Sedevacantism/MHFM?

[cam100]

And just one priest would constitute hierarchy.

And I say you are wrong because only the episcopacy posseses the qualities integral to the Church. Priests are not strictly necessary, but bishops are.

Let’s get this out of the way, THE GATES OF HELL CAN NOT PREVAIL AGAINST THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. I never said they could. Please have just a basic understanding of Sede Vacantism before you try to argue against it.

I have more than a basic understanding of sedevacantism, but you didn’t seem to read carefully what I posted. I never said that you thought that the gates of hell had prevailed. You probably assume that’s what everyone who submits to Pope Benedict XVI thinks of your viewpoint, but you’re wrong there. I know that we both believe the gates of hell have not prevailed, and I was using that common standpoint as a basis for my argument. Please read what I said again, and there is no reason to yell.

These are not interpretation but simple reading and comprehension, although we are not required to try to give an orthodox interpretation to a quote. If it is ambiguous or heretical sounding in any way, then we are to take it as heretical until proven otherwise. Here is the Bull Auctorem Fidei by Pope Pius VI 1794: "In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain
frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: WHENEVER IT BECOMES NECESSARY TO EXPOSE STATEMENTS WHICH **DISGUISE SOME SUSPECTED ERROR **OR DANGER UNDER THE VEIL OF AMBIGUITY, ONE MUST DENOUNCE THE PERVERSE MEANING UNDER WHICH THE ERROR OPPOSED TO CATHOLIC TRUTH IS CAMOUFLAGED.”

Please examine this teaching.

This quote from the Auctorem Fidei was directed at the Jansenistic teachings of the Synod of Pistoia, which was directed by a Jansenist bishop who tried to promote his errors though deceptive language. You are assuming that John Paul II was also attempting to disguise errors “under the veil of ambiguity”, and thus merits a condemnation as well. But this basic assumption is unfounded and unjust.

 

[Usagi]

Or that Paul VI favored birth control.

Okay, this one I have to question.

Wasn’t Paul VI the very Pope who promulgated Humanae Vitae, upholding the Church’s prohibition on artificial birth control against the recommendations of the committee he’d called to study the issue?

At what point did Paul VI favor birth control?

Usagi

 

[louey]

I went to a funeral for a friend. He was Jewish, and I wore a jamuka. So what?

Am I Jewish, am I an atheist, or an unbeliver?

You have to think outside of the box.

peace

Okay, this one I have to question.

Wasn’t Paul VI the very Pope who promulgated Humanae Vitae, upholding the Church’s prohibition on artificial birth control against the recommendations of the committee he’d called to study the issue?

At what point did Paul VI favor birth control?

Usagi

NFP is Birth Control. Condemned by Pope Pius XI dogmatically in Casti Connubii.

 

[mgrfin]

To go to a funeral of a Jew and ware jamuka you have denied Christ, and the need to believe in Him to be saved. You are a cause of scandal. You have given, in just your presence alone, that one can be saved as a Jew. That is not including what you may have said, or rather your words. You have committed a mortal sin. It is forbidden for any Catholic to go to any non-Catholic religious service.

And you are setting yourself up as my judge? I committed a mortal sin? Where does it say I am not permitted to go to any non-Catholic religious service?

Jesus wore a yamuka. Jesus was Jewish. You have a problem with Jews?. Are you a Feeneyite who despises Jews.

Are you with Fr. Coughlin who embarassed himself and our faith with the hatred of the Semites.

After WWII I thought we got over this, but apparently not.

Please do not judge me. You are not entitled to do so.

I remain charitably disposed to you; I will pray for you that you stop this kind of smear and hatred.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

Let’s get this out of the way, THE GATES OF HELL CAN NOT PREVAIL AGAINST THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. I never said they could. Please have just a basic understanding of Sede Vacantism before you try to argue against it.:

I know if my day is not enlightened by studying SV. I know my life is not enhanced by the preaching of error.

I know spiritually, that we resist such doctrinal errors, forgive those preaching such, and pray for them daily.

I will continue to work to stamp out this error, by my time, my effort,. my example and my prayer.

I hope there are others on this website who feel the same way, and will condemn these errors, in a Christian, charitable way.

peace

 

[jim28]

And I say you are wrong because only the episcopacy posseses the qualities integral to the Church. Priests are not strictly necessary, but bishops are.

Pope Pius XII, Ad Sinarum gentum (# 13), Oct. 7, 1954: “Besides – as has also been divinely established – the power of orders (through which the ecclesiastical hierarchy is composed of bishops, priests, and ministers) comes from receiving the Sacrament of Holy Orders.”

