Sedevacantist against the True Chruch and our Blessed Pope

[LatinOnlyPlease]

traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A055rcKoran.htm A photograph of the Pope kissing the Koran

 

[dbacks5439]

traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A055rcKoran.htm A photograph of the Pope kissing the Koran

The quote that was found inside the link says that the Pope kissed the koran as a sign of respect. Giving a person respect is not the same as endorsing another religion’s doctrines. I can give people respect even though they may be pro-choice or if they are atheists. I don’t condone their lifestyle, however to deny a person respect is ignoring the Gospel. Pray that Satan may no longer deceive you.

 

[Aramis]

Just a thought here, but under the deifinitions of infalibility in V I, anything which doesn’t affect the church as a whole isn’t infallible.

Anything dealing with the latin liturgy alone is by definition not affecting the entire church, and thus is not infallible.

 

[SFD]

Just a thought here, but under the deifinitions of infalibility in V I, anything which doesn’t affect the church as a whole isn’t infallible.

Anything dealing with the latin liturgy alone is by definition not affecting the entire church, and thus is not infallible.

Aramis,

This is false. The disciplines and liturgy are the secondary objects of infallibility. This is taught in all the dogmatic theology manuals. It is classified as theologically certain and as such, you must give you assent under the pain of mortal sin.

Assertion 3: The Church’s infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain.

By the term “general discipline of the Church” are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living. Note the italicized words: ecclesiastical laws, passed for the universal Church.

The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office but to the ruling office; disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. When the Church’s rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment:

1. “This law squares with the Church’s doctrine of faith and morals”; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. (15) This amounts to a doctrinal decree.

1. “This law, considering all the circumstances, is most opportune.” This is a decree of practical judgment.

Although it would he rash to cast aspersions on the timeliness of a law, especially at the very moment when the Church imposes or expressly reaffirms it, still the Church does not claim to he infallible in issuing a decree of practical judgment. For the Church’s rulers were never promised the highest degree of prudence for the conduct of affairs. But the Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above — and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls.

The Church’s infallibility in disciplinary matters, when understood in this way, harmonizes beautifully with the mutability of even universal laws. For a law, even though it be thoroughly consonant with revealed truth, can, given a change in circumstances, become less timely or even useless, so that prudence may dictate its abrogation or modification.

Proof:

1. From the purpose of infallibility. The Church was endowed with infallibility that it might safeguard the whole of Christ’s doctrine and be for all men a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. But if the Church could make a mistake in the manner alleged when it legislated for the general discipline, it would no longer be either a loyal guardian of revealed doctrine or a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. It would not be a guardian of revealed doctrine, for the imposition of a vicious law would be, for all practical purposes, tantamount to an erroneous definition of doctrine; everyone would naturally conclude that what the Church had commanded squared with sound doctrine. It would not be a teacher of the Christian way of life, for by its laws it would induce corruption into the practice of religious life.

1. From the official statement of the Church, which stigmatized as “at least erroneous” the hypothesis “that the Church could establish discipline which would be dangerous, harmful, and conducive to superstition and materialism. (16)

SFD

 

[cam100]

Quote:
Assertion 3: The Church’s infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain.

By the term “general discipline of the Church” are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living. Note the italicized words: ecclesiastical laws, passed for the universal Church.

The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office but to the ruling office; disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. When the Church’s rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment:

1. “This law squares with the Church’s doctrine of faith and morals”; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. (15) This amounts to a doctrinal decree.
2. “This law, considering all the circumstances, is most opportune.” This is a decree of practical judgment.

Although it would he rash to cast aspersions on the timeliness of a law, especially at the very moment when the Church imposes or expressly reaffirms it, still the Church does not claim to he infallible in issuing a decree of practical judgment. For the Church’s rulers were never promised the highest degree of prudence for the conduct of affairs. But the Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above — and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls.

The Church’s infallibility in disciplinary matters, when understood in this way, harmonizes beautifully with the mutability of even universal laws. For a law, even though it be thoroughly consonant with revealed truth, can, given a change in circumstances, become less timely or even useless, so that prudence may dictate its abrogation or modification.

Proof:

1. From the purpose of infallibility. The Church was endowed with infallibility that it might safeguard the whole of Christ’s doctrine and be for all men a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. But if the Church could make a mistake in the manner alleged when it legislated for the general discipline, it would no longer be either a loyal guardian of revealed doctrine or a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. It would not be a guardian of revealed doctrine, for the imposition of a vicious law would be, for all practical purposes, tantamount to an erroneous definition of doctrine; everyone would naturally conclude that what the Church had commanded squared with sound doctrine. It would not be a teacher of the Christian way of life, for by its laws it would induce corruption into the practice of religious life.
2. From the official statement of the Church, which stigmatized as “at least erroneous” the hypothesis “that the Church could establish discipline which would be dangerous, harmful, and conducive to superstition and materialism. (16)

SFD,

Thank you for posting this. Can you provide the source for your quoted piece? I want to show this to someone else but I would like to be able to name the original source as well.

