Sedevacantist... serious or without any merit?

[pnewton]

Shall I prove it to you or do you want to start another thread?

There’s that word again. “Prove”. I have reading from people here for three years trying to offer proof and they all consistently fall back on the same fallacies.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Please do! And find references that say that he also distributes them. I am very curious what you will find.
As a sidenote: If he has the Qua’ran, it may be to better understand other religions, not to use it in place of the Bible.

Here are three of many: Please check them over or look them up at your discretion.

Benedict XVI, Address to Foundation for Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue, Feb. 1, 2007: “… the first result of your work: a joint edition of the three Sacred Books of the three monotheistic religions in their original language and in chronological order… we, Jews, Christians and Muslims are called to develop the bonds that unite us… Thus, you have produced this beautiful edition of the three books which are the source of our religious beliefs, creators of culture, that have made a deep mark on peoples and to which we are indebted today. The reinterpretation, and for some people, the discovery of texts that so many people across the world venerate as sacred, demands mutual respect in trusting dialogue.

“… a common task of reflection. This is a labor of reason for which I wholeheartedly appeal, with you, to be able to examine God’s mystery in the light of our respective religious traditions and wisdom so as to discern the values likely to illumine the men and women of all the peoples on earth, whatever their culture and religion…. Thus, we will be able to make headway in interreligious and intercultural dialogue which today is more necessary than ever: a true dialogue, respectful of differences, courageous, patient and persevering, which finds its strength in prayer and is nourished by the hope that dwells in all who believe in God and put their trust in him.” ***(L’Osservatore Romano, Feb. 7, 2007, p. 5)

---

Benedict XVI, Address, January 19, 2007: “During my memorable visit, I frequently expressed the respect of the Catholic Church for Islam and the esteem of the Pope and the faithful for Muslim believers, especially during my visit to Istanbul’s Blue Mosque… Dialogue, essential between religious Authorities at all levels, begins in daily life through the mutual respect and esteem that believers of every religion have for one another…” (L’Osservatore Romano, Feb. 14, 2007, p. 10)

Benedict XVI, Address, Dec. 22, 2006: “My visit to Turkey afforded me the opportunity to show also publicly my respect for the Islamic Religion, a respect, moreover, which the Second Vatican Council (declaration Nostra Aetate #3) pointed out to us as an attitude that is only right.”( L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 3, 2007, p. 7.)

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

It’s a shame we are no longer discussing the overall arguments of sedevacantism simply because of one poster’s witch hunt. Does this mean the earlier discussion is dead?

 

[pnewton]

Well, you cannot Have a deep respect for Islamic Faith, hold in High Esteem Muslim religion, and say we are indebted to the Qur’an, (of which Deny The Most Holy trinity and The Christ), and not deny Christ as well.

Why? It is logical possible. I have a lot of respect for some people of the Islamic faith, but do not deny Christ. I believe they validly call the US the Great Satan, but do not deny Christ. I can appreciate the truth in their faith, and not deny Christ.

The Catholic Church has for 2000 years maintained the OT as scripture, even though Jews deny the deity of Christ and the trinity.

Why do you think it is logically mandatory that the statements made equate to a denial of Christ?

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

There’s that word again. “Prove”. I have reading from people here for three years trying to offer proof and they all consistently fall back on the same fallacies.

I apologize. What is it you are saying? What fallacies are you referring to with regards to this thread?

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Why? It is logical possible. I have a lot of respect for some people of the Islamic faith, but do not deny Christ. I believe they validly call the US the Great Satan, but do not deny Christ. I can appreciate the truth in their faith, and not deny Christ.

The Catholic Church has for 2000 years maintained the OT as scripture, even though Jews deny the deity of Christ and the trinity.

Why do you think it is logically mandatory that the statements made equate to a denial of Christ?

You are obvious late to this thread, I have addressed your confusion in earlier posts. Please review them on your own accord.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

It’s a shame we are no longer discussing the overall arguments of sedevacantism simply because of one poster’s witch hunt. Does this mean the earlier discussion is dead?

We are still on topic here my friend. SV has very much to do with the respect and esteem of other religions who deny the divinity of our Lord+ and Savior+ the Christ+.

