Question For Sedevacantists

[Perplexity]

A lot of information and insights have been posted thus far. The discussion seems to be adressing a large number of topics related to sedevacantism.

However, I think the most fundamental issue has not been adressed, at least in comparison to those topics which have been adressed.

That issue is whether any of these papal claimants have taught manifest heresy.

For the sedeplenist’s, you’re claiming with certitude that Benedict XVI is the successor of St. Peter. This claim must be reasonable in order to accept it. This does not mean that the individual is the arbiter of whether he is or is not, but it does mean that the individual cannot be expected to assent to this proposition without any evidence.

For the sedevacantist, you’re claiming with certitude that Benedict XVI is not the successor of St. Peter. This claim must be reasonable in order to accept it.

Rather than go item by item on the legitimate election check list, I make the motion to simply examine a sedevacantist accusation, and draw the appropriate conclusions.

God bless

 

[pnewton]

That issue is whether any of these papal claimants have taught manifest heresy.

…and who decides if they are and if this indeed results indeed this results in a vacated office.

For the sedeplenist’s, you’re claiming with certitude that Benedict XVI is the successor of St. Peter.

In this issue, where the Church seems almost universal unified except a small splinter, I thing the burden of proof must be overwhelmingly and undeniably on the sedevacantist. Those that follow the Holy Father really need claim nothing if the such proof does not exist.

 

[Malleus_01]

However, I can also state that from what I know of the SSPV, CMRI, and Most Holy Family Monastery, I know that the first holds no technical “official” position regarding the Holy Father. It has been known though, that all the above normally block SSPX and other traditional Catholics from Holy Communion, discourage attendence at other Masses, and generally make it known that any affiliation with the current reigning Pontiff is unacceptable. If there are more open-minded sedevacantists groups out there, they are unknown to me. Do enlighten us if you know otherwise. It is certainly appreciated.

CMRI does not block SSPX and other traditional Catholics from Holy Communion and in fact allows its parishioners to recieve the Sacraments from SSPX if needs be. The SSPX doesnt always reciprocate and thus I have known some SSPX priests have refused the Sacraments if they knew a Parishioner went to the CMRI normally. It happened to me one time. Now I do agree that there are traditional groups including some mentioned that are against Traditional Catholics from atttending any Latin Mass in which during the “Canon” “Te Igitur” the Mass is Offered “Una Cum” Benedict and I know one well known Traditional Apologist who has gone so far as to even say that these Masses are invalid. But while that remains a controversy in traditional circles - not all groups are as strict. The Modernist Heresy that has led to numerous contradictions within the Church have not restricted those contradictions to the Church who follows Benedict only.

 

[Malleus_01]

<<< A lot of information and insights have been posted thus far. The discussion seems to be adressing a large number of topics related to sedevacantism.

However, I think the most fundamental issue has not been adressed, at least in comparison to those topics which have been adressed.

That issue is whether any of these papal claimants have taught manifest heresy. >>>>

Mal: The departures have been in the areas of false ecumenism - religious indifferentism and religious liberty all condemned as error prior to the Council. Beginning from Vatican II - each has promulgated these teachings in place of good Catholic doctrine. For example - in Vatican II the documents clearrly state that there are good and wholesome aspects in false religions. Well there are also blatant heresies. Why no mention? It isnt the areas in which we agree that are a danger to our faith. When the Church has historically condemned a heresy - it has addressed the issue. To use a medical analogy - its like saying to a lung cancer patient - I have found a strong heartrate - good muscletone and you have impressive dental work. Its meaningless. In addition - Paul the VI changed the form matter and intent of all seven sacraments including the Office prayed by Priests - as well as de emphasizing conversion. JPII changed Canon law - and the Catechism . And in doing so the Faith has suffered harm. We can get as specific as you want to get.

<<< For the sedeplenist’s, you’re claiming with certitude that Benedict XVI is the successor of St. Peter. This claim must be reasonable in order to accept it. This does not mean that the individual is the arbiter of whether he is or is not, but it does mean that the individual cannot be expected to assent to this proposition without any evidence. >>>>

<<<< For the sedevacantist, you’re claiming with certitude that Benedict XVI is not the successor of St. Peter. This claim must be reasonable in order to accept it. >>>>

Mal: Once again - thats not entirely correct. A theological position can be taken in response to demonstrable manifest heresy - like a person claiming to be Pope co worshipping the ONE TRUE GOD with infidels in a FALSE CHURCH , SYNAGOGE or MOSQUE for example (Which public proof of which has been demonstrated several times by Paul the VI - JPII and Benedict) Wernz-Vidal — Canon Law, 1943 “Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact (ipso facto) is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment by the Church… A Pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.” And also: “A doubtful pope is no pope.”

