sedevacantism

[Paul_Danon]

This thread takes up the discussion begun in “would I be welcome here if?” Let battle commence (or resume)! BTW, I found the previous thread most interesting and civilised. People were very good-natured and courteous.

 

[Paul_Danon]

Forgive me if I do the quote below in full. The thread is closed so I need to pick up where this particular topic left off.
post 247 from the closed "would I be welcome" thread:

I emphatically deny that it teaches what you are saying it does. Here is a more extensive quote from Unitatis Redintegratio 3

“Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church
itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.

The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such,
though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of
salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life- that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is “the all-embracing means of salvation,” that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God’s gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.

It is clear from this that Unitatis Redintegratio does not teach that the faith and practices of other Churches do not provide a means to salvation apart from the Catholic Church. Whatever graces they can provide are from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church. This is how they can provide access to the community of salvation (which is the Church itself) and each can only do so according to its own condition. In other words, because the Orthodox bishops are valid through Apostolic succession, they can provide the graces available in the seven Sacraments. The Episcopal church cannot.

Additionally, the Holy Spirit does work in those communities in order to try and lead them to follow the natural law established by God and back to Christ and His Church. To deny this is to deny the possibility of conversion! Have you never heard of the baptism of desire? This is the underlying principle of that doctrine! Once again, we see that the teaching of the Church was not changed by Vatican II.

*Unitatis redintegratio *may contain some truth but that doesn’t mean it can’t contain error.

Say I say to you that:

1. 
   *]red is red
   *]blue is blue
   *]yellow is yellow
   *]black is white
   
   and you point out that black isn’t white. I might reply: “Aha, but 1 to 3 are correct.” You’d be right in saying to me that, just because 1 to 3 are correct, that doesn’t make 4 right too.
   
   Unitatis redintegratio may have some correct stuff in it, but it also says that the holy Ghost uses protestant services and that those churches are means of salvation.

 

[Smack_Daddy]

Sedevacantist have abandoned the faith. What they believe, that the Novus Ordo is an invalid mass, is impossible - that is if you believe the promise of Christ that he would never allow the gates of hell to overtake the Church. But if the Novus Ordo mass is invalid, then that’s exactly what has happened.

 

[Mandi]

Here is a quote from Catholic-pages.com dealing with Mel Gibson being schismatic.

“Johnson believes that the confusion started when American bishops took Vatican II as an excuse to sweep away any part of the Church that they didn’t like personally - " not just the Latin of the liturgy but, as we’ve seen, even the most basic doctrines of human decency”. Since 1993, more than 80 percent of the Catholic bishops in the United States have been directly implicated in court cases of priestly pedophilia or in using their positions to shield such activity over the past 40 years or more, according to a study compiled by reporters Brooks Egerton and Reese Dunklin of the Dallas Morning News last year."

My thought here is that if people believe that the above is not only happening but also the problem. Than how can Vactican II been seen as having any good fruits. If the Church is no longer producing “good fruit” - Which as we know is impossible - The True Church of Jesus Christ can neither deceive nor be deceived. What has the Pope done to correct or stop this from happening. If 2 popes - Pope Clement VII and Paul IV let all of England go rather than bend the laws of The Catholic Church to suit Henry VIII how come JP II has not done the same. This has gone further than just being a weak pope!

 

[Joe_Omlor]

Sedevacantist have abandoned the faith.

No, the New Religion has replaced the True Faith.

What they believe, that the Novus Ordo is an invalid mass, is impossible -

The impossible is happening then.

that is if you believe the promise of Christ that he would never allow the gates of hell to overtake the Church.

That is why sedevacantists recognize that the True Faith is alive, but not in the New Religion of The Vatican 2 Church.

But if the Novus Ordo mass is invalid, then that’s exactly what has happened

No. The Novus Ordo “mass” has changed Our Lord’s own words. The consecration in English says our Lord said “for all” when he really said "for many."

