Question for the Sedevacantist: stay on topic!!

[jim28]

This is what you’d said: ~~You should pity them because they are on the way to hell. Simple logic tells you that. Unless you don’t care about their soul. ~~ My response to that remains the same. You put them on the elevator going down, not I.

Charity is the first among all virtues.

 

[TNT]

jim28: So what happens when the last “true” priests die out with no bishops to ordain new ones? Do you really believe that Christ would allow His Church to continue without true bishops?

We do not see that happening now or in the future.
I covered that in a prev. post.

TNT and Jim: You seem to be implying that the “Vatican II Church” (as you call it) teaches universal salvation. What utter non-sense! Just because some individual heretics within the Church posit such a theory doesn’t mean the Magisterium does!

I see JPII believing it, and many of his assigns. I do not see the laity swallowing it… yet. And probably won’t since it is too antithetical to Scripture and tradition as well as condemned by most protestant sects.
However, that being said, it will still be pushed little by little.

RE:

some individual heretics within the Church posit such a theory

I like that. One who promotes universal salvation is a heretic

 

[catharina]

We do not see that happening now or in the future.
I covered that in a prev. post.

I see JPII believing it, and many of his assigns. I do not see the laity swallowing it… yet. And probably won’t since it is too antithetical to Scripture and tradition as well as condemned by most protestant sects.
However, that being said, it will still be pushed little by little.

RE:

I like that. One who promotes universal salvation is a heretic

Pope John Paul II never taught the universal salvation.

 

[SFD]

Pope John Paul II never taught the universal salvation.

It appears that he did teach universal salvation:

“Accordingly, what is in question here is man in all his truth, in his full magnitude. We are not dealing with the “abstract” man, but the real, “concrete”, “historical” man. We are dealing with “each” man, for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united himself forever through this mystery. Every man comes into the world through being conceived in his mother’s womb and being born of his mother, and precisely on account of the mystery of the Redemption is entrusted to the solicitude of the Church. Her solicitude is about the whole man and is focused on him in an altogether special manner. The object of her care is man in his unique unrepeatable human reality, which keeps intact the image and likeness of God himself 92. The Council points out this very fact when, speaking of that likeness, it recalls that “man is the only creature on earth that God willed for itself” 93. Man as “willed” by God, as “chosen” by him from eternity and called, destined for grace and glory-this is “each” man, “the most concrete” man, “the most real”; this is man in all the fullness of the mystery in which he has become a sharer in Jesus Christ, the mystery in which each one of the four thousand million human beings living on our planet has become a sharer from the moment he is conceived beneath the heart of his mother.” (JPII, Redemptor Hominis 13.3)

“This man is the way for the Church-a way that, in a sense, is the basis of all the other ways that the Church must walk-because man-every man without any exception whatever-has been redeemed by Christ, and because with man-with each man without any exception whatever-Christ is in a way united, even when man is unaware of it: “Christ, who died and was raised up for all, provides man”-each man and every man- "with the light and the strength to measure up to his supreme calling” (JPII, R.H. 14.3)

“From now on and always, without regret and without turning back, God shall be with all mankind, becoming one with it, to save it and give it to his Son, the Redeemer…For all time, the Incarnation bestows upon man his unique, extraordinary and ineffable dignity”
(JPII March 25, 1981 speech to a general audience, O.R. 31.03.81, p. 12)

Can a soul that is “united to Christ forever” go to hell?

 

[catharina]

We are dealing with “each” man, for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united himself forever through this mystery. … Can a soul that is united to Christ forever go to hell?

You’ve made quite a stretch. It means as it has always meant. God wants union in heaven with all. Jesus Christ offers the gift of salvation to all. It is up to each soul to accept this gift of Christ. However, some refuse it.

 

[SFD]

You’ve made quite a stretch.It means as it has always meant. God wants union in heaven with al. Jesus Christ offers the gift of salvation to all. It is up to each soul to accept this gift of Christ. However, some refuse it.

We are dealing with “each” man, for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united himself forever through this mystery.

Can a soul that is “united to Christ forever” go to hell?

SFD

 

[mgrfin]

If a pope would become a heretic he would be self-judged no different than any other heretic.

Canon 188.4 deals specifically with offices. “By tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric… publicly defects from the Catholic Faith.”

SFD

This Canon, canon 188.4, is not in the Code of Canon Law. It was abrogated in 1983 with the introduction of the new Code.

I’ll repeat what I said elsewhere about the absolute and supreme power of the Pope.

This is what the Code of Canon Law says:

The pope possesses supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely. The pope is the Bishop of the Roman Church. He is the Shepherd of the Universal Church. (canons 330-333)

The Pontiff has supreme power in the Catholic Church. Canon 333 states that no appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power over the universal Church, but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power over all particular churches and groups of them.

