Question For Sedevacantists

[EnchantedEve]

Granted all this, sedevacantism nevertheless succeeds (at the very least) as a much-needed tonic. Even the most outrageous and overly-zealous loonies on the sedevacantist fringe have managed to provoke a fair many curious Catholics into seeing things through the lenses of dogma. Modernism couches itself in such ambiguous and nebulous terms that the best response to the doublespeak is to cut through the dung. I’m certainly not keen on Most Holy Family Monastery (it’s sad that in the absence of a unifying papal authority, sedevacantists have splintered in much same way as Protestants have), but I have to credit their popular website for casting a critical eye on the post-conciliar popes and holding their teachings up to a strict doctrinal standard. I don’t know if this strain of sedevacantism is being “too technical” or “too complicated”—in fact, if anything, I would accuse it of oversimplification. It’s the Douglas Adams approach to identifying heresy: “if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family.” This may not be the most nuanced form of high theology, but it has considerable value. Even the simple sinner can make some sense out of the muddle.

As a sedevacantist, I can cautiously concede that the position may be one step too far. Even if it proves to be wrong, though, I think it will have been helpful in three ways: in establishing a clear and uncompromising dichotomy between truth and error at a time when it is most desperately called for; in getting so-called “traditionalists” off the endless wheel of futility that consists of trying to reconcile and justify post-conciliar teachings; and in combating the unbridled papolatry that begins and ends with: “the pope teaches it, I agree with it, and that settles it!” Surely the opposite of sedevacantism is the widespread erroneous notion that the pope is absolutely devoid of any potential for heresy, and that if he were a heretic then it would mean that “THE GATES OF HELL HATH PREVAILED!”

As we know, of course, such was never said to be the case.

I agree. Sometimes the cry from the wilderness is the one most dearly needed. Perhaps this debate will lead to at least stronger theological formulation and study, as we continue to seek continuity in the post-Vatican II Church. Digging to the roots may be our best bet.

 

[pnewton]

A person does not have to explicitly deny that God is a Trinity in order to corrupt the dogma. Anyone waiting for Benedict XVI to appear on the balcony overlooking St. Peter’s Square hollering “there is no Trinity!” will be waiting for some time. Modernists are never so forthright. No: Benedict XVI believes that God is a Trinity. But, in true modernist fashion, …

• Christianity: God* is* a Trinity.
• Judaism: God is not a Trinity.
• Benedict XVI: Jews and Christians worship the same God.

Logic would dictate that Benedict XVI has tried to identify God with two irreconcilable conceptions.

Perhaps you should know that when I see “modernist” used so loosely and freely it tells me more about the person using the term than the person they are describing. I am probably not the only one. I stand by what I said that it is not a logical necessity. In any case, the case that St. Bellaramine laid out was being confirmed in manifest heresy, not implied. So if the Holy Pontiff does not come out and cry, "There is not Trinity, " then the extreme hypotherical upon which all sedevacantism relies falls apart.

Nonetheless, here is why your conclusion is not accurate. Simple substitution of terms will show the logical failing.

Person one: Yggdrasil is from Florida.
Person two: Yggdrasil is not from Florida.
Moderator: Yggrdrasil is the same poster both person one and two refer to.

Is Moderator wrong? Of course not. The solution here and in the case of Pope Benedict XVI is so simple. Poster two is wrong about the location. Judaism is wrong about the nature of God. This is a much more charitable and obvious understanding of what Pope Benedict was saying. After all, the Church never has denied that the God of the Old Testament, whom none of the Patriarchs of the Faith thought to be a Trinity is different that God today.

 

[Malleus_01]

Benedict claims that Jews and Christians Worship the Same GOD

Does St Paul say that?

Romans Chapter 3

The advantages of the Jews. All men are sinners and none can be justified by the works of the law, but only by the grace of Christ.

3:1. What advantage then hath the Jew: or what is the profit of circumcision?

3:2. Much every way. First indeed, because the words of God were committed to them.

3:3. For what if some of them have not believed? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid!

3:4. But God is true and every man a liar, as it is written: That thou mayest be justified in thy words and mayest overcome when thou art judged.

God only is essentially true. All men in their own capacity are liable to lies and errors: nevertheless God, who is the truth, will make good his promise of keeping his church in all truth. See St. John 16.13.

3:5. But if our injustice commend the justice of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust, who executeth wrath?