It contradicts the Bible. A lie can not bring about transubstantiation.

Just because some people who claim to represent the true Church, have made the changes, it does not follow that gates of hell have overtaken the Church.

Here is something from Saint Athanasius:

LETTER OF SAINT ATHANASIUS to His Flock
Saint Anthanasius lived in the fourth century and was the Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt for 46 years.
Banned from his diocese at least five times, he spent a total of 17 years in exile. The famous convert to the Church, John Henry Cardinal Newman, described him as a “principal instrument after the Apostles by which the sacred truths of Christianity have been conveyed and secured to the world.”
Often referred to as the Champion of Orthodoxy, Saint Athanasius was undoubtedly one of the most courageous defenders of the faith in the entire history of the Church. If anyone can be singled out as a saint for our times, surely it is Saint Athanasius.
The following letter of his could, almost word for word, have been written today.

May God console you!..what saddens you…is the fact that others have occupied the Churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises----but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our Churches, but they are outside the True Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the faith dwells within you. Let us consider: What is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in this struggle—the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith?
True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way…
You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your faith who hold firmly to the foundations of the faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis.
No one, ever, will prevail against your faith, beloved brothers. And we believe that God will give us our Churches back some day.
Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray.
Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to an handful, they are the ones who are the True Church of Jesus Christ.
(Coll.selecta SS. Eccl. Patrum, Caillau and Guillou, Vol.32, pp 411-412)

 

[CindyJ]

Smack Daddy:

Sedevacantist have abandoned the faith. What they believe, that the Novus Ordo is an invalid mass, is impossible - that is if you believe the promise of Christ that he would never allow the gates of hell to overtake the Church. But if the Novus Ordo mass is invalid, then that’s exactly what has happened.

But, Smack Daddy, we have over two-thousand years of Catholocism, over 200 Popes and numerous encyclicals to back up for our beliefs. You have 40 years of liberal leaders, butchered doctrine, ambiguous encyclicals, scandals, abuses and a religion which departs radically from the pre-Vatican II religion. Either they were right then and you are wrong now, or they were wrong then and you are right now. Which is it? Surely, you must know that it’s impossible to have two sets of Truths. Though it may seem obscure at this time, the Church, indeed, is still living. It’s not at all impossible for a heresy to go on for many years, as I’m sure you’re aware of. We pray continually for the restoration of Rome. Have you read: The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita? tanbooks.com/?page=shop/flypage&product_id=547&

**“Vatican II is the French Revolution of the Church.” **
~Cardinal Suenens, Council father, Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p. 100.

“Catholics … must not forget that all roads lead to God. And they will have to accept that this courageous idea of freethinking, which we can really call a revolution, pouring forth from our Masonic lodges, has spread magnificently over the dome of St. Peter’s.”
~Yves Marsaudon of the Scottish Rite, ibid, pp. 88-89.

**“One can say that ecumenism is the legitimate son of Freemasonry” **
~Yves Marsaudon of the Scottish Rite, Oecumensisme vu par un Macon de Tradition , pp. 119-120.

 

[cmom]

Sedes have jumped from the ship of Peter and are swimming with the sharks.

They have damaged the Church with their sins, and need prayers.

 

[bengal_fan]

Unitatis redintegratio may have some correct stuff in it, but it also says that the holy Ghost uses protestant services and that those churches are means of salvation.

how can you say that the Holy Spirit doesn’t use protestant services? the scripture says that you can tell a tree from it’s fruits and there has been a lot of “good fruit” to come from protestant churches. just because they don’t have the fullness of the faith, doesn’t mean God doesn’t use them.

"No. The Novus Ordo “mass” has changed Our Lord’s own words. The consecration in English says our Lord said “for all” when he really said "for many."

the word can be translated either way. and it seems the “for all” translation is more in line with the rest of scripture and the teachings of the church. the “for many” seems very calvinistic. so are you a presbyterian now?

