Sedevacantism and PIUS IX

[Pax_et_Caritas]

mgrfin,

You are confused here…
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

That is a great point, and I would like to see his reply. In the Ballamand agreement, John Paul II stated ther heretics and schismatics are true Churches and we should not attempt to convert them.

Does he disagree with John Paul II?

 

[Four_Marks]

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

quote:“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"???"

As a matter of fact dear chap, I understand every single word precisely. Of particular interest, is the una cum phrase, as SFD can very well appreciate. Btw, SFD, I haven’t heard from you lately regarding our discussion on the Te igitur?

Listen mgrfin, I can reply back quite as easily. Yes, he is not rejecting a valid pope. Did you receive that loud and clear? What is more, SFD can substantiate why he believes he is not rejecting a valid pope. If you care to learn why, I’m sure he’ll oblige. Conversely, you can do nothing but dance around why you believe Catholic saints, popes, theologians etc. of the Church are all wrong. What you must understand, is that you are not arguing against SFD or myself, but against the Church HERSELF.

Now, unfortunately (for you), you’ve exposed yourself to SFD’s careful scrutiny … "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."

Yes, please go back and read.

quote: “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.”

quote: “Sadly mistaken. The whole matter as presented is not something serious people understand.”

No, the whole lack of understanding comes from not willing to see what is staring people right in the face.

I’ll be dealing with the Mass issue in detail soon. Perhaps when I do it will highlight how a billion people can be wrong, because the Church Herself is always right

 

[Four_Marks]

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.

Numbers do not an objective reality make dear pnewton. So, forget your 1 billion, because the “one billion” failed to recognize crucial changes due to gross ignorance.

I’m talking about tampering with the substance of a sacrament. Do you know what that means?

 

[Four_Marks]

He hasn’t departed? Think again.

Go in peace

I thought again. No, he definitely hasn’t departed from the Church. However, upon thinking again, I think he may receive the title:“Lay defender of the Faith” someday.

 

[pnewton]

So, forget your 1 billion, because the “one billion” failed to recognize crucial changes due to gross ignorance.

Do you know how gnostic this sounds? I take it you reject all belief in the “sense of the faithful.” Some of the people who you accuse of gross ignorance would put you and I to shame, in both intellegence and knowledge of Catholic tradition. So you can forget the billlion Catholics in the world and cling to your unique interpretation, but I will and the rest of the Catholics in the world will continue to be faithful to the Church founded by our Savior and His representative, Pope Benedict XVI.

 

[Four_Marks]

Do you know how gnostic this sounds? I take it you reject all belief in the “sense of the faithful.” Some of the people who you accuse of gross ignorance would put you and I to shame, in both intellegence and knowledge of Catholic tradition. So you can forget the billlion Catholics in the world and cling to your unique interpretation, but I will and the rest of the Catholics in the world will continue to be faithful to the Church founded by our Savior and His representative, Pope Benedict XVI.

No, I don’t know how gnostic it sounds, simply because it isn’t gnostic. Do you know how hollow you sound? Actually, I don’t think they would put me to shame. Now, Monsieur “avoid the questions and pursue his hollow rhetoric”, I asked you a question —“I’m talking about tampering with the substance of a sacrament. Do you know what that means?”

Are you going to simply avoid answering this one, like you’ve avoided every hard question ever asked of you?

 

[Four_Marks]

Er… you take it wrongly. All the Catholics that I know personally have a profound “sense of the faithful”.

Deo gratias!

 

[Four_Marks]

So you can forget the billlion Catholics in the world and cling to your unique interpretation …"

Yes, dear pnewton, I do think that the Church’s interpretation of, for example, the substance of a sacrament is quite unique. And, most assuredly, I do cling to holy Mother Church’s interpretation/definition.

Next question please.

 

[mgrfin]

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

Well, you sound like an intelligent individual.

And you know such things as “Novus ordo…”, and “lex orandi, lex credendi”.

I grew up with a copy of the old Latin rite Mass, and I read Latin. Please point out the changes you are speaking up which were not accidental changes, but drastic and doctrinal, changing beliefs.

I will be happy to respond when we get that from you.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

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

After Vatican I there are no more schimatics. They are heretics.

If anyone denies a defined doctrine of the Catholic Church, they are heretics.

You refer to the Roman Catholic Church as “Conciliar Church”. You are hiding behind a label of “Catholic” We don’t refer to ourselves as '‘conciliar church’; why do you?

Are you a heretic too? It is clear that Eastern Orthodox are ‘churches’ but they are outside the Church.

peace

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

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.

Well, I just finished laying out my case. It is 7 pages in a word document, and 20,000 characters. Might be a little long to post here. I might post it on my blog and give you a link. I still need to proof read it.

I’ll get back with you.