 

[JMMK]

This dogma of the Church was made obscure by the document called “Lumen Gentium” of the Second Vatican Council. Whereas the Church has always affirmed that the Church founded by Christ was one and the same as the Catholic Church by using the word “is”, “Lumen Gentium” created havoc by stating that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. As in there are other churches besides the Catholic Church within the Church of Christ, many martyrs have died cruel deaths defending and standing up for this basic tenet of our faith. Vatican II makes a mockery of those saintly martyrs.

Weak stuff. Hope you have better than that.

“Christ, the one Mediator, established and continually sustains here on earth His holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as an entity with visible delineation (9*) through which He communicated truth and grace to all. But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element.(10*) …
This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth”.(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity”

Direct quote from Lumen Gentium. Chapter 1 sect 8.

Subsist:

1. to exist; continue in existence.
2. to remain alive; live, as on food, resources, etc.
3. to have existence in, or by reason of, something.
4. to reside, lie, or consist (usually fol. by in).
5. Philosophy. a. to have timeless or abstract existence, as a number, relation, etc.
   b. to have existence, esp. independent existence.
   Dictionary.com

Now, with that quote and that definition, in particular the first part of it, we can translate the statement as follows.

“The one, holy and apostolic Church which belongs to Christ that Christ left Peter in charge of continues to exsist and goes by the name the Catholic Church.”

It is written in an elevated language, but it says with great certainty that the Church Christ founded on Earth is the Catholic Church and it is not a seperate entity from its spiritual aspects.

 

[SFD]

SFD,

Thank you for posting this. Can you provide the source for your quoted piece? I want to show this to someone else but I would like to be able to name the original source as well.

Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D., Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, Translated and Revised by John J. Castelot, S.S., S.T.D., S.S.L. & William R. Murphy, S.S., S.T.D., The Newman Press, Westminster, Maryland, 1957. pp 102-124.

 

[cam100]

Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D., Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, Translated and Revised by John J. Castelot, S.S., S.T.D., S.S.L. & William R. Murphy, S.S., S.T.D., The Newman Press, Westminster, Maryland, 1957. pp 102-124.

Thanks for the info, SFD!

 

[SFD]

Weak stuff. Hope you have better than that.

“Christ, the one Mediator, established and continually sustains here on earth His holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as an entity with visible delineation (9*) through which He communicated truth and grace to all. But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element.(10*) …
This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth”.(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity”

Direct quote from Lumen Gentium. Chapter 1 sect 8.

Subsist:

1. to exist; continue in existence.
2. to remain alive; live, as on food, resources, etc.
3. to have existence in, or by reason of, something.
4. to reside, lie, or consist (usually fol. by in).
5. Philosophy. a. to have timeless or abstract existence, as a number, relation, etc.
   b. to have existence, esp. independent existence.
   Dictionary.com

Now, with that quote and that definition, in particular the first part of it, we can translate the statement as follows.

“The one, holy and apostolic Church which belongs to Christ that Christ left Peter in charge of continues to exsist and goes by the name the Catholic Church.”

It is written in an elevated language, but it says with great certainty that the Church Christ founded on Earth is the Catholic Church and it is not a seperate entity from its spiritual aspects.

JMMK,

Can you explain the below?

This communion exists especially with the Eastern
Orthodox Churches which, though separated from the See
of Peter, remain united to the Catholic Church by means of
very close bonds, such as the apostolic succession and a
valid Eucharist, and therefore merit the title of particular
Churches. (CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE
FAITH. Letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church on
Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion.
[1992]

Particular Churches are obviously part of the Catholic Church…but how can the Orthodox be particular Churches if they are in Schism. After Vatican I, they were heretics as well.

How can this be…unless there is a “new ecclesiology”?

SFD

 

[JMMK]

After reading that letter, which was long but very good, I assure you that you can continue to call them heretics if you so desire. This is because the temporal aspect of their church is not in full communion with the successor of Peter.

One of the important points the last half of that letter continuously makes is that “The unity of the Eucharist and Episcopate with Peter and under Peter” is extremely important.

The paragraph after the one you quoted states “Since, however, communion with the universal Church, represented by Peter’s Successor, is not an external complement to the particular Church, but one of its internal constituents, the situation of those venerable Christian communities also means that their existence as particular Churches is wounded. The wound is even deeper in those ecclesial communities which have not retained the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist. This in turn also injures the Catholic Church, called by the Lord to become for all “one flock” with “one shepherd”(77), in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of its universality in history.”

