S
SFD
Guest
Gandalf,
Do you know the difference between denying a dogma and merely holding an theological opinion?
SFD
- Status
Do you know the difference between denying a dogma and merely holding an theological opinion?
SFD
S
SFD
Guest
VARC,
The position that the Church and Pope are not infallible as defined in Vatican I is heretical.
Okay, VARC, what is your position?
SFD
V
VARC
Guest
I guess you kind of missed my point. Never mind.
S
SFD
Guest
Well then, restate it in a way that I can understand.
V
VARC
Guest
I used to be a traditional catholic that attended a “Lefebvrist” chapel. I am now what you would regard as a heretic. I deny that papal infallibility is true for a variety of reasons and am taking steps to become Orthodox. Many of the same reasons that I have come to reject papal infallibility are the same reasons that you reject the conciliar popes. I have that in common with sedevacantists. I simply cannot reconcile the faiths of JPII and Paul VI with Pius IX or Pius X.Well then, restate it in a way that I can understand.
But whereas sedevacantists have taken the logical step foward, proclaiming that these new popes are not popes, I have taken the logical step backwards, that the pope was never infallible and the Orthodox were on the right side of the schism.
Without casting insults at each other(I’m sure you get your fair share here) I was wondering what your thoughts were concerning this position.
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
I can honestly say that I have wholeheartedly considered the Orthodox Church and have done much studying regarding them, but there have been many things that have kept me from really considering the Orthodox. Here is one such example among many:
“And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.”
- St. Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).
scripturecatholic.com/divorce_remarriage.html
The position of the Orthodox today is completely contradictory to that of the Early Church and Sacred Scripture.
More troubling and problematic still is the Orthodox position on contraception. Here’s what the Early Church Fathers and the Bible taught about contraception:
scripturecatholic.com/contraception.html
The Orthodox position was perfectly in-line with the Catholic Church’s position on contraception up until just about twenty years ago. The Patriarch of Constantinople praised Pope Paul VI after Humanae Vitae was published for upholding “the Apostolic Faith” regarding contraception. Well, the Orthodox today have completely reversed themselves. Quite problematic and troubling if you ask me. I’m not a huge fan of Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong, but he has written a few good books and has a good page on Eastern Orthodoxy:
socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/orthodoxy-eastern-index-page.html
As to Papal Infallibility, I think you’re probably looking at it in too broad of a sense. It’s actually quite limited in scope. Here’s some good stuff on Papal Infallibility:
newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0010fea5.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202sbs.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9409fea2.asp
G
GandalfTheWhite
Guest
Yes, I do. Now, do YOU know the difference between leaving the Church and leaving the Church? It’s a mortal sin and it in the end doesn’t really matte a difference whether it was because you were dissatisfied with the mass, didn’t like the new architecture, rejected a dogma or rejected a valid pope. If you think that you are in communion with the Church even if they leave the communion with Peter then you are sadly mistaken.
Schism is schism. We cannot do any more than warn you to come back before it’s too late.
God bless. I will pray for you.
F
Four_Marks
Guest
Very well said! However, there is a teencey weencey problem here. (1) He hasn’t left the Church. (2) He hasn’t rejected a Dogma. (3) I think he is probably very dissatisfied with a non-Mass (the original Mass the Church did not have a right to change). (4) He didn’t reject a valid pope. (5) One shouldn’t dare to presume the state of another’s soul. (6) He isn’t “sadly mistaken”.
Now you may have noticed a ***particular ***assertion.
“Schism is schism. We cannot do any more than warn you to come back before it’s too late.”
But, looking at this gentleman’s case, one can only conclude that he never departed in the first place.
Regards
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
"Pax et Caritas:
I have not had too many in depth discussions with Sedavacantits. I’ve been wanting to for a while, which is why I was looking forward to discussing things with you here.
Rather than just stating my position, I thought it would be best to ask you some questions, in order to determine your understanding of some things before proceeding in the discussion.
I consider most Sedevacantists to be very knowledgeable, so my presumption in asking has not been that you will be unable to provide a response. But I do find it interesting that you haven’t answered any of my questions. I expected a quick answer, but so far you haven’t. Is pride hindering you from attempting a reply lest you be shown to be wrong? If so, don’t let it. No one knows everything, especially myself.
But again, I find it curious that you haven’t answer any questions I posed yet.
If you are willing to admit that you don’t want to answer my questions for fear of being shown to be in error, just say so and I will state my position. If you are fearful of debating me, just admit it and I will show my hand.
