Sedevacantism and PIUS IX

[Pax_et_Caritas]

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

Any heresy cuts a person off from the soul of the Church, but a secret heretic remains a member of the body of the Church. This is certain. Even the Sedavacantists admit this.

This is what one of them wrote: "Nobody thinks that occult heretics are non-members of the Church, and it is membership in the Church which governs the capacity to possess an office in her. This is all entirely clear from Bellarmine (and Van Noort and every other manualist, of course)…

The quote from Mystici Corporis would apply to a heretic in the canonical sense, which is a public heretic.

 

[mgrfin]

Any heresy cuts a person off from the soul of the Church, but a secret heretic remains a member of the body of the Church. This is certain. Even the Sedavacantists admit this.

This is what one of them wrote: "Nobody thinks that occult heretics are non-members of the Church, and it is membership in the Church which governs the capacity to possess an office in her. This is all entirely clear from Bellarmine (and Van Noort and every other manualist, of course)…

The quote from Mystici Corporis would apply to a heretic in the canonical sense, which is a public heretic.

Pius XII wasn’t an idiot. His condemnation does not refer to formal, public heresy. If you don’t believe (everything), you can’t be a member of the Church. How many public heretics are there? Very few.

Please back up your statement with some Catholic source: the CCC, an encyclical, a Council - something.

And who really cares what Sedevacatists believe anyway. All of a sudden they have validity? Why? They are not part of the Church either.

These guys are as much heretics as Luther and the rest.

peace

 

[Four_Marks]

Four_Marks;3201399:

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

mgrfin,

Similarly, sorry. But firstly, that is an erroneous conclusion. I don’t need to be an authorized official of the Catholic Church etc. to convey Catholic Doctrine. I have that right by virtue of my Baptism. Secondly, I thought I made it crystal clear that it WONT be what I say, but that of the Church. Ergo, your argument will be (if you have one) with the Church Herself. Lastly, you do not even have the foggiest idea of what I’ll be presenting. Nevertheless, my presentation will be predicated on a clear understanding that if one presents the time-honored teachings of the Church, one who dissents dissents with the Church Herself.

quote: “What you say may be the teaching of the Church, and it may not be.”

Yes, just focus on the immediate above.

 

[cam100]

Pius XII wasn’t an idiot. His condemnation does not refer to formal, public heresy. If you don’t believe (everything), you can’t be a member of the Church. How many public heretics are there? Very few.

Please back up your statement with some Catholic source: the CCC, an encyclical, a Council - something.

And who really cares what Sedevacatists believe anyway. All of a sudden they have validity? Why? They are not part of the Church either.

These guys are as much heretics as Luther and the rest.

peace

Are you saying that if a pope were a private heretic, he would not be a member of the Church in any way? So, would he still be the head of the Church on earth, or not? How would you know if a pope was a private heretic or not?

 

[mgrfin]

mgrfin;3201420:

mgrfin,

Similarly, sorry. But firstly, that is an erroneous conclusion. I don’t need to be an authorized official of the Catholic Church etc. to convey Catholic Doctrine. I have that right by virtue of my Baptism. Secondly, I thought I made it crystal clear that it WONT be what I say

, but that of the Church. Ergo, your argument will be (if you have one) with the Church Herself. Lastly, you do not even have the foggiest idea of what I’ll be presenting. Nevertheless, my presentation will be predicated on a clear understanding that if one presents the time-honored teachings of the Church, one who dissents dissents with the Church Herself.

quote: “What you say may be the teaching of the Church, and it may not be.”

Yes, just focus on the immediate above.
Yes, all Catholics on this site convey Catholic teaching, some of rightly, some of us wrongly.

It doesn 't matter what you are about to say, what you say is the product of your immediate thought, and we who read it are to understand you may be misquoting.

We had an incident yesterday where two very believing Roman Catholics had a disagreement regarding Jesus Christ existing from all eternity. One of us was right and one of us was wrong. We worked that out, but one who was wrong accused one who was right of heresy.

Say your piece, whatever it is, and we will watch it closely.

peace

 

[Four_Marks]

final post…

.