Rather than go item by item on the legitimate election check list, I make the motion to simply examine a sedevacantist accusation, and draw the appropriate conclusions.

Mal: And I say to examine the state of the world today in which 55 million unborn babies have been slaughtered - homosexuals marry and walk with pride down the street - people use birthcontrol - children are molested - fashions are immodest including at Mass itself and then try to tell me that the modernist heresy is not widespread and that it has not overrun the Church worldwide and those whom you claim to be in charge sit there and do nothing about it. And I challenge any and all people here to attend a Tridentine Latin Mass and a Novus Ordo Missae and then tell me which one caters to the trappings of the world. I have been to both. Can you say the same? Worldly homilies - immodest dress - small families - women dont cover their heads - people talk during mass. I could go on and on. Traditional Catholicism is going continue to grow because it honors GOD. We can argue its merits from now to the end of the world and it will not change a thing. Either you serve GOD or you serve mammon - you cannot serve both. We dont co worship with Jews or Muslims or Protestants or Hindus - We have Catholic Scripture read at Mass - not the admitted Protestant NAB. In short - we Worship GOD as Catholics have for thousands of years. Its as simple as that. There is no law against doing as we do. For all of you so quick to condemn a sedevacantist - perhaps you should see what you look like from our point of view.

 

[Malleus_01]

Obedience is better than sacrifice, and submission than the fat of rams.
1 Samuel 15:22

"Obedience requires grace " St Augustine (Disputation against Pelagianism)

By faith Abraham, when put to the test, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was ready to offer his only son
Hebrews 11:17

Mal : Upon which do thou vouchsafe to look with a propitious and serene countenance, and to accept them, as thou wert graciously pleased to accept the gifts of thy just servant Abel, and the sacrifice of our patriarch Abraham, and that which thy high priest Melchisedech offered to thee, a holy sacrifice, a spotless victim.
(From the Tridentine Latin Mass)

Those who will defend authority against rebellion must not themselves rebel.
J. R. R. Tolkien

Vatican Council I : For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they 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

 

[Chris_Jackson_1]

Eve,

It is true I can’t know with certainty whether the Church would have “broken” had the reforms never came. I simply base my hypothesis on the fact that the Holy Spirit allowed the Council and legitimate reforms to take place. Had standing fast been the best course for the Church I think God would have arranged it.

I do believe the 1960’s were a unique period of history. Technological advances were such that ideas and the mass media were spreading rapidly and the information age was dawning. Society was rapidly transforming, for better or worse, presenting never before seen global challenges for the Church especially in the more developed West. In the aftermath of WWII people were vehemently rejecting authoritarian structures and institutions and demanding explanations for rules and societal norms that were previously accepted out of obedience and tradition. The Church was forced to defend her teachings to a skeptical, hardened, and disillusioned generation of people constantly bombarded with error from the new mass media and mass secularization. It was a transformation the world had not seen in human history.

Previous crises were typically confined to different geographical areas and couldn’t as easily infect the entire Church. Societal mindsets changed very gradually over time and ideas spread slowly. There was no need for the Church to change her entire approach due to these crises. They were solved with doctrinal clarification through councils and local reforms along with God raising Saints to assist with the process.People still believed in authority and skepticism and relativism did not yet reign.

Yes, the Faith is true and unchanging. However, one needs to alter the way one communicates and presents the truth depending on the one one wishes to evangelize. This is what the Holy Spirit lead the Church to do in the 1960’s in my opinion. I think if the Church had stayed as it was facing the rebellious onslaught of the 60’s it would have underwent an excommunication frenzy and when the smoke cleared would have remained as a much smaller, more isolated, more reviled, and more irrelevant institution appearing wholly out of touch with modern society.

In the face of masses of rebellious and confused children, I think the Holy Spirit chose to employ mercy and understanding rather than the rod, which would have simply led to more rebellion.

 

[Lormar]

Chris

That’s all speculation none of which can be proved.

More rebellion than what we had and have? Would that it had undergone an excommunication frenzy in the sixties and seventies, we’d be in better shape today.