 

[MTD]

Look, That Is what I cited and that is how it reads in english. I also gave a good amount of Info of the Meaning of the Mystery of Faith and its importance. There is no need to be stunned, it is documented evidences.

I’m sorry, ThereCanBeOnly1, but I showed you with one of your own sources, St. Pius V’s Quo Primum, that the Eastern rites were not invalidated by St. Pius V since they were over 200 years in existence at the time of the issuance of Quo Primum.

We are still on topic here my friend. SV has very much to do with the respect and esteem of other religions who deny the divinity of our Lord+ and Savior+ the Christ+.

We were discussing whether a heretical pope can be known and denied obedience. If we determine that he cannot be known and denied obedience, then all this talk about the supposed heresy of Pope Benedict XVI is beside the point and unnecessary. However, if we determine that he can be known and denied obedience, then we would have reason to determine the orthodoxy of the current papal claimant. So why not let us finish that discussion; then, pending what conclusion we come to, we can have a reason to discuss the orthodoxy of Pope Benedict XVI.

Maria

 

[gorman64]

Do you believe there is a way for non-Christians to go to Heaven?

Dear litllulu,

The point is that without supernatural Faith one cannot be saved, not that ignorance of any sort can or can’t save, which is nonsense. If we follow St. Thomas, we will say that a man who hasn’t the Faith, whether he is guilty for that or not, cannot be saved. This is de fide.

If he is innocent, God will send him further graces so that he may be enlightened and brought to salvation. Which is exactly what Ven. Pius IX is saying in QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE. In that place he is merely cutting off accusations of injustice or “unfairness” against God, having just laid down that there is no salvation outside the Church. In other words, “Don’t worry about the invincibly ignorant - they won’t be left to die in that state. If they are truly innocent they will be brought to salvation by God’s light and grace.” That is, by His LIGHT - which means, by being granted the light of true Faith.

From QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE:

1. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

I prefer Monsignor Joseph Fenton’s approach - he said that some are saved within the Church who are not members. This is the traditional terminology, as well, I believe. The older authors speak of being “within the Church by desire.”

None of this was controversial when everyone followed St. Thomas, but between the liberals and the Feeneyites, it has all gotten confused.

Yours,

Gorman

 

[rtconstant]

Not to derail my own thread… however this post just makes me laugh.
Of the Eastern Catholic rites that still have some semblance of antiquity and orthodoxy…how is it possible that anyone in the RCC can judge the validity of the oldest form of Eucharistic services?
The Mass has changed so many times, it’s not worth counting ( I’m sure that most of you would disagree, including Gorman, who thinks that it only changed significantly 50 years ago ) however to have a Catholic St. make this proclamation is simply nothing short of wholly imbecilic.
I’ll start a thread in the Eastern forum as to not take away from this thread.

The Pope wasn’t speaking Universally he was speaking to the Latin Rite rubrics and to anything that changed the essential meaning of the substance of the sacrament.

Also it should be noted that Benedict XIV, Pius IX, Pius X, Leo XIII have all expressed their love for the Eastern Rites some as in the case of Benedict XIV’s “Allatae Sunt” made it illegal for missionaries to try and “convert” Eastern Christians to the Latin Rite. All the other abover mentioned Popes promised that if reunion was to be had no changes would be made to the Eastern Rites and some cited reference going back as far as the 12th century. “In Suprema Petri” and “Praeclara Gratulatonis” are good documents along with the above mentioned “Allatae Sunt” for this subject.

 

[MTD]

There are teachings that have been changed- the Church no longer teaches that “outside of the Church there is no salvation.”

Actually, Feanor, extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church there is no salvation) is a doctrine that neither has been nor can be changed. I think you are confused about a couple things: 1) what the Church has always taught concerning EENS, and 2) what is meant by the term EENS. Let me try to explain.

1. The Church has always taught that it is possible for one who is not Catholic to be saved as long as he is invincibly ignorant of the true Faith and does all in his power to correspond to the graces which God does give him. If one knows that the Catholic Faith is the true faith but does not embrace it or if one doubts whether his own faith is the true faith and does not work to the best of his ability to find the true faith, he cannot be saved. Furthermore, if one fails to correspond to the graces he does receive, he will not be saved, even if he is also invincibly ignorant of the Catholic Faith.