Dear Pax,

I’m going to address your opinion in the private message facility of this service. “Why”, you may ask. Well, because I believe it is the most prudent course to follow in this particular matter, i.e., a discussion on sedvacantism on this forum with you. My replies to you will most probably raise the ire of some, and then you and I will have to contend with their accusations (born of misunderstanding) et al.

 

[mgrfin]

Dear Pax,

I’m going to address your opinion in the private message facility of this service. “Why”, you may ask. Well, because I believe it is the most prudent course to follow in this particular matter, i.e., a discussion on sedvacantism on this forum with you. My replies to you will most probably raise the ire of some, and then you and I will have to contend with their accusations (born of misunderstanding) et al.

Misunderstandings are big on this site.

I will be anxious to read your special ‘gnosis’ on this belief.

 

[cam100]

SFD,

This thread took a slight turn, but I was hoping you still address the point I brought up in post #87 about the “adherence” vs “acceptance” of Paul VI as pope. (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3192058&postcount=87)

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Pius XII wasn’t an idiot. His condemnation does not refer to formal, public heresy. If you don’t believe (everything), you can’t be a member of the Church. How many public heretics are there? Very few.

Please back up your statement with some Catholic source: the CCC, an encyclical, a Council - something.

I did. I backed it up with a quote from a doctor of the Church, who himself was quoting other authorities

: "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.

“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 [in other words, neither a member of the body or the sou], which signifies that he is not such by internal union [with the soul] nor by external union [with the body]. For even bad Catholics * 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*; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union [with the soul], not by the external [with the body]; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner, as we have already proved.” cmri.org/02-bellarmine-roman-pontiff.html

And who really cares what Sedevacatists believe anyway. All of a sudden they have validity? Why? They are not part of the Church either.

I care because I think they are drawing a false conclusion and want to point it out to them. “Do unto others”, etc.

These guys are as much heretics as Luther and the rest.

peace

No there not. In my opinion they are drawing a false conclusion because io the scandelous and seeming heretical acts and teachings of the Pope. If they are wrong, they are as much victims of John Paul II’s Papacy as those who now believe that the old covenant is salvific, due to John Paul II’s public teaching that “the old covenant was never revoked by God”.

 

[mgrfin]

I did. I backed it up with a quote from a doctor of the Church, who himself was quoting other authorities

No there not. In my opinion they are drawing a false conclusion because io the scandelous and seeming heretical acts and teachings of the Pope. If they are wrong, they are as much victims of John Paul II’s Papacy as those who now believe that the old covenant is salvific, due to John Paul II’s public teaching that “the old covenant was never revoked by God”.

Pius XII, his encyclical letter, carries more weight than St. Robert Bellarmine, and St. Robert would be the first to admit that.

I don’t trust heretical sources. I will have to research Robert Bellarmine myself, and not some dissent heretical group, presenting Robert Bellarmine.

We’ve had this in the last few days where Sedevacationists were providing false translations to documents.

peace

.

 

[Four_Marks]

Four_Marks;3201489:

Yes, all Catholics on this site convey Catholic teaching, some of rightly, some of us wrongly.

It doesn 't matter what you are about to say, what you say is the product of your immediate thought, and we who read it are to understand you may be misquoting.

We had an incident yesterday where two very believing Roman Catholics had a disagreement regarding Jesus Christ existing from all eternity. One of us was right and one of us was wrong. We worked that out, but one who was wrong accused one who was right of heresy.

Say your piece, whatever it is, and we will watch it closely.

peace

I want to set the stage here.

quote: “It doesn 't matter what you are about to say, what you say is the product of your immediate thought, and we who read it are to understand you may be misquoting.”

Yes, you may think I’m misquoting … but then you are welcome to check the source cited. Ok?

 

[pnewton]

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

If you are referring to the question about the substance of the Sacrament, I did not know it that was a serious question. Since the substance is what is really changed during the Mass, then the substance changes from that of bread to the body and blood of Jesus. What I do not know is what this has to do with changes in the Mass, since this is the constant through history.

 

[pnewton]

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.

Well this is no surprise. Perhaps “gnostic” wasn’t the best term because of its connotation in the early Church. Elitist is more what I was trying for. Whatever you call it, I will have to let it go. No one can be reasoned with who values himself a legend in his own mind.

 

[Four_Marks]

Misunderstandings are big on this site.

I will be anxious to read your special ‘gnosis’ on this belief.