 

[EnchantedEve]

Eve,

It is true I can’t know with certainty whether the Church would have “broken” had the reforms never came. I simply base my hypothesis on the fact that the Holy Spirit allowed the Council and legitimate reforms to take place. Had standing fast been the best course for the Church I think God would have arranged it.

I do believe the 1960’s were a unique period of history. Technological advances were such that ideas and the mass media were spreading rapidly and the information age was dawning. Society was rapidly transforming, for better or worse, presenting never before seen global challenges for the Church especially in the more developed West. In the aftermath of WWII people were vehemently rejecting authoritarian structures and institutions and demanding explanations for rules and societal norms that were previously accepted out of obedience and tradition. The Church was forced to defend her teachings to a skeptical, hardened, and disillusioned generation of people constantly bombarded with error from the new mass media and mass secularization. It was a transformation the world had not seen in human history.

Previous crises were typically confined to different geographical areas and couldn’t as easily infect the entire Church. Societal mindsets changed very gradually over time and ideas spread slowly. There was no need for the Church to change her entire approach due to these crises. They were solved with doctrinal clarification through councils and local reforms along with God raising Saints to assist with the process.People still believed in authority and skepticism and relativism did not yet reign.

Yes, the Faith is true and unchanging. However, one needs to alter the way one communicates and presents the truth depending on the one one wishes to evangelize. This is what the Holy Spirit lead the Church to do in the 1960’s in my opinion. I think if the Church had stayed as it was facing the rebellious onslaught of the 60’s it would have underwent an excommunication frenzy and when the smoke cleared would have remained as a much smaller, more isolated, more reviled, and more irrelevant institution appearing wholly out of touch with modern society.

In the face of masses of rebellious and confused children, I think the Holy Spirit chose to employ mercy and understanding rather than the rod, which would have simply led to more rebellion.

My apologies, but your assumptions about the period prior to 1960 simply do not reflect reality. In no sense were the revolutions in France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Latin America and throughout 1848 “slow and gradual.” Further, the changes at that time would have affected the majority of the Church, which was still primarily in Europe and Latin America. The Church’s approach was consistent and effective through this time, even in the face of toppled monarchies, widespread unrest, and overall chaos. The very existence of the Papal State was jeapordized, yet Rome still did not yield. One could even say the changes of the 19th century were greater than the 20th, or were at least as great. This, to me, is indicative of the strength of the Church’s position, even in the face of resistance. It was the rock, the pillar of Truth, when people needed stability and assurance the most, like the Mother that She is.

The Church during the Second Vatican Council, by not taking this position, left Her children bewildered. In a sea of change and uncertainity, the Church itself was uncertain and changing, and the Faith itself became shaken in the hearts of people. This was indeed unprecedented, but not in a positive way. Rather than stand against the wicked march of history, the Church embraced it, becoming Herself identified with the troubles of the time. The Church, rather than being part of the solution, became part of the problem.

If you cannot say what you mean, you cannot mean what you say. “Updating” terminology,embracing new styles, or changing wording should be unneccessary. What was unclear? What did the Church say before 1960 that suddenly made less sense? The Church could not have used more clear language to express Her perennial teaching. If She was preaching the same Gospel, why change? People’s lack of willingness to live by Gospel precepts should not be a cause of change, but rather a time to stand and proclaim the Good News! Hearts thirst for Truth, even when they do not realize it. No amount of revolution will change that. St. Athanasius stated “Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced only to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”

The Truth of Christ is merciful and understanding, for “My yolk is sweet, and my burden light.” (St. Matthew 11:30) If the modern world cannot embrace Christ, than no amount of bending and cajoling will change that. To say that the Holy Ghost decided to employ mercy implies it did not do so in the past, which I believe the evidence shows otherwise. Through the strength of the Church’s conviction, She provided a strong arm, which lifted the burden of confusion from the shoulders of the Faithful, who at least knew where they stood. Sparing the rod left doubt, anxiety, and uncertainity in its wake, which in my view, is not an act of mercy.

The beauty of Truth, as St. Thomas Aquinas puts it, is that it is clear, and it is eternal. The beauty of Christ’s Truth would, therefore, never have been irrelevant, never isolated, but ever fresh and new. Truth is of heaven “…where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal…” (St. Matthew 6:20) The fact that the Church appeared to no longer believe that is unfortunate. The Faith we share is timeless, and despite the revolutions, confusion, and doubt, will be ever perennial and relevant, no matter what the period, no matter how great the change.