To tell the truth, when I entered into this discussion it was really just to have an open discussion with you, and not to prove you wrong. To be perfectly honest, I am not 100% certain that the Sedevacanists are wrong. They might be right. I “think” they are drawing a false conclusion, but I could very well be mistaekn and you could be the one to show me.
If you are willing to answer my questions, this might make for an interesting discussion. Are you up for it? If not, no problem. Just let me know and when I get a free hour or so I will lay out my case against the SV position.
I haven’t been presuming that you don’t understand heresy, apostacy and loss of office. Why are you so defensive. I just asked you a few simple questions.
I have not had too many in depth discussions with Sedavacantits. I’ve been wanting to for a while, which is why I was looking forward to discussing things with you here.
Rather than just stating my position, I thought it would be best to ask you some questions, in order to determine your understanding of some things before proceeding in the discussion.
I consider most Sedevacantists to be very knowledgeable, so my presumption in asking has not been that you will be unable to provide a response. But I do find it interesting that you haven’t answered any of my questions. I expected a quick answer, but so far you haven’t. Is pride hindering you from attempting a reply lest you be shown to be wrong? If so, don’t let it. No one knows everything, especially myself.
But again, I find it curious that you haven’t answer any questions I posed yet.
I will tell you straight out of you would like, but I would rather have you answer the basic quesitons I asked first so I can determine if indeed you are making the error in judgment that I suspect you could be making. If I just come out and tell you what I am getting at, I will never know if your reasoning was correct to begin with.
If you are willing to admit that you don’t want to answer my questions for fear of being shown to be in error, just say so and I will state my position. If you are fearful of debating me, just admit it and I will show my hand.
To tell the truth, when I entered into this discussion it was really just to have an open discussion with you, and not to prove you wrong. To be perfectly honest, I am not 100% certain that the Sedevacanists are wrong. They might be right. I “think” they are drawing a false conclusion, but I could very well be mistaekn and you could be the one to show me.
If you are willing to answer my questions, this might make for an interesting discussion. Are you up for it? If not, no problem. Just let me know and when I get a free hour or so I will lay out my case against the SV position.
F
Four_Marks
Guest
quote: “I will tell you straight out of you would like, but I would rather have you answer the basic quesitons I asked first so I can determine if indeed you are making the error in judgment that I suspect you could be making. If I just come out and tell you what I am getting at, I will never know if your reasoning was correct to begin with.”
But I believe you would, because a true lack of understanding would be manifest in my reply to your thesis.
You’ve predicated the exposure of your hand with “… for fear of being shown to be in error, just say so and I will state my position. If you are fearful of debating me, just admit it and I will show my hand.”
These are entirely your considerations, not mine. And you stating them doesn’t lend any credence to your ideas. No, I’m not fearful of debating you. It’s obvious that you have a refutation of sedevacantism, so why not come straight out and state what “false conclusion” sedevacantists are drawing? I’m curious to see your raw idea, based on your perception of “the misunderstanding”, whatever it is you perceive that to be.
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
Fair enough. I’m not sure how long it will take me to lay it out. I may do it one point at a time, or maybe all at once. We’ll see how long winded I get. I’ll begin when I get a little free time.
P
pnewton
Guest
Where the Bishop of rome is, there is the Catholic Church. The state of the Bishop of Rome is an objective reality and not subject to every individual’s opinion. The most you can accuse Gandalf of is begging the question, but then he has the backing of a billion Catholics who recoginize the Holy Father and the strong probability that the Holy Spirit isn’t steering all of us wrong and only a few sedecantists have it right.
But as far as the Mass not being changed, that is just wrong. It changes from Greek to Latin, for one thing, to make it a more universal vernacular. Furthermore, Trent codified the Latin Mass specifically because it was being done in differently.
S
SFD
Guest
Pax et Caritas,
You may have missed this in the all the confusion…
My post #94 in response to your post #93. Can you answer it?
Thanks,
SFD
You may have missed this in the all the confusion…
My post #94 in response to your post #93. Can you answer it?
Thanks,
SFD
S
SFD
Guest
Newton,
We are speaking of the theology of the Mass being changed. The Novus Ordo Missae expresses a new theology. Prayers of the Propers of the Mass were deleted and modified to express this new theology.
There is a well-known axiom in the Church; Lex orandi est lex credendi…the law of prayer is the law of belief. The prayers of the Ordinary and the Propers of the Mass express Catholic Theology. The changes in these prayers were not accidental changes…they were changed drastically and substantially. And for a reason…to change beliefs.