Unfortunately, you will be remaining in a state of anxiety. Your snide comments relating to “gnosticism” make it plain that your level of Catholic knowledge in these matters preclude me, in conscience, from allowing you to attempt to consume and then digest matters that are, quite clearly, beyond your comprehension.

In other words, there is no point including you in the “discussion”, for want of a better term.

 

[Four_Marks]

Well this is no surprise. Perhaps “gnostic” wasn’t the best term because of its connotation in the early Church. Elitist is more what I was trying for. Whatever you call it, I will have to let it go. No one can be reasoned with who values himself a legend in his own mind.

Dear pnewton,

Now before you let yourself go, I’d like to state that you are a valuable human being. Perhaps a little uneducated in the finer matters of Catholicism, but a fine and dandy chap nevertheless.

Yes, pnewton, I will be letting it go as far as you and a select group of others here are concerned. I’ve seen enough to alert me to the fact that all that is offered back are replies of zero substance.

 

[Four_Marks]

If you are referring to the question about the substance of the Sacrament, I did not know it that was a serious question. Since the substance is what is really changed during the Mass, then the substance changes from that of bread to the body and blood of Jesus. What I do not know is what this has to do with changes in the Mass, since this is the constant through history.

It is an extremely serious subject/matter/question.You don’t know. Fair enough

Let me clarify. I’m not willing to discuss that particular aspect of sedevacantism with Pax publicly — it will serve no purpose to do so here.

However, I’m happy to discuss what you’ve written above. What I wont tolerate is a predication that **whatever ** I write is just an interpretation of an opinion, my opinion, gnosticism etc, ***before you’ve (meaning all of the seemingly guaranteed dissenters) even so much as seen what I’m intending to present.

---

Pnewton, you’ve demonstrated that you don’t know what the substance of a sacrament is. This indicates that there are quite probably a multitude of others on here in the same boat. Ergo, there will be value in a presentation of a few Catholic facts relating to this subject. Now, I’m going to think about it, then put together a snynopsis of those teachings to start the ball rolling. Is that ok with you?

 

[mgrfin]

I want to set the stage here.

quote: “It doesn 't matter what you are about to say, what you say is the product of your immediate thought, and we who read it are to understand you may be misquoting.”

Yes, you may think I’m misquoting … but then you are welcome to check the source cited. Ok?

FOUR MARKS
Welcome to check the source? Well, I have to.

Are you one of these Sedevacantists (Vacant Seat)?

Sure would like to know who is talking to us.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

Unfortunately, you will be remaining in a state of anxiety. Your snide comments relating to “gnosticism” make it plain that your level of Catholic knowledge in these matters preclude me, in conscience, from allowing you to attempt to consume and then digest matters that are, quite clearly, beyond your comprehension.

In other words, there is no point including you in the “discussion”, for want of a better term.

I would be very happy to rank my degrees in theology against any that you have.

You are being condescending.

You have a chance to get your points across, or keep it quiet.

Your choice.

peace

 

[Four_Marks]

I would be very happy to rank my degrees in theology against any that you have.

You are being condescending.

You have a chance to get your points across, or keep it quiet.

Your choice.

peace

I’m very sorry. If I’m being condescending, it must be contagious (the whole attitude I’ve seen here).

You will have a chance to exercise your knowledge of theology, just be patient. I’m sure that knowledge isn’t running out the door anytime soon.

Btw, your reference to Pope Pius XII was very apt. I do accept that you have some knowledge.

What has been disappointing here (among other things), was someone’s reference to Pope St. Pius X as “good ol’ Pius X”. This person compared a Pope Saint to Karl Rahner, and attempted to label Pope St. Pius X as a modernist. It’s sheer lunacy like that that makes me wonder if this is just a giant circus?

Take care,
Four_Marks

 

[Four_Marks]

FOUR MARKS
Welcome to check the source? Well, I have to.

Are you one of these Sedevacantists (Vacant Seat)?

Sure would like to know who is talking to us.

peace

Sorry, I thought it was obvious that I’m a Catholic who believes that the Church is in a state of sede vacante. I’m sure you are aware that the Church is sometimes in this state.

Er… similarly, I’d like to know to whom I’m talking.

Cheers,

Four_Marks