3:6. (I speak according to man.) God forbid! Otherwise how shall God judge this world?

3:7. For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie, unto his glory, why am I also yet judged as a sinner?

3:8. And not rather (as we are slandered and as some affirm that we say) let us do evil that there may come good? Whose damnation is just.

3:9. What then? Do we excel them? No, not so. For we have charged both Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin.

3:10. As it is written: There is not any man just.

There is not any man just, viz… by virtue either of the law of nature, or of the law of Moses; but only by faith and grace.

3:11. There is none that understandeth: there is none that seeketh after God.

3:12. All have turned out of the way: they are become unprofitable together: there is none that doth good, there is not so much as one.

3:13. Their throat is an open sepulchre: with their tongues they have dealt deceitfully. The venom of asps is under their lips.

3:14. Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:

3:15. Their feet swift to shed blood:

3:16. Destruction and misery in their ways:

3:17. And the way of peace they have not known.

3:18. There is no fear of God before their eyes.

3:19. Now we know that what things soever the law speaketh, it speaketh to them that are in the law: that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may be made subject to God.

3:20. Because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified before him. For by the law is the knowledge of sin.

3:21. But now, without the law, the justice of God is made manifest, being witnessed by the law and the prophets.

3:22. Even the justice of God, by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all, and upon all them that believe in him: for there is no distinction.

3:23. For all have sinned and do need the glory of God.

3:24. Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,

3:25. Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins,

3:26. Through the forbearance of God, for the shewing of his justice in this time: that he himself may be just and the justifier of him who is of the faith of Jesus Christ

3:27. Where is then thy boasting? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith.

3:28. For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law.

By faith, etc… The faith, to which the apostle here attributes man’s justification, is not a presumptuous assurance of our being justified; but a firm and lively belief of all that God has revealed or promised. Heb. 11. A faith working through charity in Jesus Christ. Gal. 5.6. In short, a faith which takes in hope, love, repentance, and the use of the sacraments. And the works which he here excludes, are only the works of the law: that is, such as are done by the law of nature, or that of Moses, antecedent to the faith of Christ: but by no means, such as follow faith, and proceed from it.

3:29. Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? yes, of the Gentiles also.

3:30. For it is one God that justifieth circumcision by faith and uncircumcision through faith.

3:31. Do we then, destroy the law through faith? God forbid! But we establish the law.

 

[EnchantedEve]

Perhaps you should know that when I see “modernist” used so loosely and freely it tells me more about the person using the term than the person they are describing. I am probably not the only one. I stand by what I said that it is not a logical necessity. In any case, the case that St. Bellaramine laid out was being confirmed in manifest heresy, not implied. So if the Holy Pontiff does not come out and cry, "There is not Trinity, " then the extreme hypotherical upon which all sedevacantism relies falls apart.

Nonetheless, here is why your conclusion is not accurate. Simple substitution of terms will show the logical failing.

Person one: Yggdrasil is from Florida.
Person two: Yggdrasil is not from Florida.
Moderator: Yggrdrasil is the same poster both person one and two refer to.

Is Moderator wrong? Of course not. The solution here and in the case of Pope Benedict XVI is so simple. Poster two is wrong about the location. Judaism is wrong about the nature of God. This is a much more charitable and obvious understanding of what Pope Benedict was saying. After all, the Church never has denied that the God of the Old Testament, whom none of the Patriarchs of the Faith thought to be a Trinity is different that God today.

Pnewton, you are right about manifest heresy. Unless reproved by competant authority, and showing pertanicity in error (cleary and often repeating the same error), than one cannot prove heresy. However, I will note that prior to the Council, the statement would at least have been considered heterodox, if not sympathetic to error, as the sermon of Pope John XXII on purgatory was considered. It was only one sermon, but it was such that it proved scandalous to the faithful and misleading. I believe that this is the point trying to be made here, that other Popes have indeed gotten in trouble over similar behaviour. That a Holy Father would be so inexact and unclear in a theological statement is troubling. Again, however, it does not prove formal heresy.

 

[Malleus_01]

P Newton -

Does Benedict hold to these views regarding Talmudic Judaism

Pope Saint Pius X:

POPE: We are unable to favor this movement [of Zionism]. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem—but we could never sanction it. The ground of Jerusalem, if it were not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people.

HERZL: [The conflict between Rome and Jerusalem, represented by the one and the other of us, was once again under way. At the outset I tried to be conciliatory. I said my little piece. . . . It didn’t greatly impress him. Jerusalem was not to be placed in Jewish hands.] And its present status, Holy Father?