 

[Malleus_01]

Is the Mission of the Church being served?

Pius IX wrote in his Syngulari Quidem:

" Do not cease to diligently defend your people against these pernicious errors. Saturate them with the doctrine of Catholic truth more accurately each day. Teach them that just as there is only one God, one Christ, one Holy Spirit, so there is also only one truth which is divinely revealed. There is only one divine faith which is the beginning of salvation for mankind and the basis of all justification, the faith by which the just person lives and without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the community of His children.(2) There is only one true, holy, Catholic church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded in Peter by the word of the Lord,(3) outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church.(4) Thus, there can be no greater crime, no more hideous stain than to stand up against Christ, than to divide the Church engendered and purchased by His blood, than to forget evangelical love and to combat with the furor of hostile discord the harmony of the people of God.

Whereas

Benedict XVI declared to the jews present in the Roman synagogue just recently:
“Christians and Jews share to a great extent a common spiritual patrimony, they pray to the same Lord, they have the same roots, and yet they often remain unknown to each other. It is our duty, in response to God’s call, to strive to keep open the space for dialogue, for reciprocal respect, for growth in friendship, for a common witness in the face of the challenges of our time, which invite us to cooperate for the good of humanity in this world created by God, the Omnipotent and Merciful.”

So who is dividing the Faith?

Pax

 

[pnewton]

Whereas

Benedict XVI declared to the jews present in the Roman synagogue just recently:
“Christians and Jews share to a great extent a common spiritual patrimony, they pray to the same Lord, they have the same roots, and yet they often remain unknown to each other. It is our duty, in response to God’s call, to strive to keep open the space for dialogue, for reciprocal respect, for growth in friendship, for a common witness in the face of the challenges of our time, which invite us to cooperate for the good of humanity in this world created by God, the Omnipotent and Merciful.”

So who is dividing the Faith?

Pax

Heresy is when the Church declares a dogma, and then that dogma is rejected, as in

Church -* X* is dogma.
Heresy - not X
in which *X *has the same terms meaning the same thing.

Nothing in this statement even hints at heresy, much less rises to the level of being declared a manifest heresy. Therefore, your question is a good one. Who is dividing the faith? My answer would not agree with yours.

 

[Malleus_01]

Heresy is when the Church declares a dogma, and then that dogma is rejected, as in

Church - X is dogma.
Heresy - not X
in which X has the same terms meaning the same thing.

Nothing in this statement even hints at heresy, much less rises to the level of being declared a manifest heresy. Therefore, your question is a good one. Who is dividing the faith? My answer would not agree with yours.

Mal: Agreed. The Holy Trinity is DOGMA. Now - Benedict claims that Jews and Christians Worship the Same GOD. Thats a Denial of the DOGMA of the TRINITY.

Benedict XVI’s January 17, 2010 Discourse during his visit to the “Great Synagogue” of Rome: “’How good and how pleasant it is when brothers live in unity.’ Dear Chief Rabbi of the Jewish Community of Rome, President of the Union of Italian Jewish Communities, President of the Jewish Community of Rome, Rabbis… I come among you to express to you the esteem and the affection which the Bishop and the Church of Rome, as well as the entire Catholic Church, have towards this Community and all Jewish communities around the world… Furthermore, the Church has not failed to deplore the failings of her sons and daughters, begging forgiveness for all that could in any way have contributed to the scourge of anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism… As I noted during my visit of 28 May 2006 to the Auschwitz Concentration camp, which is still profoundly impressed upon my memory, ‘the rulers of the Third Reich wanted to crush the entire Jewish people’, and essentially, ‘by wiping out this people, they intended to kill the God who called Abraham, who spoke on Sinai and laid down principles to serve as a guide for mankind… The memory of these events compels us to strengthen the bonds that unite us so that our mutual understanding, respect and acceptance may always increase… ‘The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant.’ (Catechism of the Catholic Church #839)… Many lessons may be learnt from our common heritage derived from the Law and the Prophets. I would like to recall some of them: first of all, the solidarity which binds the Church to the Jewish people ‘at the level of their spiritual identity’, which offers Christians the opportunity to promote ‘a renewed respect for the Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament.’(cf. Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Jewish people and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible, 2001, pp.12 and 55)… Jews and Christians are called to announce and to bear witness to the coming Kingdom of the Most High, for which we pray and work in hope each day. On this path we can walk together, aware of the differences that exist between us, but also aware of the fact that when we succeed in uniting our hearts and hands in response to the Lord’s call, his light comes closer and shines on all the peoples of the world… Christians and Jews share to a great extent a common spiritual patrimony, they pray to the same Lord, they have the same roots, and yet they often remain unknown to each other. It is our duty, in response to God’s call, to strive to keep open the space for dialogue, for reciprocal respect, for growth in friendship, for a common witness in the face of the challenges of our time, which invite us to cooperate for the good of humanity in this world created by God, the Omnipotent and Merciful… I give thanks and praise to God once again for this encounter, asking him to strengthen our fraternal bonds and to deepen our mutual understanding.”