There is no canon in the law of the Church which the Holy Father must obey. There is no Cardinal, no bishop, no Congregation, no dicastery, no synod of bishops, no ecumenical council, no power on this earth to which he must answer. His power is supreme, and his power is absolute.

He can abrogate the whole of Canon Law, or any particular canon, and rewrite it according to his own will.

The Pope possesses exclusive rights regarding an ecumenical council and other activities of the college of bishops. (c 337-338; c 341)

It is the Roman Pontiff alone who can convoke an ecumenical council, preside over it, transfer, suspend or dissolve a council (c 338). The Pope even oversees the agenda of a General Council. It is the sole right of the Pontiff to approve the decrees of a general council. Decrees of an ecumenical council do not have obligatory force unless they have been approved by the Holy Father.

Nothing can knock Peter off his throne but death. The Code of Canon law does not foresee a vacant see except in the case of death. The case of a ‘heretic’ pope is foolishness, and not foreseen or provided for in the Law of the Church.

If it had any validity, the law of the Church would provide for it in the universal law of the Catholic Church.

When the See of Peter is vacant, (‘sede vacante nihil innovetur’) with the death of the Pontiff, there can be no innovations in the governance of the Church (canon 335). During this time, the tasks and rights of the college of cardinals and of the Roman Curia are regulated by the Apostolic Constitution Universi Domenici gregis. The Conclave is called according to this Apostolic Constitution. When the See of Peter is vacant by death, the college of cardinals regulate the daily business of the church, but they cannot take upon themselves the power of the pope (canon 359)

You see, it is all controlled by the Code of Canon Law, and the Law gives to the Pope Supreme and Absolute Power in the Church. Sedevacantists have no position, no theory, no power in the Roman Catholic Church, or justification to put forward this absurd theory.

peace

 

[catharina]

We are dealing with “each” man, for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united himself forever through this mystery.

Can a soul that is “united to Christ forever” go to hell?

SFD

As I said, each soul must accept such a union. Christ’s will and gift don’t change - but EACH SOUL must accept the gift.Why is this concept so difficult for you? It’s the same old free will.

 

[cam100]

We are dealing with “each” man, for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united himself forever through this mystery.

Can a soul that is “united to Christ forever” go to hell?

SFD

This does not mean that everyone goes to heaven. One’s first impulse, as a Christian, ought to see if this can be understood in an orthodox sense – which it can. Then one should assume this is the intended meaning unless there exists proof otherwise. See this link for an explanation of the meaning of these words:
catholicintl.com/epologetics/dialogs/church/dimond3.htm

To rashly assume these words must have a heretical meaning, and to therefore accuse John Paul II of heresy is not the thought process a Catholic ought to follow.

 

[catharina]

This does not mean that everyone goes to heaven. One’s first impulse, as a Christian, ought to see if this can be understood in an orthodox sense – which it can. Then one should assume this is the intended meaning unless there exists proof otherwise. See this link for an explanation of the meaning of these words:
catholicintl.com/epologetics/dialogs/church/dimond3.htm

To rashly assume these words must have a heretical meaning, and to therefore accuse John Paul II of heresy is not the thought process a Catholic ought to follow.

Yes, I agree and understand the terms and accept it in an orthodox sense. The notion (fact) that there are those alive today who have accused recent Popes of heresy is an idea that makes me feel dizzy.

 

[SFD]

This does not mean that everyone goes to heaven. One’s first impulse, as a Christian, ought to see if this can be understood in an orthodox sense – which it can. Then one should assume this is the intended meaning unless there exists proof otherwise. See this link for an explanation of the meaning of these words:
catholicintl.com/epologetics/dialogs/church/dimond3.htm

To rashly assume these words must have a heretical meaning, and to therefore accuse John Paul II of heresy is not the thought process a Catholic ought to follow.

I merely showed where John Paul II taught what is clearly unorthodox as it leaves out the things that you have attached to it that make it orthodox. There are plenty of other examples of his mind set here.

Do you find the quote below as being capable of an “orthodox interpretation” as well?

“After the consecration, Christ is truly, really and substantially present beneath the appearances (of bread and wine), and the whole substance of the bread and wine has ceased to exist, leaving only the appearances.”

SFD

 

[SFD]

This Canon, canon 188.4, is not in the Code of Canon Law. It was abrogated in 1983 with the introduction of the new Code.

So was it in force up until 1983?

SFD

 

[mgrfin]

So was it in force up until 1983?

SFD

That’s irrelevant as far as I am concerned.

You want us all to chase after your references which are outmoded and out of date.

I have more important things to do but to reconcile abrogated laws of the Church.

As far as I am concerned the Holy Roman Catholic Church has a valid pope, and none of the popes - the last five of them, the last ten of them - were valid successors to the Throne of Peter. None was a heretic.