Pius XII teaches that priests are part of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Show which Pope teaches that only Bishops are necessary for there to be a hierarchy. Bishops need to be priests first.

I have more than a basic understanding of sedevacantism, but you didn’t seem to read carefully what I posted. I never said that you thought that the gates of hell had prevailed. You probably assume that’s what everyone who submits to Pope Benedict XVI thinks of your viewpoint, but you’re wrong there. I know that we both believe the gates of hell have not prevailed, and I was using that common standpoint as a basis for my argument. Please read what I said again, and there is no reason to yell.

I am sorry for yelling but everyone else on these forums who disagree with sede’s can’t seem to understand that we believe that the Gate of hell have not prevailed, and it is precisely for this reason that we cannot believe that we have a pope right now.

This quote from the Auctorem Fidei was directed at the Jansenistic teachings of the Synod of Pistoia, which was directed by a Jansenist bishop who tried to promote his errors though deceptive language. You are assuming that John Paul II was also attempting to disguise errors “under the veil of ambiguity”, and thus merits a condemnation as well. But this basic assumption is unfounded and unjust.

1. The condemnations of Pistoia are relevant to anyone who says these things and anyone who uses deceptive language.
2. I am assuming nothing. Most of the time JPII didn’t even veil his heresies. Other times he did do exactly the what was condemned in Auctorem Fidei.
   

 

[jim28]

Okay, this one I have to question.

Wasn’t Paul VI the very Pope who promulgated Humanae Vitae, upholding the Church’s prohibition on artificial birth control against the recommendations of the committee he’d called to study the issue?

At what point did Paul VI favor birth control?

Usagi

Paul VI, Speech, Nov. 16, 1970: “…this, among other effects, will undoubtedly favor a rational control of birth by couples…”

Paul VI, Address, Aug. 24, 1969: “…the liberty of husband and wife and does not forbid them a moral and reasonable limitation of birth…”

Paul VI, Humanae Vitae (No. 16), July 25, 1968: “It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid
children and wish to make sure that none will result.

 

[mgrfin]

1. The condemnations of Pistoia are relevant to anyone who says these things and anyone who uses deceptive language.
2. I am assuming nothing. Most of the time JPII didn’t even veil his heresies. Other times he did do exactly the what was condemned in Auctorem Fidei.
   

I don’t know why you think we are stupid.

The Synod of Pistoia has been condemned.

Ref: CE:
quote
They condemned the synod and stigmatized eighty-five of its propositions as erroneous and dangerous. Pius VI on 28 August, 1794, dealt the death-blow to the influence of the synod and of Jansenism in Italy in his Bull “Auctorem Fidei”.

Why does such an insignificant synod keep getting quoted by these SV people?

Charity towards those who hate us, and prayers for their return to the faith.

peace

 

[jim28]

I know if my day is not enlightened by studying SV. I know my life is not enhanced by the preaching of error.

I know spiritually, that we resist such doctrinal errors, forgive those preaching such, and pray for them daily.

I will continue to work to stamp out this error, by my time, my effort,. my example and my prayer.

I hope there are others on this website who feel the same way, and will condemn these errors, in a Christian, charitable way.

peace

It may sound funny, but I agree with everything you just said. We are in grave Doctrinal Error from the Vatican II church because we believe in Catholic Teaching not VII teaching. We are in doctrinal error from other protestant sects also.
Please abjure your errors and defense of heretics and convert to the Catholic Church.

 

[mgrfin]

It may sound funny, but I agree with everything you just said. We are in grave Doctrinal Error from the Vatican II church because we believe in Catholic Teaching not VII teaching. We are in doctrinal error from other protestant sects also.
Please abjure your errors and defense of heretics and convert to the Catholic Church.

I am a member of the Catholic Church, and have been all of my life. I hope and pray to die that way as well.

As for converting to SV, I don’t think so.

We pray for you, and will continue to treat you in the most charitable way our faith commands.

peace

 

[cam100]

Pius XII teaches that priests are part of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Show which Pope teaches that only Bishops are necessary for there to be a hierarchy. Bishops need to be priests first.

Bishops are necessary because they are an integral part of the Church. From the Baltimore Catechism:

1. What is the Church?
   The Church is the congregation of all baptized persons united in the same true faith, the same sacrifice, and the same sacraments, under the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff and the bishops in communion with him.