POPE: I know, it is disagreeable to see the Turks in possession of our Holy Places. We simply have to put up with it. But to sanction the Jewish wish to occupy these sites, that we cannot do.

HERZL: *.

POPE: Yes, but we, but I as the head of the Catholic Church, cannot do this. One of two things will likely happen. Either the Jews will retain their ancient faith and continue to await the Messiah whom we believe has already appeared—in which case they are denying the divinity of Jesus and we cannot assist them. Or else they will go there with no religion whatever, and then we can have nothing at all to do with them. The Jewish faith was the foundation of our own, but it has been superceded by the teachings of Christ, and we cannot admit that it still enjoys any validity. The Jews who should have been the first to acknowledge Jesus Christ have not done so to this day.

Or the Fathers of the Council of Florence who made this solemn proclamation that was promulgated by Pope Eugene IV on February 4, 1442:

It [the Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors. Therefore, it commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism, to cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation. Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people, but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently, but so ,that, when danger of death is imminent, they be baptized in the form of the Church, early without delay, even by a layman or woman, if a priest should be lacking, just as is contained more fully in the decree of the Armenians. . . .

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, February 4, 1442.)

But Benedict states in a synagoge in January of 2010 that Christians and Jews and i quote directly “Worship the same Lord”

You see no contradiction?*

 

[pnewton]

However, I will note that prior to the Council, the statement would at least have been considered heterodox, if not sympathetic to error,

I like the phrase “sympathetic to error”, although I believe “sympathetic to those in error” is nearer the point. I do not think anyone will think that Pope Benedict XVI rejects the Holy Trinity. I brings to mind Romans 5:8.

Those that walk in the Shoes of the Fisherman have all faced the same dilemna - to lead as many as they can into the Kingdom of God. The balance between reaching down to one’s level(pastoral) and maintaining the Light of Truth (doctrinal) is tricky to reach. I think the only one to do it well was Jesus. (Philipians 2:1-11).

 

[Yggdrasil]

Perhaps you should know that when I see “modernist” used so loosely and freely it tells me more about the person using the term than the person they are describing. I am probably not the only one.

Hmm. Has a whiff of ad hominem entered the discussion?

I sincerely hope that I have not wilfully borne false witness against Benedict XVI. Note that I did follow up my observation of “modernist” with several paragraphs of explanation, and was referring to Malleus’s posts in the first place (which themselves constitute an ample supply of evidence). If you consider this to be tossing the accusation around “loosely and freely,” then I don’t know what.

You may Google the phrase “heresies of Benedict XVI” if you like, in order to see the many points of contention already raised by sedevacantists. (You may or may not give them a flippant dismissal.) For the sake of expediency, however, things will probably be best kept on track if we confine ourselves to his teachings on Judaism before moving on to the other allegations.

In any case, the case that St. Bellaramine laid out was being confirmed in manifest heresy, not implied. So if the Holy Pontiff does not come out and cry, "There is not Trinity, " then the extreme hypotherical upon which all sedevacantism relies falls apart.

Well, it is the very modus operandi of the Modernist heresy that it be subtle and implicit. If you insist that we can only recognize Modernism when it becomes something it isn’t, then there’s no point in trying to identify it at all. You might as well suppose that Pope St. Pius X wasted a great deal of ink warning the Church about it in the first place. “Beware of a heresy that you can never beware of”?

St. Thomas Aquinas defined a heretic as “one who corrupts the dogmas of the Church.” Corruption suffices for heresy just as well as denial. Would you give someone a pass who claims that the Resurrection is a myth? He or she might believe in the Resurrection—but only as abstract illustrative concept, and not as a historical and spiritual fact. It would still qualify as heresy. Our faith allows a lot of room for freedom of thought, but on the level of fundament tenets it is very exacting (there was a raging debate in the fourth century over the inclusion of the letter “i” in homoousison.) “Manifest heresy” can be either denial or perversion of dogma. The modernist tactic is to pursue the latter, and cleverly.

Nonetheless, here is why your conclusion is not accurate. Simple substitution of terms will show the logical failing.

Person one: Yggdrasil is from Florida.
Person two: Yggdrasil is not from Florida.
Moderator: Yggrdrasil is the same poster both person one and two refer to.