It is very difficult to be saved if one is not a Catholic. Just think of the sanctifying grace we receive through Baptism that the poor non-Christians lack; just think of the many times we fall and are raised up to grace again through the Sacrament of Penance. Can you imagine how difficult it would be to be good without sanctifying grace? Or if you do receive sanctifying grace through Baptism but do not have Penance, can you imagine how awfully difficult it would be to retain that sanctifying grace throughout your life both without additional sacraments to increase that sanctifying grace and and the Sacrament of Penance to restore it if lost? Remember that sanctifying grace lost through mortal sin is only restored, outside Penance, only through perfect contrition for sins. If we, who have access to the sacraments frequently and thus have the gift of charity increased in our souls find it hard to have perfect contrition, imagine what it is like for someone who does not have these sacraments.

This is what the Church has always taught. For example, in the 1941 Baltimore Catechism, no. 168, it says:

Can they be saved who remain outside the Catholic Church because they do not know it is the true Church?
They who remain outside the Catholic Church through no grave fault of their own and do not know it is the true Church can be saved by making use of the graces which God gives them.

(continued in next post…)

Maria

 

[MTD]

(continued from previous post…)

1. The term extra ecclesiam nulla salus at first sight seems to say that all non-Catholics will not be saved. But it really means two things: first, that all salvation comes through the Church, and second, that those who know the Church to be the true faith but do not enter it will not be saved.

As I demonstrated above, the Church believes that it is possible for invincibly ignorant non-Catholics of goodwill to be saved. However, that salvation comes through the Church. Jesus is the sole Savior of mankind and He has entrusted the merits of His redemption to the Church; all grace given to man comes through the Church. Thus whatever persons belonging to other religions are saved are actually saved through the Church and are said to belong to the Church by desire. They were not saved through their religions because Christ did not entrust the means of salvation to those religions.

As the 1960 Baltimore Catechism, no. 167, says:

What do we mean when we say, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”?
When we say, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” we mean that Christ made the Catholic Church a necessary means of salvation and commanded all to enter it, so that a person must be connected with the Church in some way to be saved.
And I think that the fact that someone who knows the Catholic faith to be the true faith but does not embrace or who suspects the Catholic faith to be the true faith but does not honestly investigate cannot be saved because they have knowingly rejected the very means of salvation is self-explanatory.

And lest you should think EENS is no longer taught, I direct you to Dominus Jesus, a doctrinal declaration issued by then Cardinal Ratzinger of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and ratified by Pope John Paul II. I only have space for a couple quotes:

Above all else, it must be firmly believed that “the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door”. This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”. (par. 20)

If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation. (par. 22)

So, Feanor, I hope I’ve cleared up the situation a little. And do tell me if you dispute anything I’ve said in this post or the previous one so that we can discuss it further.

Maria

 

[pnewton]

We are still on topic here my friend. SV has very much to do with the respect and esteem of other religions who deny the divinity of our Lord+ and Savior+ the Christ+.

BTW - The verse you quoted earlier from Matthew refers to individuals who deny Christ, not religions. It specifically refers to denying Christ before men and not just accepting Him as Messiah.

Earlier you were convinced that Islam does not worhip the true God because they do not agree that He is a Trinity. To apply the same logic to Christ, they never deny the real Christ because they do not recognize His deity. They do not accept the man who was Jesus. They do not deny the God-Man, Jesus Christ, if one is consistent in this reasoning.

 

[Feanor]

Maria, you have cleared up much of my understanding of this issue and yet I still see some problems with some of your assertions.

Firstly, I feel that your explanation of grace is too simplistic and too mechanical. You describe it as sort of a battery that is charged and re-charged. Yes, all salvation is through Christ and hence through the Church and when I say “Church” I mean Catholic and all valid forms of Orthodoxy. Yes, Christ comes to us most fully in the Sacraments- indeed in His totality in the Eucharist. I believe, however, that Christ works in the hearts of the Protestants in a certain manner that may be hidden to us though still infinitely inferior to the union we find in the Sacraments. I believe that Christ reaches out to those who call His name.