But Jesus said :

John 5:23. That all men may honour the Son, as they honour the Father. He who honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father who hath sent him.

John : 8:19. They said therefore to him: Where is thy Father? Jesus answered: Neither me do you know, nor my Father. If you did know me, perhaps you would know my Father also.

John : 10:30. I and the Father are one.

John : 14:6. Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.

14:7. If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also: and from henceforth you shall know him. And you have seen him.

14:8. Philip saith to him: Lord, shew us the Father; and it is enough for us.

14:9. Jesus saith to him: Have I been so long a time with you and have you not known me? Philip, he that seeth me seeth the Father also. How sayest thou: Shew us the Father?

14:10. Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not of myself. But the Father who abideth in me, he doth the works.

14:11. Believe you not that I am in the Father and the Father in me?

14:12. Otherwise believe for the very works’ sake. Amen, amen, I say to you, he that believeth in me, the works that I do, he also shall do: and greater than these shall he do.

14:13. Because I go to the Father: and whatsoever you shall ask the Father in my name, that will I do: that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

14:14. If you shall ask me any thing in my name, that I will do.

14:15. If you love me, keep my commandments.

And the First Commandment is I am the Lord thy GOD Thou shalt have no false GOD’s Before Me.

 

[pnewton]

Now - Benedict claims that Jews and Christians Worship the Same GOD. Thats a Denial of the DOGMA of the TRINITY.
.

This is the part that I do not agree with in the least. It is not a logical necessity.

 

[Malleus_01]

Originally Posted by Malleus 01
Now - Benedict claims that Jews and Christians Worship the Same GOD. Thats a Denial of the DOGMA of the TRINITY.
.
pnewton : This is the part that I do not agree with in the least. It is not a logical necessity.

Benedicts own words:" they pray to the same Lord,"

Christians and Jews?

That is not true and a denial of the VERY words of chrsit himself. Period. And he made this statement in January 2010.

 

[Lormar]

Enchanted Eve

That’s true what you say about “updated terminology.” They use the same words as you when you try to discuss things, but the words have “updated” meanings. Many years ago, a priest told us to make sure you define your terms before discussing anything with anyone.

 

[pnewton]

. Many years ago, a priest told us to make sure you define your terms before discussing anything with anyone.

Philosophy 101. Misunderstanding of terms is often at the root of differences.

 

[Malleus_01]

Enchanted Eve

That’s true what you say about “updated terminology.” They use the same words as you when you try to discuss things, but the words have “updated” meanings. Many years ago, a priest told us to make sure you define your terms before discussing anything with anyone.

Mal: If I may weigh in - one of the intersting terms we come across often - is the statement regarding “Understanding what the Church taught in its proper historical context” Beware of this type of discourse. Why? Because it is Hegelianism.

" Hegel’s method in philosophy consists, therefore, in following out the triadic development (Entwicklung) in each concept and in each thing. Thus, he hopes, philosophy will not contradict experience, but will give to the data of experience the philosophical, that is, the ultimately true, explanation. If, for instance, we wish to know what liberty is, we take that concept where we first find it, in the unrestrained action of the savage, who does not feel the need of repressing any thought, feeling, or tendency to act. Next, we find that the savage has given up this freedom in exchange for its opposite, the restraint, or, as he considers it, the tyranny, of civilization and law. Thirdly, in the citizen under the rule of law, we find the third stage of development, namely liberty in a higher and a fuller sense than that in which the savage possessed it, the liberty to do and to say and to think many things which were beyond the power of the savage. In this triadic process we remark that the second stage is the direct opposite, the annihilation, or at least the sublation, of the first. We remark also that the third stage is the first returned to itself in a higher, truer, richer, and fuller form. The three stages are, therefore, styled: (I) in itself (An-sich); (2) out of itself (Anderssein); and (3) in and for itself (An-und-fur-sich). These three stages are found succeeding one another throughout the whole realm of thought and being, from the most abstract logical process up to the most complicated concrete activity of organized mind in the succession of states or the production of systems of philosophy. "