 

[Four_Marks]

Well, I just finished laying out my case. It is 7 pages in a word document, and 20,000 characters. Might be a little long to post here. I might post it on my blog and give you a link. I still need to proof read it.

I’ll get back with you.

No problems. This should be interesting. In the mean time, what is the link to your “blog” ?

 

[mgrfin]

quote: QUOTE]

Four Marks

You might give us the benefit of your insights by telling us what your theology states.

This is all. new to us, and we would like to hear your propositions.

If it is too long, please send me an e-mail with attachments.

peace

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

No problems. This should be interesting. In the mean time, what is the link to your “blog” ?

I’ll post it all on my blog after I finish. I am going to add a few quotes and one or two more points. For now, I am going to post part of it here so you can understand my position.

If you find any errors, please let me know. Here we go…

First point: A heretic (meaning a person who knowingly rejects a dogma of the Church) can be Pope. This is a very important point for two reasons: 1.) I don’t think most Sedevacantists (SV’s) realize this; and 2.) I believe the ones who realize it in theory, fail to apply it properly in practice. I think this is part of the basis for the rash judgment, and false conclusion.

The following will explain how a heretic can be Pope.

The Church has both a body and a soul. The body and soul together form the one Church of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. The body of the Church consist of those who are visible members of the Church (those who hold office in the Church or are registered in the local parish, etc.). The soul of the Church consist, not of all the baptized as many would have us believe, but only of those who have the true faith; have not been excommunicated; and are not in subjective schism.

If a person (including a Bishop or Pope) knowingly rejects a dogma of the faith, he loses all supernatural faith and thereby ceases to be a member of the soul of the Church, BUT he will remain a member of the body of the Church unless and until he either incurs an ecclesiastical sentence (excommunication) which separates him from the Church, or else becomes a public manifest heretic (which requires no sentence).

A person who is a heretic, but has not made it public, is known as an occult heretic, which means “secret” heretic. Such a person, although cut off from the soul of the Church, nevertheless remains a member of the body of the Church, and thus (if a Bishop) retains his jurisdiction.

St. Robert Bellarmine: “"This is the opinion of great recent doctors, as John Driedo (lib. 4 de Script. et dogmat. Eccles., cap. 2, par. 2, sent. 2), who teaches that only they separate themselves from the Church who are expelled, like the excommunicated, and those who depart by themselves from her or oppose her, as heretics and schismatics. And in his seventh affirmation, he maintains that in those who turn away from the Church, there remains absolutely no spiritual power over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano says the same (lib. 4 de loc., cap. 2), teaching that heretics are neither parts nor members of the Church, and that it cannot even be conceived that anyone could be head and Pope, without being member and part (cap. ult. ad argument. 12). And he teaches in the same place, in plain words, that occult heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members, and that therefore the Pope who is an occult heretic is still Pope. This is also the opinion of the other authors whom we cite in book I De Ecclesia.”

**St. Robert Bellarime: **“The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union. For even bad Catholics i.e. who are not heretics] are united and are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union”.

It is important to remember that a heretic can indeed be the Pope. But what about all those quotes which say a heretic is not a member of the Church? Those quotes are referring to a public heretic; that is, one who is separated from the body of the Church. The canonical definition of a heretic is a public heretic, not an occult heretic.

SUSPECT OF HERESY:

Before getting into what will qualify for public manifest heresy, let’s deal with another type of heretic. This heretic is more than an occult heretic, but less than a public manifest heretic. This is a heretic who knowingly and willfully rejects a dogma of the faith and, rather than keeping it completely secret, gives reasons to believe that he is a heretic: Such a person qualifies as “suspect of heresy”.

continue…

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

continuation…

The following are a few examples from canon law of what qualifies a person as “suspect of heresy”. These examples are taken from an article written by John Daly, a well known Sedevacantist. I am only quoting a few from his list…

Actions Which Are Canonically Suspect Of Heresy

The study of heresy demands an analysis of the juridical aspect of suspicion of heresy.

The fact is that the Code of Canon Law lists numerous actions which, of their nature, give grounds for suspicion that someone who practises them is a heretic. Usually it is only the heretic who practises them, but in reality they could also be explained by causes other than heresy.

Before seeing how the Church proceeds in such cases in order to determine whether she is dealing with a heretic or not, let us examine the delicts which, according to canon law, create a suspicion of heresy.

• Knowingly and willingly to assist in any manner the propagation of heresy (canon 2316).
• Actively to assist at the sacred functions of non-Catholics or to take part in them (but excluding a simple passive presence arising from a civic office or social necessity for a grave reason and as long as there be no risk of scandal (canon 2316).