The Holy Spirit would never leave us in the arms of such a heresy.

peace

 

[cam100]

I merely showed where John Paul II taught what is clearly unorthodox as it leaves out the things that you have attached to it that make it orthodox. There are plenty of other examples of his mind set here.

Sometimes it is necessary to look at something in context. You might consider this “attaching” things to it. However, as I said before, your first impulse should be to actually look for the orthodoxy in what John Paul II said, not to see if you can interpret it in a heretical sense and therefore call him a heretic. Many things said by saintly popes and even in scripture can be interpreted in a heretical sense, if you want to try.

Do you find the quote below as being capable of an “orthodox interpretation” as well?

“After the consecration, Christ is truly, really and substantially present beneath the appearances (of bread and wine), and the whole substance of the bread and wine has ceased to exist, leaving only the appearances.”

Yes. How do you interpret it and from what source are you quoting?

 

[SFD]

Sometimes it is necessary to look at something in context. You might consider this “attaching” things to it. However, as I said before, your first impulse should be to actually look for the orthodoxy in what John Paul II said, not to see if you can interpret it in a heretical sense and therefore call him a heretic. Many things said by saintly popes and even in scripture can be interpreted in a heretical sense, if you want to try.

It was not my first impulse. I doubt that one would see scripture interpreted in a “heretical sense”…as it is divinely inspired. We are talking about a large body of writings and speeches…not some isolated statement taken out of it’s context.

cam100:

“After the consecration, Christ is truly, really and substantially present beneath the appearances (of bread and wine), and the whole substance of the bread and wine has ceased to exist, leaving only the appearances.”

Yes. How do you interpret it and from what source are you quoting?

It’s a condemned proposition. Auctorem Fidei (Denzinger 1529). Look it up and see why it was condemned…it does appear quite orthodox, doesn’t it?

SFD

 

[SFD]

mgrfin:

SFD:

mgrfin:

This Canon, canon 188.4, is not in the Code of Canon Law. It was abrogated in 1983 with the introduction of the new Code.

So was it in force up until 1983?
That’s irrelevant as far as I am concerned.

You want us all to chase after your references which are outmoded and out of date.

Oh, it relevant…and I think you know it. It was the law of the Church up until 1983. The new code was not retroactive…was it?

It was the law when Paul VI was elected…when John Paul I was elected…when John Paul II was elected.

SFD

 

[cam100]

Do you find the quote below as being capable of an “orthodox interpretation” as well?

“After the consecration, Christ is truly, really and substantially present beneath the appearances (of bread and wine), and the whole substance of the bread and wine has ceased to exist, leaving only the appearances.”

Yes. How do you interpret it and from what source are you quoting?

It’s a condemned proposition. Auctorem Fidei (Denzinger 1529). Look it up and see why it was condemned…it does appear quite orthodox, doesn’t it?
SFD

Now, I think you can see very well that you pulled this quote from Denzinger out of context. The words themselves were not condemned, as they are correct. Rather, it was their use in a particular situation in which they were being deliberately misused to obscure the doctrine of transubstantiation. The words themselves are fine, they just didn’t go far enough for that particular situation.

 

[louey]

He did answer your question. The answer is, we don’t know.

 

[mgrfin]

Oh, it relevant…and I think you know it. It was the law of the Church up until 1983. The new code was not retroactive…was it?

It was the law when Paul VI was elected…when John Paul I was elected…when John Paul II was elected.

SFD

As relevant as was the law during the lifetime of Robert Bellarmine. What laws came into existence during the First Council of Jerusalem?

We’ve been over this old ground before. Yes, it is irrelevant.
You do not not have any competence in the current Code, which is quite apparent, how should anyone expect you to have competence in previous laws of the Church?

I could ask you questions about the Eucharist Fast, What matters of Faiith and matters which were connected with Faith? You have no canon lawyers to back you up.

The same applies then as now. the Holy Father was in charge and over the law; he answered to no one; no council, no synod, etc., he answered to no power on earth. It was impossible for him to be guilty of any crime under the law since he was over the law. period.

You continue to know your head against the Bark of Peter, to no avail.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

It appears that he did teach universal salvation:

Was he speaking ‘ex cathedra’ dureing this little general audience? Point to the words we generally understand to enforce a statement as being one that is a definition.

Apparently everything you disagree with, or given an opportunity to twist what words you want, are ‘infallible’ and if they seem to be in error, then you claim that such and such is a heretic.

You don’t seem to have anything better to do than to say ‘your pope’ is better than ‘our pope’. And ‘your pope’ is infallible, and ‘our pope’ is not infallible.

Do you want us to read every word you post on this thread as valid in your strange, weird theology?

Nearly all of the teaching of the Pope and the college of bishops is non-definitive.

This includes papal encyclicals, letters, audiences, bulls and constitutions, as well as documents of ecumenical councils.

I think you ought to re-read “Lumen Gentium” and take it seriously.

peace