Now we know that Modernisms embrace of hegelian philosophic thought was condemned by Pope St Pius the X
PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS
13 Hence it is quite impossible to maintain that they express absolute truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sentiment in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sentiment. But the object of the religious sentiment, since it embraces that absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner, he who believes may pass through different phases. Consequently, the formulae too, which we call dogmas, must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. An immense collection of sophisms this, that ruins and destroys all religion. Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and as clearly flows from their principles. For amongst the chief points of their teaching is this which they deduce from the principle of vital immanence; that religious formulas, to be really religious and not merely theological speculations, ought to be living and to live the life of the religious sentiment. This is not to be understood in the sense that these formulas, especially if merely imaginative, were to be made for the religious sentiment; it has no more to do with their origin than with number or quality; what is necessary is that the religious sentiment, with some modification when necessary, should vitally assimilate them. In other words, it is necessary that the primitive formula be accepted and sanctioned by the heart; and similarly the subsequent work from which spring the secondary formulas must proceed under the guidance of the heart. Hence it comes that these formulas, to be living, should be, and should remain, adapted to the faith and to him who believes. Wherefore if for any reason this adaptation should cease to exist, they lose their first meaning and accordingly must be changed. And since the character and lot of dogmatic formulas is so precarious, there is no room for surprise that Modernists regard them so lightly and in such open disrespect. And so they audaciously charge the Church both with taking the wrong road from inability to distinguish the religious and moral sense of formulas from their surface meaning, and with clinging tenaciously and vainly to meaningless formulas whilst religion is allowed to go to ruin. Blind that they are, and leaders of the blind, inflated with a boastful science, they have reached that pitch of folly where they pervert the eternal concept of truth and the true nature of the religious sentiment; with that new system of theirs they are seen to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising the holy and apostolic traditions, they embrace other vain, futile, uncertain doctrines, condemned by the Church, on which, in the height of their vanity, they think they can rest and maintain truth itself.

 

[pnewton]

Mal: If I may weigh in - one of the intersting terms we come across often - is the statement regarding “Understanding what the Church taught in its proper historical context” Beware of this type of discourse. Why? Because it is Hegelianism.

Here is an article on Hegelianism if someone wants to question critical the claim that understanding historical context is, per se, Hegelianism.

newadvent.org/cathen/07192a.htm

 

[Yggdrasil]

The main argument I have against Sedevacantism is it is too complicated a concept, highly legalistic and theologically technical. The majority of the faithful, even if devout, would never have the time, the interest, or the tools to have knowledge and judgement over whether or not to accept a Holy Father and his teachings. This matter is for theologians. To say that our eternal salvation, and Our Faith, can be effected by sacramental unity with a man we may or may not mistakenly hold as Pope, and that this defines our Faith, is ridiculous. While we must indeed be in union with Rome to be saved, this is secondary to other aspects of the Faith. One cannot reject Christ and adhere to the Sovereign Pontiff and be saved. If a devout Catholic believes a man to be pope, falsely, and adheres to him with consideration due to a Sovereign Pontiff,and otherwise follows the Faith, than I do not believe this man’s soul is in danger, contrary to what some sedevacantists would insist. The Faith was for saving the simple sinner, and complex theological points I do not believe will result in the eclipse of the Church.

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.

 

[Yggdrasil]

Now - Benedict claims that Jews and Christians Worship the Same GOD. Thats a Denial of the DOGMA of the TRINITY.

This is the part that I do not agree with in the least. It is not a logical necessity.

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, he sees his belief as only one especially privileged way of looking at God. He perverts the doctrine by claiming that God can be worshipped in the form of the first person of the Trinity alone.