1. What is meant by the authority of the Catholic Church?
   By the authority of the Catholic Church is meant that the Pope and the bishops, as the lawful successors of the apostles, **have power from Christ Himself to teach, to sanctify, and to govern the faithful **in spiritual matters.

1. When does the Church teach infallibly?
   The Church teaches infallibly when it defines, through the Pope alone, as the teacher of all Christians, or through the Pope and the bishops, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by all the faithful.

Thus you can see that bishops are essential to the identity of the Church, to her authority, and they share in her infallibility. A church without the episcopacy would not have the characteristics of the Catholic Church, and therefore could not be the Catholic Church.

1. The condemnations of Pistoia are **relevant to **anyone who says these things and anyone who uses deceptive language.
2. I am assuming nothing. Most of the time JPII didn’t even veil his heresies. Other times he did do exactly the what was condemned in Auctorem Fidei.
   

But you ARE assuming something - you are assuming that John Paul II used deceptive language, when he could have been saying something that is correct if understood in the intended context.

Just because something is not expressed completely or is hard to understand or is ambiguous does not make it heresy. Why did our Lord say “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), with no explanation following? This is certainly not a complete explantion of the Trinity, it can be hard to understand, and it can be ambiguous, as evidenced by the huge numbers of Arians that thought it meant that Christ was not God.

 

[jim28]

I am a member of the Catholic Church, and have been all of my life. I hope and pray to die that way as well.

As for converting to SV, I don’t think so.

We pray for you, and will continue to treat you in the most charitable way our faith commands.

peace

Sede Vacantism is not a religion. Vatican II is not a religion. As soon as you accept V II’s teachings you are not Catholic anymore.
If you are to be Catholic you must accept the Sede Vacantist position. Whether you believe it or not the Catholic Church does not have a pope right now.

peace

 

[Usagi]

Paul VI, Speech, Nov. 16, 1970: “…this, among other effects, will undoubtedly favor a rational control of birth by couples…”

The complete section that includes your excerpt is this.
Pope Paul VI:

1. Certainly in the face of the difficulties to be overcome there is a great temptation to use one’s authority to diminish the number of guests rather than to multiply the bread that is to be shared. We are not at all unaware of the opinions held in international organizations which extol planned birth control which, it is believed, will bring a radical solution to the problems of developing countries. We must repeat this today: the Church, on her part, in every domain of human action encourages scientific and technical progress, but always claiming respect for the inviolable rights of the human person whose primary guarantors are the public authorities. Being firmly opposed to a birth control which according to the just expression of our venerable predecessor Pope John XXIII would be in accordance with “methods and means which are unworthy of man” (15), the Church calls all those responsible to work with fearlessness and generosity for the development of the whole man and every man; this, among other effects will undoubtedly favour a rational control of birth by couples who are capable of freely assuming their destiny (16). On your part, it is man whom you help and whom you support. And how would you ever be able to act against him, because you do not exist except through him and for him and since you cannot succeed without him?

From the context (in which he reiterates the Church’s condemnation of birth control), it’s clear that Paul VI did not refer to condemned forms of birth control in using the phrase you quote. “Rational control of birth” within that immediate context must mean a practice that is consonant with Church teaching, perhaps abstinence when a couple is unable to support children.

Paul VI, Address, Aug. 24, 1969: “…the liberty of husband and wife and does not forbid them a moral and reasonable limitation of birth…”

I cannot locate a full version of this address, only your own quotation and a similar one from the MHFM site. However, again I find it difficult to believe that the man who promulgated Humanae Vitae (offending many both within and outside the Church) actually supported the very practice he condemned.

Paul VI, Humanae Vitae (No. 16), July 25, 1968: “It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid
children and wish to make sure that none will result.

This is from the section of HV in which Paul VI draws a distinction between NFP (permitted for sufficient reason) and artificial forms of birth control (forbidden). I take it you do not recognize that distinction?

Usagi

 

[jim28]

Bishops are necessary because they are an integral part of the Church. From the Baltimore Catechism:

Thus you can see that bishops are essential to the identity of the Church, to her authority, and they share in her infallibility. A church without the episcopacy would not have the characteristics of the Catholic Church, and therefore could not be the Catholic Church.

The subject is not infallibility. The subject is Hierarchy and priests are part of that. What you just quoted in the BC does not prove that we must have Bishops in order to have a hierarchy.

But you ARE assuming something - you are assuming that John Paul II used deceptive language, when he could have been saying something that is correct if understood in the intended context.

Saying that Christ’s “blood reaches all and saves ALL” is not deceptive, it means just what it says.

Just because something is not expressed completely or is hard to understand or is ambiguous does not make it heresy.