 

[cmom]

They certainly are no longer Catholic!

 

[Joe_Omlor]

cmom:

Sedes have jumped from the ship of Peter and are swimming with the sharks.

They have damaged the Church with their sins, and need prayers.

Are you speaking authoritatively…or is that just your opinion?

 

[Joe_Omlor]

"No. The Novus Ordo “mass” has changed Our Lord’s own words. The consecration in English says our Lord said “for all” when he really said "for many."

the word can be translated either way.

So you say.

…so are you a presbyterian now?
If you are asking that, then you do not really understand the issue.

 

[Joe_Omlor]

cmom:

They certainly are no longer Catholic!

Are you the pope?

 

[bengal_fan]

"No. The Novus Ordo “mass” has changed Our Lord’s own words. The consecration in English says our Lord said “for all” when he really said "for many."

the word can be translated either way.

So you say.

…so are you a presbyterian now?
If you are asking that, then you do not really understand the issue.

not “so i say” so says linguistics. and i do understand the issue, my point was that your translation seems to perpetuate pre-destination which is a calvinist idea.

 

[Vincent]

From Fr. John McCarthy’s “The Sacramental Validity of ‘For You and For All’”:

“The Holy See examines the translation of a sacramental form into the vernacular and, when it judges that the translation rightly expresses the meaning intended by the Church, approves and confirms the translation. In so doing the Holy See is stipulating that the meaning of the translation is to be understood in accord with the mind of the Church as expressed by the original Latin text” (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Instauratio liturgica, 25 January 1974, in *AAS * 66 [1974], p. 661 - English translation in ICEL: Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979 [The Liturgical Press: Collegeville, Minnesota, 1982], p. 299).
And what’s in the “original Latin text” (1969 Missale Romanum)?

HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI NOVI ET ETERNI TESTAMENTI, QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM.
Therefore, the meaning of “for all” in English is to be understood according to the mind of the Church as expressed by “pro multis”.

 

[cmom]

Are you speaking authoritatively…or is that just your opinion?

Common sense. and not opinion.

You are either for the Church or against the Church, you are either helping or hurting, following or going off by yourself into protest.

“If a baptised person deliberately denies or doubts a dogma properly so-called, he is guilty of the sin of heresy, and automatically becomes subject to the punshment of ex-communication”
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ott
[my light summer reading]

 

[Joe_Omlor]

First, St, Alphonsus: **“The words pro vobis et pro multis (`For you and for many’) are used to distinguish the virtue of the blood of Christ from its fruits; for the blood of our Saviour is of sufficient value to save all men, but its fruits are applicable only to a certain number and not to all, and this is their own fault. Or, as the theologians say, this precious blood is (in itself) sufficiently (sufficienter) able to save all men, but (on our part) effectually (efficaciter) it does not save all – it saves only those who co-operate with grace. This is the explanation of St. Thomas, as quoted by Benedict XIV.”

**Second, the Roman Catechism: “For if we look at the vertue of it, it must be confess’d, that our Savior shed his Blood for the salvation of all men. But if we look at the fruit which men gather from thence, we may easily understand that it comes not to all to advantage, but only to some. When therefore he said, For you*,' he signifi'd either them that were then *present*, or those whom he had *chosen* out of the *Jewish people*, such as were his *Disciples*, except *Judas*, with whom he spake. But when he added, *For many,’ he would have the rest that were elected, either Jews or Gentiles, to be understood.”
**
Continuing, the Catechism explicitly singles out the ICEL’s false substitution “for all” in the wine-consecration form as being contrary to “the design of the discourse”; that is, contrary to the Mind of Christ, when in instituting the Holy Sacrament He expressly said “for many,” meaning not all men, but only the members of His Church, the Mystical Body, the elect, who are the only ones who actually benefit ultimately from the “fruits of the Passion,” namely, the “Fruit of Salvation”:

