Question for the Sedevacantist: stay on topic!!

[mgrfin]

JPII did not give an orthodox interpretation for his statement. So we are to take him at face value of his statement.
God inspired me to stand against a false claimant to the Catholic Church’s Papacy.

Are you pope, then?
I think Catarina adequately answered. You are fixed in your ideas, and apparently there is no way we can help you, except by our charity and our prayers.

peace

 

[jim28]

Catharina

What an ending for you.

And by the way, thanks for condemning me. I wasn’t sure before where my soul would end up, but now I can relax and not work out my salvation through fear and trembling. thank you messenger from heaven:getholy:

 

[catharina]

JPII did not give an orthodox interpretation for his statement. So we are to take him at face value of his statement.
God inspired me to stand against a false claimant to the Catholic Church’s Papacy.

I’ll agree that something and/or someone led you to make your statement of dissension and division. I don’t believe that you can verify any such inspiration from God though. (Whoever stands within your ~ we ~ please, count me out.)

 

[jim28]

Are you pope, then?

It is our duty as Catholics to condemn heresy where we see it.

I understand that you would like people to never mind these heretical statements and go on with there own business, not caring about their salvation.
But some of us care.

 

[catharina]

Catharina

And by the way, thanks for condemning me. I wasn’t sure before where my soul would end up, but now I can relax and not work out my salvation through fear and trembling. thank you messenger from heaven:getholy:

I take it that you’re counting on my not being a messenger from heaven. Now, what if I were exactly that? Then what? I know, I know: another round of mockery from Jim28 and gang.

 

[jim28]

I take it that you’re counting on my not being a messenger from heaven. Now, what if I were exactly that? Then what? I know, I know: another round of mockery from Jim28 and gang.

 

[cam100]

JPII did not give an orthodox interpretation for his statement. So we are to take him at face value of his statement.

How do you justify this approach? Where does it say that a pope is required to provide an explanation of what he says if you personally do not understand? Where does it say that a pope is required to justify his actions against detractors?

This is the problem with the sedevacantist perspective. It causes one to assume the worst intention. As followers of Christ, we ought to assume the best intention of our fellow man.

 

[jim28]

How do you justify this approach? Where does it say that a pope is required to provide an explanation of what he says if you personally do not understand? Where does it say that a pope is required to justify his actions against detractors?

I was merely saying that it really needed no interpretation.
If I were to say to you that every one is saved and no one is going to hell, would you call me a heretic?
The same applies to someone who says that Christ’s Blood reaches all and saves all. This is very easy to understand, JPII taught all are saved.
Anybody who utters heresy is required to either abjure it or try to explain it in an orthodox sense. If not, Catholics are to condemn them as heretics.

 

[cam100]

I was merely saying that it really needed no interpretation.

You interpret John Paul’s words one way – in a heretical sense – while others interpret them another way – in an orthodox sense.
What makes you so sure that YOUR interpretation is correct, so sure that you’re willing to condemn him as a heretic and reject his claim to the papacy?

If I were to say to you that every one is saved and no one is going to hell, would you call me a heretic?

This is irrelevant because John Paul II didn’t say that.

Anybody who utters heresy is required to either abjure it or try to explain it in an orthodox sense. If not, Catholics are to condemn them as heretics.

And what if the person did not intend that their words be interpreted in a heretical sense?

 

[mgrfin]

It is our duty as Catholics to condemn heresy where we see it.

I understand that you would like people to never mind these heretical statements and go on with there own business, not caring about their salvation.
But some of us care.

Catholic Forum rules does not allow us to condemn heresy when we see it.

You could get banned for calling the Holy Father a heretic.

And, where does it say in the Law of the Church that we are obligated to condemn heresy when we think we see it? Where is that written?

And where are getting your right to attack the Lawgiver in the Church for not 'obeying the law"?

peace

 

[louey]

Ah, louey, louey, louey. I’m Catholic. If/when a Holy Father declares something to be heretical, I’ll listen. Until then, perhaps you stand with Jim who describes his faith on the MHF thread ~~~ Benedict is not a pope. Those who are saying that he is a heretic are not heretics themselves. They are very much informed. ~~~ Needless to say, I disagree.

Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church? Do the moslem’s and talmudic Jew’s worship the same God as the Catholic’s? Is it every man’s right to religious liberty? Please answer, Catharina.

 

[jim28]

You interpret John Paul’s words one way – in a heretical sense – while others interpret them another way – in an orthodox sense.
What makes you so sure that YOUR interpretation is correct, so sure that you’re willing to condemn him as a heretic and reject his claim to the papacy?

This is irrelevant because John Paul II didn’t say that.

And what if the person did not intend that their words be interpreted in a heretical sense?

If I say the grass is red and it was green, how would you interpret that?
A phrase like “This blood reaches all and saves all” needs no interpretation.
People who don’t understand this would say that my statement that the grass is red would say, “he meant the grass is green”.
I would say, no I meant the grass is red.

It’s silly to say something is not exactly what it is.

 

[jim28]

Catholic Forum rules does not allow us to condemn heresy when we see it.

You could get banned for calling the Holy Father a heretic.

And, where does it say in the Law of the Church that we are obligated to condemn heresy when we think we see it? Where is that written?

And where are getting your right to attack the Lawgiver in the Church for not 'obeying the law"?

peace

I would never say the Holy Father is a heretic. JPII was not the Holy Father
Canon Law is just that, Law. They govern the Church in matters of discipline. Heresy is a matter of denying Dogma. One who denies a dogma or teaches contrary to it, is without sentence excommunicated from the Church.
Is the legislative branch of the US government not subject to the Laws they make? They are the Lawgivers. That logic doesn’t make sense.
Canon Law is not infallible, just as the Laws of the US are not infallible.