This goes to the concept of One Baptism. Anyone who is baptized enters into the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ is the Church of Christ. Ergo any baptized with water, either on the head or by submersion, enters into the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. The reason the church views the Orthodox churches with a favorable light is that they have keep their apostolic succession and thereby valid sacraments.

 

[SFD]

After reading that letter, which was long but very good, I assure you that you can continue to call them heretics if you so desire. This is because the temporal aspect of their church is not in full communion with the successor of Peter.

One of the important points the last half of that letter continuously makes is that “The unity of the Eucharist and Episcopate with Peter and under Peter” is extremely important.

The paragraph after the one you quoted states “Since, however, communion with the universal Church, represented by Peter’s Successor, is not an external complement to the particular Church, but one of its internal constituents, the situation of those venerable Christian communities also means that their existence as particular Churches is wounded. The wound is even deeper in those ecclesial communities which have not retained the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist. This in turn also injures the Catholic Church, called by the Lord to become for all “one flock” with “one shepherd”(77), in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of its universality in history.”

JMMK,

And what you quoted affirms this new ecclesiology.

The Church is one, it is a body. This is evident in the teaching of the Popes:
Mystici Corporis Christi:

1. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” [17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. [18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

Satis Cognitum:

1. It is so evident from the clear and frequent testimonies of Holy Writ that the true Church of Jesus Christ is one, that no Christian can dare to deny it. But in judging and determining the nature of this unity many have erred in various ways. Not the foundation of the Church alone, but its whole constitution, belongs to the class of things effected by Christ’s free choice. For this reason the entire case must be judged by what was actually done. We must consequently investigate not how the Church may possibly be one, but how He, who founded it, willed that it should be one. But when we consider what was actually done we find that Jesus Christ did not, in point of fact, institute a Church to embrace several communities similar in nature, but in themselves distinct, and lacking those bonds which render the Church unique and indivisible after that manner in which in the symbol of our faith we profess: “I believe in one Church.” “The Church in respect of its unity belongs to the category of things indivisible by nature, though heretics try to divide it into many parts…We say, therefore, that the Catholic Church is unique in its essence, in its doctrine, in its origin, and in its excellence…Furthermore, the eminence of the Church arises from its unity, as the principle of its constitution - a unity surpassing all else, and having nothing like unto it or equal to it” (S. Clemens Alexandrinus, Stronmatum lib. viii., c. 17). For this reason Christ, speaking of the mystical edifice, mentions only one Church, which he calls His own - "I will build my church; " any other Church except this one, since it has not been founded by Christ, cannot be the true Church. This becomes even more evident when the purpose of the Divine Founder is considered. For what did Christ, the Lord, ask? What did He wish in regard to the Church founded, or about to be founded? This: to transmit to it the same mission and the same mandate which He had received from the Father, that they should be perpetuated. This He clearly resolved to do: this He actually did. “As the Father hath sent me, I also send you” (John xx., 21). “Ad thou hast sent Me into the world I also have sent them into the world” (John xvii., 18).

Btw, what do you think the below means?

it hinders the complete fulfilment of its universality in history

SFD

 

[LatinOnlyPlease]

I believe respecting the Koran by kissing it, is a terrible thing to do under any cicrcumstance. It is a religion of pure evil as attested to by the Catholic Church up until Vatican II. It is impossible to spread the Gospel, and teach the 1 true religion by implying to others be they Jews or Mohammedans that they are on the right path and that you respect their falsehood. How can 1 respect that which is false and evil? That is very unChristian. Leaders should lead others to the truth, not encourage others along a false deadly [for their souls] path. That is evil. The Pope or any Catholic should not kiss the koran. Period. Under any circumstance.

 

[Paradox2080]

There is some really good information in here. This really is such a complex subject and i appreciate all of your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Sedevacantists i have spoken to would accept the current pope or any future pope for that matter as valid as soon as they abolish ‘errors’ implemented since VII. This confuses me…take Pope Benedict XVI for example. Currently sedevacantists only view this man as a bishop as that was his last ordination prior to VII. If he was to abolish everything VII they all the sudden would view him as a valid Pope?? How does that work? I know not all of them share this view but from what i can gather from the few i have spoken to this does seem to be a fairly common standpoint.

The SSPX have a much better approach in my opinion.

 

[SFD]

Sedevacantists i have spoken to would accept the current pope or any future pope for that matter as valid as soon as they abolish ‘errors’ implemented since VII. This confuses me…take Pope Benedict XVI for example. Currently sedevacantists only view this man as a bishop as that was his last ordination prior to VII.