… The cases of suspicion of heresy listed above are those foreseen by the Code of Canon Law. Nevertheless, as the theologians observe, there are also extra-canonical cases of suspicion of heresy. There is suspicion of heresy, says Wernz-Vidal, in the exercise of magic, of charms or of divination; in very grave abuses of the sacraments … those who become members of the sects which, whether openly or secretly, hatch plots against the Church or civil society. (…) These cases which were cited by the doctors in the “ius novissimum” (ie. in the Canon Law which was in force before the promulgation of the present Code in 1917) continue “of their nature” (ex natura rei) to give grounds for suspicion of heresy, but juridical suspicion exists only in the nine cases specified in Canon Law, which we have just listed. For the same understanding, see D’Annibale, “In Constitutionem…” n.31.

Notice, a person who willingly assist in the propagation of heresy is only “suspect of heresy”; a person who practices magic or divination, or even joins a secret society that plots against the Church is only “suspect of heresy”.

Now, what is required for a person who is suspect of heresy to be considered a heretic in the canonical sense of the word? The following is from the same article:

How does the Church proceed in order to determine whether one who is suspected of heresy is actually a heretic?

Canon 2315 affirms that "the suspect of heresy who, once he has been admonished, does not remove the cause of the suspicion is to be prohibited from legitimate actions [the denomination given by canon 2256 n.2 to certain juridical actions:- to be sponsor of baptism or confirmation, to vote in ecclesiastical elections, to manage ecclesiastical goods, etc.] and, if he be a cleric, when the warning has been once repeated in vain, he will be suspended a divinis [ie. forbidden to celebrate Holy Mass and to conduct other religious actions proper to clerics]; and if the suspect of heresy does not amend himself in the space of six full months, starting from the moment when he incurred the penalty, he will be considered as a heretic

, subject to the penalties of heretics." Let us observe from this how patient and prudent the Church is in respect of such people. In addition to the warning which must be reiterated in the case of a cleric, she gives six months for the retraction or for ultimate clarifications before imposing the penalties proper to heretics. These penalties are not automatic; rather, they must be imposed by the bishop who may ultimately have reasons for not putting them into effect”

So, a person who is propagating heresy must be warned and given six full months to amend before he is considered a heretic and thus lose jurisdiction. A person who is practicing magic or divination is given a full six months to amend. As he says, the Church is patient and prudent in respect to such people, and is not rash in condemning them.

continue…

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

continuation…

DEGREES OF HERESY:

For a Pope to lose his office, he must be more than merely suspect of heresy. He would have to be a public manifest, or “notorious” heretic. A person who openly left the Church would fall into this category, or possibly one who tried to remain in the body of the Church but clearly and obstinately denied a dogma of the faith. Remember, givng reasons to believe that a person lost the faith only qualifies a suspect of heresy. The heresy must be explicit.

Before addressing manifest heresy directly, let’s consider the different degrees of heresy, which is important to keep in mind in trying to determine public manifest heresy. The following quote from the Catholic encyclopedia will provide the terms and definitions that we will use.

III. DEGREES OF HERESY
Both matter and form of heresy admit of degrees which find expression in the following technical formula of theology and canon law.

1.) Pertinacious adhesion to a doctrine contradictory to a point of faith clearly defined by the Church is heresy pure and simple, heresy in the first degree.

2.) But if the doctrine in question has not been expressly “defined” or is not clearly proposed as an article of faith in the ordinary, authorized teaching of the Church, an opinion opposed to it is styled sententia haeresi proxima, that is, an opinion approaching heresy.

3.) Next, a doctrinal proposition, without directly contradicting a received dogma, may yet involve logical consequences at variance with revealed truth. Such a proposition is not heretical, it is a propositio theologice erronea, that is, erroneous in theology.

4.) Further, the opposition to an article of faith may not be strictly demonstrable, but only reach a certain degree of probability. In that case the doctrine is termed sententia de haeresi suspecta, haeresim sapiens; that is, an opinion suspected, or savouring, of heresy (see THEOLOGICAL CENSURES).

So, we have the first degree of heresy which is the explicit denial of an article of faith. For example, a denial of Three Persons in the Trinity, or the divinity of Jesus, or the seven sacraments. Since these have all been points of doctrinal definitions, the denial of them would constitute heresy in the true sense of the word.

Next we have the denial of a doctrine that has not been clearly defined. For example, the denial of Limbo. This only qualifies as an opinion approaching heresy.

Next comes a proposition that involves logical consequences at variance with a revealed truth. For example, the Bellamand agreement, which states that we should not seek to convert the heretical and schismatic Orthodox to the one true Church outside of which is no salvation. This would fall into the category of “erroneous theology” or possibly suspicion of heresy. Questioning if anyone is in hell (as John Paul II did) would probably also fall into this category since the Bible clearly teaches that “many will seek to enter in and will not be able”, which is what the Church has always taught.

Lastly, one who seems to deny an article of the faith, and who gives reasons to suspect that they probably do, yet does so with just enough crafty and deceptive ambiguity so as not to get caught, qualifies as “suspect of heresy”. In normal days, such a person would be called in by his Bishop and examined. Today they are elevated to Cardinal, or higher.