“Rightly therefore was it done, that it was not said `for all,’ seeing that in this place the design of the discourse extends only to the fruits of the Passion, which brought the Fruit of Salvation only to the Elect.”**

The foregoing excerpts are from p. 207 of the first translation of the Roman Catechism into English, published at London in 1687, under the Catholic King James II. Hence the archaic expressions and spelling (e.g. “vertue”).

sedevacantist.com/newmass/precis.html

 

[Ham1]

Vincent:

From Fr. John McCarthy’s “The Sacramental Validity of ‘For You and For All’”:

“The Holy See examines the translation of a sacramental form into the vernacular and, when it judges that the translation rightly expresses the meaning intended by the Church, approves and confirms the translation. In so doing the Holy See is stipulating that the meaning of the translation is to be understood in accord with the mind of the Church as expressed by the original Latin text” (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Instauratio liturgica, 25 January 1974, in *AAS * 66 [1974], p. 661 - English translation in ICEL: Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979 [The Liturgical Press: Collegeville, Minnesota, 1982], p. 299).
And what’s in the “original Latin text” (1969 Missale Romanum)?

HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI NOVI ET ETERNI TESTAMENTI, QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM.
Therefore, the meaning of “for all” in English is to be understood according to the mind of the Church as expressed by “pro multis”.

Joe,

Okay, picking on the “pro multis” line in the Mass is probably the oldest and lamest complaint against the Mass. Look at it this way, is this statement false:

Christ died for many.

No, it makes sense.

Christ died for all.

No, this also makes sense. In fact, one could make a case that it makes MORE sense than the previous translation because Christ as God desires that ALL be with him in heavan. He died for ALL men. Because he deeply loves ALL men. Unfortunately, because of sin, some men reject Christ’s love and saving grace. Christ died for those men as well but sadly, they have rejected His grace and languish in hell.

Hope this helps!

 

[Joe_Omlor]

Okay, picking on the “pro multis” line in the Mass is probably the oldest and lamest complaint against the Mass.

In your erroneous opinion.

…Hope this helps!

Sorry but not at all.

What Christ really said at the first Mass is what matters. See your Bible, then get back to us.

**Did you even bother to read the article I linked to? **

Here it is again. Why don’t you read it?

sedevacantist.com/newmass/precis.html

 

[Ham1]

Joe Omlor:

Okay, picking on the “pro multis” line in the Mass is probably the oldest and lamest complaint against the Mass.

In your erroneous opinion.

…Hope this helps!

Sorry but not at all.

What Christ really said at the first Mass is what matters. See your Bible, then get back to us.

**Did you even bother to read the article I linked to? **

Here it is again. Why don’t you read it?

sedevacantist.com/newmass/precis.html

Hey, here’s a refreshing concept… Why not take issue with the substance of what I said? Or is that too daunting a task for you.

I’ll read your article. Just give me a little time. I don’t read that fast.

Oh, by the way, I have to compliment you on the way that you answer everyone’s posts with “wrong” or “in your opinion.” Of course, it’s my opinion, I wrote it! You don’t need to state the obvious. At the top of each post there is a user name listed. I think that we can all safely assume that anything written in the space below that name represents the opinion of that individual.

 

[Joe_Omlor]

Ham1:

Hey, here’s a refreshing concept… Why not take issue with the substance of what I said? Or is that too daunting a task for you.

Calm down. No need to get insulting.

I have taken issue with what you said. Read the article!

I’ll read your article. Just give me a little time. I don’t read that fast.

Then do not be so fast with the accusations and insults.

Oh, by the way, I have to compliment you on the way that you answer everyone’s posts with “wrong” or “in your opinion.”

Not everyone’s!

Of course, it’s my opinion, I wrote it! You don’t need to state the obvious. At the top of each post there is a user name listed. I think that we can all safely assume that anything written in the space below that name represents the opinion of that individual.

**I say that when you make blanket statements with nothing to back them up. Do not blame me. **

Please read the article, and pray.