 

[mgrfin]

I would never say the Holy Father is a heretic. JPII was not the Holy Father
Canon Law is just that, Law. They govern the Church in matters of discipline. Heresy is a matter of denying Dogma. One who denies a dogma or teaches contrary to it, is without sentence excommunicated from the Church.
Is the legislative branch of the US government not subject to the Laws they make? They are the Lawgivers. That logic doesn’t make sense.
Canon Law is not infallible, just as the Laws of the US are not infallible.

John Paul II was the Holy Father! And you and your friends say that he and Paul VI were heretics.

Canon law is not like getting a speeding ticket. I have quoted over and over that the Holy Father answers to NO ONE. He does not answer to any Cardinal, Council or person. He is responsible only to Jesus Christ. Certainly, there is no Canon to which he is responsible.

Though heresy might be ‘automatic’. In practice it is not. There is a question of obstinacy, that leaves it out of the ‘automatic’ category. He wouldn’t be examined like you or me; he would just dispense with us. How can someone who is infallible on faith and morals commit heresy? It is morally impossible for him to be in error on matters of faith and morals. That is why the matter is so far-fetched.

You have not pointed out one dogma, infallibly defined, that he has not upheld. Name one, please.

Of course you have misinterpreted sacred scripture, so anything may be possible for you - but we have been asking for months, and we still ask, what is Paul VI’s heresy? What is JPII’s heresy?

Universal salvation? I’m afraid you accuse St. John of teaching this.

The U.S. Laws do not say that the lawgivers are exempt. But, in Canon Law, the law says he reports to noone. I have stated this over and over, but you don’t seem to be listening.

I would wish you would listen. Your little group probably huddles around the computer, and pile up these arguments, but you, none of you, have gotten anywhere.

Look how Arbishop Lefebre was excommunicated. He was foreward, and told over and over not to be disobedient. His excommunication despite the fact that it was ‘automatic’, it was not sudden.

You want us to believe that we all woke up one moring and we had no pope.

You are knocking your heads against the Barc of Peter, and you have gotten no where in 40 years. And all your founders are dead, and have had to answer to Jesus Christ for their doings.

We continue to have christian charity for you, and remember you in our prayers every day.

peace

 

[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.

No, cam100. My point was that an ommission can be lethal. That is precisely why that proposition was condemned. You and others were saying that we need to add whatever is reasonably required to interpret it as orthodox.

“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.”

The above proposition was condemned in the bull *Auctorem Fidei *(Denzinger 1529) as,

“pernicious, derogatory to the exposition of Catholic truth about the dogma of transubstantiation, and favouring heretics”.

The reason it was condemned is given in the decree, which says that

“it entirely omits to make any mention of transubstantiation or the conversion of the entire substance of bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of wine into the Blood which the Council of Trent defined as an article of faith …insofar as, through an unauthorised and suspicious omission of this kind, attention is drawn away both from an article of faith and from a word consecrated by the Church to safeguard the profession of that article against heresies, and tends, therefore, to result in its being forgotten as if it were merely a scholastic question”.

Now, John Paul II says the following, "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."

It is impossible to excuse this unorthodoxy by arguing that his sentence can be given an orthodox interpretation. Even if this sentence really could admit of an orthodox interpretation, it is still unorthodox by defect. The obvious sense of the sentence, taken in text and context, is quite incontrovertibly unorthodox.

 

[catharina]

No, cam100. My point was that an ommission can be lethal. That is precisely why that proposition was condemned. You and others were saying that we need to add whatever is reasonably required to interpret it as orthodox.

The above proposition was condemned in the bull *Auctorem Fidei *(Denzinger 1529) as,
The reason it was condemned is given in the decree, which says that

Now, John Paul II says the following, "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."

It is impossible to excuse this unorthodoxy by arguing that his sentence can be given an orthodox interpretation. Even if this sentence really could admit of an orthodox interpretation, it is still unorthodox by defect. The obvious sense of the sentence, taken in text and context, is quite incontrovertibly unorthodox.

By your reasoning, Christ has NOT united Himself with each one through this mystery of redemption. Yet He did. He willingly died for all.

 

[SFD]

By your reasoning, Christ has NOT united Himself with each one through this mystery of redemption. Yet He did. He willingly died for all.

Yes, of course, but forever? You seem to forget that word and the meaning of it in this context. If one is united with Christ forever…how can one ever be lost? You must add something to it to make it appear NOT to imply universal salvation…you add that because you know it does imply universal salvation.

SFD

 

[catharina]

Yes, of course, but forever? You seem to forget that word and the meaning of it in this context. If one is united with Christ forever…how can one ever be lost? You must add something to it to make it appear NOT to imply universal salvation…you add that because you know it does imply universal salvation.

SFD

God does not repent of gifts given or calls made. ~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.~ His gift, that union, is His gift forever. We accept it or we don’t accept it. That’s our part in it. Acceptance of the gift by us is not FORCED.

 

[jim28]

God does not repent of gifts given or calls made. ~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.~ His gift, that union, is His gift forever. We accept it or we don’t accept it. That’s our part in it. Acceptance of the gift by us is not FORCED.

How did you get that interpretation from what JPII said. You must be extra smart.:bowdown:

 

[mgrfin]

How did you get that interpretation from what JPII said. You must be extra smart.::

She is extra smart. I am very impressed with her credentials.

You are not dealing with slouches here. We can answer your posts, like hitting a softball out of the park.

Keep up the good work, catharina.

peace