**MANIFEST HERESY: **

We have finally arrived at a manifest heretic. This is one who openly denies a de fide article of the faith. Not a person who does things that lead a reasonable person to suspect that he lost the faith; but one who clearly and openly denies a dogma.

On a practical level, it is not enough to say “I know he is a heretic because a Catholic would never kiss the Koran, or have an Assisi event, or do this or that. Since a real Catholic would never do such a thing, I conclude that the person is a heretic and thus not Pope”. That is a rash conclusion since, as we know, simply being a heretic is not enough. The person must not merely give evidence that he “must” deny the faith (since, after all, “only a heretic would do such a thing”); rather, he must openly deny a dogma.

continue…

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

final post…

The following is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about a Pope who becomes a public heretic:

A similar exceptional situation might arise were a pope to become a public heretic, i.e., **were he publicly and officially to teach some doctrine clearly opposed to what has been defined as de fide catholicâ. ** But in this case many theologians hoId that no formal sentence of deposition would be required, as, by becoming a public heretic the pope would ipso facto cease to be pope. This, however, is a hypothetical case which has never actually occurred; even the case of Honorius, were it proved that he taught the Monothelite heresy, would not be a case in point.

To be a manifest heretic requires more than suspicion, or “a certain degree of probability” that the person is a heretic. It must be absolutely certain. That would either require that a person openly leave the Church, or that they openly and admittedly deny a defined dogma with pertinacity.

While I would certainly agree that John Paul II was suspect of heresy, which is an objective statement based on what he actually did and said, I don’t think he qualified as a public manifest heretic.

Conclusion:

The error that I see the Sedavacantists falling into is this: They look at the actions of John Paul II (kissing the Koran, Assisi, etc), and conclude “there is no way that he had the faith, for no one with the faith would do such things. Therefore he is a heretic, and if a heretic he is not the Pope”.

But that is a false conclusion since a heretic can indeed be the Pope, and will only cease to be Pope if he becomes a public manifest heretic… not merely one that is suspect of heresy.

Remember your posts 48 and 49? Read through those examples and you will not find an explicit denial of a dogma of the faith. I agree that there is a lot of “approaching heresy”, “erroneous theology”, and “suspicion of heresy”, but not an explicit denial of an article of faith… yet an explicit and pertinacious denial of a dogma of the faith is what is required for a Pope (or anyone else) to become a public manifest heretic. And even if that were to happen, it is not certain that he would cease to be Pope. I think he would, and many theologians think he would, but it is not 100% certain. The encyclopedia I quoted called it a “hypothesis”.

Some of the misleading teachings can actually be “interpreted” in a way that is not heretical, and the rest do not reach the level of an explicit denial of an article of faith. They might be close, and John Paul II may well have meant them in a heretical way, but that is not enough for him to lose his office.

I’m going to end this post with a quote from your post #48. Notice how the person you quote begins his explanation of why John Paul II was not the Pope, as it is exactly what I said SV’s do.

The following is from the paper “The Apostasy of John Paul II: A Catholic Response” by The Most Reverend Daniel L. Dolan.

"For anyone who truly has the Catholic Faith could not:

a) kiss the Koran, the Mohammedan “Bible.”

This would qualify as scandalous, and “suspicion of heresy” at the most, but certainly not an explicit denial of an article of faith.

I’ll have to end here for now, but I have a few additional points that I want to make.

 

[Four_Marks]

Four_Marks;3198130:

quote: QUOTE]

Four Marks

You might give us the benefit of your insights by telling us what your theology states.

This is all. new to us, and we would like to hear your propositions.

If it is too long, please send me an e-mail with attachments.

peace

Sure, as long as it is clearly understood that I will be presenting not my theology per se, nor my propositions but that of the Church.

 

[mgrfin]

QUOTE]

Before you get too far.

Anyone who denies a defined article of faith is a heretic. It doesn’t have to be public, or declared.

Excommunication is a penalty for a public act where penalties are listed for it in the Canon Law of the Church.

A heretic, albeit, a private heretic is no longer a member of the Church. He has separated himself off from the body of Christ.

Sec 23 of Mystici Corporis so states this:

**“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.” **

I don’t know what this does for the rest of his thesis, but you are starting out on the wrong foot. Heresy can be a private matter, but it is enough to cast someone out of the Body of Christ. Formal excommunication is not required.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

Sure, as long as it is clearly

understood that I will be presenting not my theology per se, nor my propositions but that of the Church.

Four Marks:

Sorry. You are not an official of the Roman Catholic Church authorized by the Church or by Council, or by local bishop with an imprimatur for what you say.

What you say may be the teaching of the Church, and it may not be. It is your interpretation, and your presentation - not the Church’s.

peace