Is Moderator wrong? Of course not. The solution here and in the case of Pope Benedict XVI is so simple. Poster two is wrong about the location. Judaism is wrong about the nature of God. This is a much more charitable and obvious understanding of what Pope Benedict was saying.

Your “substitution of terms” employs the wrong kind of analogy. And it is more than just a little too “simple”—it neglects the crucial point that Christian faith insists on a singularly correct belief about the nature of God. As you probably know, “orthodoxy” derives from terms roughly equating with “right belief.”

Since you admit that “Judaism is wrong about the nature of God,” then your analogy should’ve pertained to the nature of Yggdrasil, not the location. Reformatted, it illustrates the fallacy:

• Yggdrasil is a tree.
• Yggdrasil is a sparrow.

Now if Yggdrasil is a tree, then anyone claiming Yggdrasil to be a sparrow is talking about a totally different Yggdrasil, for they are not the same thing. Various religions (Judaism among them) claim to worship God, but their conceptions of God are so different from the Christian conception that they cannot be fairly called the same. If you want to talk about what is “obvious,” then there you have it.

After all, the Church never has denied that the God of the Old Testament, whom none of the Patriarchs of the Faith thought to be a Trinity is different that God today.

Quite true! Not being a Gnostic or a Marcionite, I naturally agree. But the Church has also taught that God cannot be worshipped or understood anymore strictly as the God of the OT. The Old Covenant was transitory and provisional until “the fullness of time was come.” After Christ abolished and fulfilled the Old Covenant in the New, and following the promulgation of the Gospel, Judaism became a dead letter of a religion.

St. Justin was able to consider the notion of “Christians before Christ,” which he applied not only to pagans but to Abraham, Elijah, and other biblical personages as well—since the religion of the Hebrews was the true religion before the Coming of Christ. God is eternal and unchanging, but the Revelation given to the Jews was incremental before it was completed. The Last Gospel at Mass formulates this perfectly: “He came unto His own, and His own received Him not.”

 

[Yggdrasil]

I do not think anyone will think that Pope Benedict XVI rejects the Holy Trinity.

As I conceded earlier, Benedict XVI believes in the Holy Trinity. But he corrupts this dogma by suggesting that it is one of two different ways of understanding the true God.

I could, for example, confess with the Creed that Jesus is the Incarnation of God: “He was made man.” I would not be rejecting the dogma of the Incarnation! But if I were to further say, with the Bhagavad-Gita, that Christ is only one of many incarnations of God throughout the ages, then I would be ruining the dogma and stripping it of its Christian vitality and meaning. This is the difference between denial and corruption. But corruption is tantamount to denial. Both are heretical.

St. Athanasius said the Catholic faith must be held “whole and inviolate,” not partially or relatively.

 

[Malleus_01]

<<<<< As I conceded earlier, Benedict XVI believes in the Holy Trinity. But he corrupts this dogma by suggesting that it is one of two different ways of understanding the true God.

I could, for example, confess with the Creed that Jesus is the Incarnation of God: “He was made man.” I would not be rejecting the dogma of the Incarnation! But if I were to further say, with the Bhagavad-Gita, that Christ is only one of many incarnations of God throughout the ages, then I would be ruining the dogma and stripping it of its Christian vitality and meaning. This is the difference between denial and corruption. But corruption is tantamount to denial. Both are heretical.

St. Athanasius said the Catholic faith must be held “whole and inviolate,” not partially or relatively. >>>>>

Mal: Yggdrasil 's commentary to me is unassailable. And this is but ONE DOGMA being discussed. Bear in mind that several other DOGMA’s could be cited.

For example - what if for arguments sake we decided to apply the principles of Vatican II to such Heresies as Arianism or Nestorianism or of the Monophysites. Are we to say that there are good and wholesome aspects of these beliefs or that aspects of them “subsistit” within the CHURCH but that we as Catholics have the “Fullness of Truth” and that they have most of the same things we have except for that little matter of the DIVINITY of Christ or of the Hypostatic Union itself? And yet here we are to say nothing about false religions that completely reject the Second Person of the Holy Trinity itself? What then does that say about the past condemnations of these and so many other Heresies? They did far less.

It is simple - as Yggdrasil so adroitly pointed out - St Athanasius said - the Catholic faith must be held “whole and inviolate,” not partially or relatively. Because to deny DOGMA in any way shape or form is to likewise call into question past Church condemnations .

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. All Heresy must be condemned. And all Dogma must be defended.

Pax