• 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. This horribly compromises the doctrine of the Trinity. It confuses and deceives the faithful. Moreover, it is heretical. Jesus said, “I and the Father are one”—legitimizing any other conception of the Father goes against the dogma. And the so-called “worship” undertaken by his Jewish friends has been solemnly condemned:
EX QUO (1756):

The ceremonies of the Mosaic Law, the rites, sacrifices, and sacraments have ceased at the coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ; they cannot be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel.

But Benedict XVI does not stop at the matter of worship. He has also seen fit to inform us that the Jews still have a valid covenant with God. He gave his official endorsement (his Imprimi Potest) to the 1997 Catechism of the Catholic Church, wherein we find the incredibly ill-advised statement that “the Old Covenant was never revoked.” Granted, technically the Old Covenant wasn’t revoked—it was fulfilled. (“Revoked” carries the sense of an unmerciful God pulling the rug out from under his people. Perhaps putting it more politely, both the Epistle to the Hebrews and Pope Pius XII say that it was “abolished.”). But the Catechism uses neither “abolished” nor “fulfilled,” and instead it opts for the misleading phrase “never revoked,” suggesting that it is still salvific for the Jews.

Now lest a mere suggestion not be considered sufficient evidence of heresy, Cardinal Ratzinger was much more explicit in his book God & the World (2000), wherein he taught that Jews “are assured of the faithfulness of God. They are not excluded from salvation.” This is a denial of Extra Ecclesiam nulla sallus, which explicitly sets the Jews outside of the Church:
COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (Session 11):

The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives.

Judaism, therefore, cannot be said to have salvific value or the fidelity of God. Our Lord declared to the Jews, “your house will be left to you—desolate” (viz., the Temple is bereft of the glory of God). Pope St. Leo the Great said that there was “a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.” St. Paul said that the Jews who persisted in their unbelief were “broken off” from the holy tree.

Contrary to all this, however, Benedict XVI would have us believe that the severed branches still have a valid covenant with God and are assured of his fidelity; and that Judaic worship is given to the same God as is sung of at Mass in the Creed.

 

[EnchantedEve]

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, he sees his belief as only one especially privileged way of looking at God. He perverts the doctrine by claiming that God can be worshipped in the form of the first person of the Trinity alone.

• 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. This horribly compromises the doctrine of the Trinity. It confuses and deceives the faithful. Moreover, it is heretical. Jesus said, “I and the Father are one”—legitimizing any other conception of the Father goes against the dogma. And the so-called “worship” undertaken by his Jewish friends has been solemnly condemned:

But Benedict XVI does not stop at the matter of worship. He has also seen fit to inform us that the Jews still have a valid covenant with God. He gave his official endorsement (his Imprimi Potest) to the 1997 Catechism of the Catholic Church, wherein we find the incredibly ill-advised statement that “the Old Covenant was never revoked.” Granted, technically the Old Covenant wasn’t revoked—it was fulfilled. (“Revoked” carries the sense of an unmerciful God pulling the rug out from under his people. Perhaps putting it more politely, both the Epistle to the Hebrews and Pope Pius XII say that it was “abolished.”). But the Catechism uses neither “abolished” nor “fulfilled,” and instead it opts for the misleading phrase “never revoked,” suggesting that it is still salvific for the Jews.

Now lest a mere suggestion not be considered sufficient evidence of heresy, Cardinal Ratzinger was much more explicit in his book God & the World (2000), wherein he taught that Jews “are assured of the faithfulness of God. They are not excluded from salvation.” This is a denial of Extra Ecclesiam nulla sallus, which explicitly sets the Jews outside of the Church:

Judaism, therefore, cannot be said to have salvific value or the fidelity of God. Our Lord declared to the Jews, “your house will be left to you—desolate” (viz., the Temple is bereft of the glory of God). Pope St. Leo the Great said that there was “a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.” St. Paul said that the Jews who persisted in their unbelief were “broken off” from the holy tree.

Contrary to all this, however, Benedict XVI would have us believe that the severed branches still have a valid covenant with God and are assured of his fidelity; and that Judaic worship is given to the same God as is sung of at Mass in the Creed.

:clapping:

I agree regarding the Old Covenant. I have often been shocked at the blatant disregard of Catholic dogma and Christ’s Sacrifice in the statement that the Old Covenant is still in effect. Say what!?!? What did Christ die for, for the Mosaic Law to still be of value? Was it all for nothing? Was His Blood not enough? The recent popes have definitly been treading thin theological ice on this subject, and it is of the utmost currency you should bring it up here. Bravo, sir!