These are verifiable things. One can’t just deny them.
SFD
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
I read the post. In it you asked me for a few references to support what I was saying, as well as my opinion on a few points. I can give my opinion (for what its worth), but as I was looking up references (which was taking a while) I ended up getting busy at work and never finished.
If you can reduce your number of questions, I will try to answer right away. If you really want me to answer all of them, let me know and I will do my best.
S
SFD
Guest
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
"Pax et Caritas:
In this case, I don’t think the SV position is heretical. If they are wrong, it would be schism. Objectivel speaking, schism will damn a person. That is the danger.
Now, due to the situation the Church is in, I am not sure that an error on this point would be a mortal sin. It may be that the very real circumstances that the Church is in might lessen the degree of guild. Just as the saint Vincent of Ferrer who followed an anti-Pope during his life is still a saint, due to the confusion of the times he was in, so too it may be that an incorrect conclusion on the SV position may be excusable today. I really don’t know for sure.
But, in my opinion, it is a risk that is not worth taking, since a lay person has not obligation to form such an opinion. Why not just suspend judgment on this point and leave it at that? Isn’t that the safest course?
I’ll provide the quote for my comment about moral theology requiring the safest course later.
Remember, heresy is also an opinion, so opinions are not insignificant things.
In this case, I don’t think the SV position is heretical. If they are wrong, it would be schism. Objectivel speaking, schism will damn a person. That is the danger.
Now, due to the situation the Church is in, I am not sure that an error on this point would be a mortal sin. It may be that the very real circumstances that the Church is in might lessen the degree of guild. Just as the saint Vincent of Ferrer who followed an anti-Pope during his life is still a saint, due to the confusion of the times he was in, so too it may be that an incorrect conclusion on the SV position may be excusable today. I really don’t know for sure.
But, in my opinion, it is a risk that is not worth taking, since a lay person has not obligation to form such an opinion. Why not just suspend judgment on this point and leave it at that? Isn’t that the safest course?
I’ll provide the quote for my comment about moral theology requiring the safest course later.
P
pnewton
Guest
Why do those that dissent from the Church always are so certain in their position that they say it can’t be denied. Again, a billion Catholics disagree. Any change in the Mass is a change in emphasis, though not a doctrinal reversal. The Mass today is not a reversal of the Mass over the last 2000 years. If there is a difference of emphasis, that is fine, as the Church has always changed the Mass to allow for the needs of the time.
One such change that comes to mind is when communion was changed to being under one species only, so that the doctrine could be emphsized that Christ is present fully, body and blood, even under one species.
M
mgrfin
Guest
He hasn’t departed? Think again.
Becoming an Eastern Orthodox is leaving the Catholic Church. EO are in an heretical state. Try to figure out what their problem is, and then you realize the issues are small, until you hear them talk. It is like a war going on.
There is no such thing as schism. Any schism nowadays is technically heresy.
Satisfied with the mass/non-mass? The Catholic Church has the right to make whatever liturgical changes it wants. We don’t say Mass universally in Greek or Aramaic or Hebrew. It was this way in the beginning, and it is non-relevant today.
It’s English today. If you understand Latin, you have a point. But really do you understand" Te igitur, clementissime Pater, per Jesum Christum, Filium tuum, Dominum nostrum, supplices rogamus ac petimus uti accepta habeas et benedicas, haec dona, hae muniera, haec munera, haec sancta sacrifficia illibata…etc"???
Who are you kidding? We are all grownups here —not rejecting a valid pope? Do you think you are somewhat presumptuous.
Sadly mistaken. The whole matter as presented is not something serious people understand.
Joining a cultural rite, Eastern Orthodox, and you are not Greek, or Russian, or Egyptian??? This is a cultural thing.
Is the date for choosing Easter an important issue to you. How about the Filoque - do you understand the issue. And how about the host - leaven bread? Is this an issue for a Westerner.
Go in peace
S
SFD
Guest
mgrfin,
You are confused here. Four_Marks was speaking of SFD…not VARC; VARC is considering converting to the heretical Eastern Orthodox church.
Your OWN Conciliar Church says the Orthodox are in “imperfect communion” with the Conciliar Church.
The Conciliar Church doesn’t say they (the Orthodox) are schismatics and heretics…why do you?
You can’t have it both ways…go back and read the previous posts and you’ll see that you’ve got it wrong here.
SFD
- Status