Auctorem Fidei: "In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain
frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: WHENEVER IT BECOMES NECESSARY TO EXPOSE STATEMENTS WHICH DISGUISE SOME SUSPECTED ERROR OR DANGER UNDER THE VEIL OF AMBIGUITY, ONE MUST
DENOUNCE THE PERVERSE MEANING UNDER WHICH THE ERROR OPPOSED TO CATHOLIC TRUTH IS CAMOUFLAGED.”
You are to denounce the perverse meaning that is veiled in ambiguity. Saying that Christ united himself with each man forever is at least Ambiguous, if not blatant. We are to denounce this as meaning the perverse doctrine that no one can go to hell, as no one in hell could possibly be united with Christ.

Why did our Lord say “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), with no explanation following? This is certainly not a complete explantion of the Trinity, it can be hard to understand, and it can be ambiguous, as evidenced by the huge numbers of Arians that thought it meant that Christ was not God.

This is not ambiguous. The Father is greater than Jesus, He is the First person in the Trinity. Jesus said Greater, not different.

 

[jim28]

The complete section that includes your excerpt is this.

From the context (in which he reiterates the Church’s condemnation of birth control), it’s clear that Paul VI did not refer to condemned forms of birth control in using the phrase you quote. “Rational control of birth” within that immediate context must mean a practice that is consonant with Church teaching, perhaps abstinence when a couple is unable to support children.

I cannot locate a full version of this address, only your own quotation and a similar one from the MHFM site. However, again I find it difficult to believe that the man who promulgated Humanae Vitae (offending many both within and outside the Church) actually supported the very practice he condemned.

This is from the section of HV in which Paul VI draws a distinction between NFP (permitted for sufficient reason) and artificial forms of birth control (forbidden). I take it you do not recognize that distinction?

Usagi

An answer to your quotes can be summed thusly:
Any time that a couple deliberately uses the marital act with the intention of not having Children, it is intrinsically evil. No exceptions.
If the wife is sick, or you don’t have money, etc… don’t excerscise your marital rights until the situation improves.
Condoms have a 25% chance of breaking, resulting in pregnancy. NFP, if used correctly, has a 1% chance of resulting in pregnancy. If NFP is open to the transmission of life then condoms are sure open as well.

 

[mgrfin]

The subject is not infallibility. The subject is Hierarchy and priests are part of that. What you just quoted in the BC does not prove that we must have Bishops in order to have a hierarchy.

Saying that Christ’s “blood reaches all and saves ALL” is not deceptive, it means just what it says.

Auctorem Fidei: "In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain
frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: WHENEVER IT BECOMES NECESSARY TO EXPOSE STATEMENTS WHICH DISGUISE SOME SUSPECTED ERROR OR DANGER UNDER THE VEIL OF AMBIGUITY, ONE MUST
DENOUNCE THE PERVERSE MEANING UNDER WHICH THE ERROR OPPOSED TO CATHOLIC TRUTH IS CAMOUFLAGED.”
You are to denounce the perverse meaning that is veiled in ambiguity. Saying that Christ united himself with each man forever is at least Ambiguous, if not blatant. We are to denounce this as meaning the perverse doctrine that no one can go to hell, as no one in hell could possibly be united with Christ.

This is not ambiguous. The Father is greater than Jesus, He is the First person in the Trinity. Jesus said Greater, not different.

“The Father and I are One”. The Father and the Son are co-equal.

**I thought we decided that back in Nicea. The three divine Persons are perfectly equal to one another, because all are one and the same God. **

Please find something to quote other than “Auctorem Fidei”. This is like the SV people quoting Robert Bellarmine.

The modern Church is teaching to us from Vatican 2. Maybe the SV’s should dust off copies of “Lumen Gentium” and take it to heart.

One thing is clear: criticism of the Roman Catholic Church is shallow, and the Holy Spirit resides here.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

An answer to your quotes can be summed thusly:
Any time that a couple deliberately uses the marital act with the intention of not having Children, it is intrinsically evil. No exceptions.
If the wife is sick, or you don’t have money, etc… don’t excerscise your marital rights until the situation improves.
Condoms have a 25% chance of breaking, resulting in pregnancy. NFP, if used correctly, has a 1% chance of resulting in pregnancy. If NFP is open to the transmission of life then condoms are sure open as well.

Condoms have a 25% chance of breaking???

Where are you buying your condoms, Home Depot?

peace

 

[Jo_Benedict]

Note:

This thread is closed. Thanks to all who participated in the discussion.