Actually, some sedevacantists hold this view…but it is a definite minority. Most sedevacantists do not think the Paul VI ordination or consecration rites are valid and therefore Benedict is not a true Bishop.

SFD

 

[JMMK]

SFD,
The letter, taken in its full context, contradicts nothing in your quotes. You asked about the Orthodox Churches, not about terms of communion. What you are looking for seems to be covered in paragraph 9.

"9. In order to grasp the true meaning of the analogical application of the term communion to the particular Churches taken as a whole, one must bear in mind above all that the particular Churches, insofar as they are “part of the one Church of Christ”(38), have a special relationship of “mutual interiority”(39) with the whole, that is, with the universal Church, because in every particular Church “the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ is truly present and active”(40). For this reason, “the universal Church cannot be conceived as the sum of the particular Churches, or as a federation of particular Churches”(41). It is not the result of the communion of the Churches, but, in its essential mystery, it is a reality ontologically and temporally prior to every individual particular Church.

Indeed, according to the Fathers, ontologically, the Church-mystery, the Church that is one and unique, precedes creation(42), and gives birth to the particular Churches as her daughters. She expresses herself in them; she is the mother and not the product of the particular Churches. Furthermore, the Church is manifested, temporally, on the day of Pentecost in the community of the one hundred and twenty gathered around Mary and the twelve Apostles, the representatives of the one unique Church and the founders-to-be of the local Churches, who have a mission directed to the world: from the first the Church speaks all languages(43)."

That’s just a snippet. The whole document is dedicated to explaining what the terms ‘communion’ and ‘churches’ refer to in their other documents. Not counting the foot-notes it is 6 pages, 10 point, single spaced, TNR font. So its long and this quote doesn’t do the whole thing justice.

One way to summarize it is that there is only one Church and that is the Church of Christ (i.e. Body of Christ, the Universal Church, the Catholic Church). As I said earlier the One Baptism we all profess brings you into this Church regardless of what physical building they go to. These particular churches are best defined in paragraph 7

". Among these manifold particular expressions of the saving presence of the one Church of Christ, there are to be found, from the times of the Apostles on, those entities which are in themselves Churches(32), because, although they are particular, the universal Church becomes present in them with all its essential elements(33). They are therefore constituted “after the model of the universal Church”(34), and each of them is “a portion of the People of God entrusted to a bishop to be guided by him with the assistance of his clergy”(35). "

So a church by that definition is a congregation under the guidance of an apostolic successor (bishop). He goes further in saying that it would be bad to refer to the Church of Christ as an association of ‘churches’ since it would undermine the understanding of the true universality of the church. At the end of paragraph 9 states:

From the Church, which in its origins and its first manifestation is universal, have arisen the different local Churches, as particular expressions of the one unique Church of Jesus Christ. Arising within and out of the universal Church, they have their ecclesiality in it and from it. Hence the formula of the Second Vatican Council: The Church in and formed out of the Churches (Ecclesia in et ex Ecclesiis)(44), is inseparable from this other formula: The Churches in and formed out of the Church (Ecclesia in et ex Ecclesiis)(45). Clearly the relationship between the universal Church and the particular Churches is a mystery, and cannot be compared to that which exists between the whole and the parts in a purely human group or society.

From here you go on to the quote I put up earlier about how even those communities that have no apostolic succession have a partial stake in the Body of Christ through the virtue of One Baptism. The line “hinders the complete fulfillment of its universality in history” in the context of this letter refers to the burden all catholics share in the communities that are not in communion with Successor of Peter. It does not refer to the fact that we recognize them to varying degrees, but that they do not understand the fullness of the faith we hold.

If you really want to understand it, go and slowly read the whole document and try to get out of it what he put in, not what you want to see. The only way to understand things is in their context.

 

[SFD]

JMMK:

From here you go on to the quote I put up earlier about how even those communities that have no apostolic succession have a partial stake in the Body of Christ through the virtue of One Baptism.

JMMK,

What you can’t seem to fathom is that the above is unorthodox and is in direct conflict with established Catholic doctrine on the nature of the Church. The Church is ONE…there is no “partial stake” held by anyone. The newly basptised are members of the Church because of their baptism…not any kind of membership in a schismatic or heretical sect. That baptism belongs to the Church…not to the sect.

If you really want to understand it, go and slowly read the whole document and try to get out of it what he put in, not what you want to see. The only way to understand things is in their context.

I have read it…and I’ve showed how a schismatic or heretical sect cannot be a true particular Church. That which is cut off cannot be any part of the whole. Pius XII very clearly teaches this in Mystici Corporis…the relevant section is found in Denzinger 2286.

This new teaching is just that, new.

SFD