to six decimal places ( 0.000001%, e.g.) Yes, this is made up.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

It is not an urban legend in my mind.
As Saint Jerome said, The whole world awoke and groaned to find itself Arian. I’ll be back with the exact quote in a little bit.
And I never said 99% of the church, I was referring to nearly ALL the BISHOPS were Arian, i.e. heretics.
Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3)

 

[Jaypeeto4]

The below is from the Father Hardon Archives on new advent website. The Arian Heresy was HUGE. And the Great Apostasy (preceding the Return of Jesus Christ) predicted by Christ and St. Paul is said to be going to be the worst crisis ever, with a vast falling away from the faith and a deception so great as to possibly even deceive the elect. The Church isn’t going to remain Big forever therefore. As for heretical bishops in the Church, St. Paul predicted THEM, too, when he warned the Ephesian presbyters that “from among you yourselves” shall arise heretics seeking to lead the faithful away from the truth. We are under no obligation before God to obey a heretical bishop, even if he is our own bishop, for a heretic by divine law ceases to be a member of the church and by that fact falls ipso facto, without need for a church declaration, from his office and jurisdiction. Now, if God forbid the Great Apostasy is descending on us, we should not be shocked to find a growing number of heretical bishops. I believe that that Great Apostasy IS happening right now, yet Christ is still faithful to his promise to be with us “even to the end of the World.” Anyway, the brief article about Arianism below:

Spread of Arianism. Arianism had the advantage of clarity of position from the beginning. Its founder bequesthed his followers four principles from which they never wavered, even when their expression of doctrine was veiled under sematics.

God is absolute one, not only in nature but in person. He is in no sense generated. It is therefore impossible for Him to communicate His substance. He can only create things outside Himself out of nothing.

The Word or Logos is an intermediary between God and the world, existing before cosmic time but not eternal. Consequently there was a period when the Logos was not.

This means that the Logos was created. He was produced…

As a result, the nature of the Logos is to be fallible and peccable; He could both err and sin.
From these premises, Arianism developed a number of species…

Heading the list of Arian derivatives was Eusebianism, named after Eusebius of Nicomedia, friend and confidant of Arius… Eusebius should be held mainly responsible for the rise and spread of Arianism…

Pure Arians came to be called Anomoeans (anomoios = dissimilar). Founded by Aetius and Eunomeius, they are also known as Eunomians. They insisted that in God there is no internal generation, and therefore the Son of God is not consubstantial with the Father. Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa wrote extensively against them.

Semi-Arians, so called because they tried to straddle Nicea and Arius, are known to history in at least four species. The Homoeans (homoios - similar), also known as Acacians from their leaders, Acadius of Caesarea, claimed that the Logos is not numerically identical with the Father but like to it. Homoiousians (homoiousion = of like substance) were in the same class as the Homoeans but more philosophical…
The Macedonians are in a class by themselves. Their leader, Macedonius, usurped the See of Constantinople on two occasions, between 342 and 360 A.D., and his followers are best known for denying the divinity of the Second and Third Persons of the Trinity, with stress on the Holy Spirit.

Things quieted down while the Catholic Emperor Constans was in power but on his death in 350 A. D., the Arian Constantius became sole emperor.
Immediately there was an outcropping of Arian-sponsored councils…, where the anti-Nicene party triumphed through pressure (including physical violence) from imperial authority dominated by Arian bishops from the East. At the last two synods, most of the Catholic bishops were induced by fraud and forced to sign a noncommittal symbol of faith, which was then flaunted to the world as an Arian victory. St. Jerome commented on this period, that “The whole world sighed as it awoke in wonder to find itself Arian.” Actually the Christian world was not Arian; but many of its leaders had been betrayed into leaving that impression.

A sad illustration of the crisis through which the Church was passing is what happened to Pope Liberius (352-366 A. D.), the first pontiff to whom the title of “Saint” is not applied, probably because of his lack of courage under trial. He was seized at Rome by the Arian Emperor Constantius for his ardent defense of Athanasius and the Nicene Creed. After years of exile, and under threat of death, Liberius is reported to have signed a compromise formula as the price of restoration to the Roman See. When Constantius died (361 A4.), Liberius publicly condemned Arianism.

 

[TheRaiders]

arieh0310:

To quote from G. K. Chesterton’s book Orthodoxy:

 "The madman's explanation of a thing is always complete, and often in a purely rational sense satisfactory.  Or, to speak more strictly, the insane explanation, if not conclusive, is at least unanswerable; this may be observed specially in the two or three commonest kinds of madness.  If a man says (for instance) that men have a conspiracy against him, you cannot dispute it except by saying that all the men deny that they are conspirators; which is exactly what conspirators do.  His explanation covers the facts as much as yours.  Or if a man says that he is the rightful King of England, it is no complete answer to say that the existing authorities call him mad; for if he were the King of England that may be the wisest thing for the existing authorities to do.  Or if a man says that he is Jesus Christ, it is no answer to tell him that the world denies his divinity; for the world denied Christ's.
 "Nevertheless he is wrong.  But if we attempt to trace his error in exact terms, we shall not find it quite so easy as we had supposed.  Perhaps the nearest we can get to expressing it is to say this: that his mind moves in a perfect but narrow circle.  A small circle is quite as infinite as a large circle; but, though it is quite as infinite, it is not so large...There is such a thing as a narrow universality; there is such a thing as a small eternity; you may see it in many modern religions...The lunatic's theory explains a large number of things, but it does not explain them in a large way."

This conclave in Montana may explain a number of things in the tiny universe of these lunatics, but it doesn’t explain quite as much as the Universal Church does. I would put my trust in the Bishop of Rome rather than the Bishop of Kalispell.

Perfectly put friend. Reading that Chesterton was like eating a big steak, except it fed my rational self. He was a briliant man and I need to read his books. It is a matter of how big a circle you want to run. Perfectly put.
Patrick

 

[pnewton]

Jaypeeto4:

St. Jerome commented on this period, that “The whole world sighed as it awoke in wonder to find itself Arian.” Actually the Christian world was not Arian; but many of its leaders had been betrayed into leaving that impression.

Thanks for the work in finding this. I do not doubt it seemed this way to St. Jerome, but this is obviously speaking poetically. The church was never Arian, even though it was possibly the biggest heresy yet.

Still, this is not nearly the level of heresy one would have to accept to say that everyone but a handful of traditionalist are heretics and the only true pope now is Pope ________ (insert name here).

 

[rbrooks]

Pjs2ejs:

Jayeeto3,

Welcome to the church of human beings, where, yes, our members are falible, even bishops too. To discount the entire Catholic Church (or imply that the Church contradicts itself) because of what Bishop Kaspar said, or one or two other members, is naive and downright silly.

Your Athanasius allegation is a strong one too and I would like the proof that 99% of the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church left because of the Arian heresy.

Did you read the Sedavacantists’ JPII contradictions? Talk about a little context problem. They may be well intentioned in their love for Catholic tradition but they have now crossed the line into heresy with the Pope Pius XIII thing. I can’t believe that people are letting an ambiguous vision dictate their religion.

Not all sedevacantists are with this guy who calls himself Pius XIII. From what I understand this is a small group of people who have definately gone off the deep end. It would not be right for us to generalize all traditionalists with this, sadly in error, small part of the movement.