Now non-Christians I assert also enjoy Gods involvement in their lives- though of a mysterious manner.

Your explanations lack the mystery and dynamic character of God’s love. We read in the Bible, “His ways are not our ways- His thoughts are not our thoughts.”

I really do appreciate your explanation of “outside of the Church there is no salvation.” Please continue the discussion and remain charitible as I will- I have recently joined this forum and am really taken aback by the mean-spiritedness I read on a forum related to God. I would like to continue posting and not get turned off by the whole thing.

In Christ,
Feanor

 

[icxc_nika]

The Pope wasn’t speaking Universally he was speaking to the Latin Rite rubrics and to anything that changed the essential meaning of the substance of the sacrament.

Also it should be noted that Benedict XIV, Pius IX, Pius X, Leo XIII have all expressed their love for the Eastern Rites some as in the case of Benedict XIV’s “Allatae Sunt” made it illegal for missionaries to try and “convert” Eastern Christians to the Latin Rite. All the other abover mentioned Popes promised that if reunion was to be had no changes would be made to the Eastern Rites and some cited reference going back as far as the 12th century. “In Suprema Petri” and “Praeclara Gratulatonis” are good documents along with the above mentioned “Allatae Sunt” for this subject.

RT–

Thanks for the post.
This general idea however has been discussed at length in the Easter forums. The problem is that many of the Easter Catholic Rites have been heavily Latinized, many people fel that there is little credibility with these statements.
You can do a search for this easily enough in the Eatern forum threads.

 

[icxc_nika]

Happy to clarify that it is freely available to you online. In this way you can easily see whether your ritual has the 4 Marks. This will save you time. As for eastern christianity, it seems your separating Catholicism in your radical statement. But anyway this is not the Thread for your that. Please feel free to share with us the references for the 4 marks of your ritual.

There1–

Your outlandish comments in referencing the The Orthodox and Easter Catholic Liturgies as “rituals” is beyond the pale.

These “rituals” are 1700-1800 years old, and are the heart of Christian worship from their antiquity. Even your “traditional” mass doesn’t even come close to it in age. The fact that your services have changed so many times over the years is your problem.

As for the four marks: your are sadly mistaken if you beleive that the One Holy Catholic and Apostilic church is not the orthodox church. Keep in mind it is this very creed that the Catholic church changed, an we continue to recite unchanged at every service for the past 1700 years.

You don’t even make sense when you posit the question: “As for eastern christianity, it seems your separating Catholicism in your radical statement”

I simply asked that you proffer any proof that the Orthodox church is not the True church, and visit the Eastern Christian forum to discuss any one of your points. How this is a radical statement, I’m not sure, but I already asked to keep the discussion to the SV’s.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

BTW - The verse you quoted earlier from Matthew refers to individuals who deny Christ, not religions. It specifically refers to denying Christ before men and not just accepting Him as Messiah.

Read the passages again and read the passages from the Qur’an. They are clear.

Earlier you were convinced that Islam does not worhip the true God because they do not agree that He is a Trinity. To apply the same logic to Christ, they never deny the real Christ because they do not recognize His deity. They do not accept the man who was Jesus. They do not deny the God-Man, Jesus Christ, if one is consistent in this reasoning.

My Muslim friends would be proud of you. They told me today that Christians do not worship God. The said they deny any Christ and Jesus as divine and the Holy Trinity+. That is what they are taught and what is stated in the Qur’an.

In any event let us stay on topic. My point was if a pontiff is heretical, there may grounds to claim SV,

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

There1–

Your outlandish comments in referencing the The Orthodox and Easter Catholic Liturgies as “rituals” is beyond the pale.

These “rituals” are 1700-1800 years old, and are the heart of Christian worship from their antiquity. Even your “traditional” mass doesn’t even come close to it in age. The fact that your services have changed so many times over the years is your problem.

As for the four marks: your are sadly mistaken if you beleive that the One Holy Catholic and Apostilic church is not the orthodox church. Keep in mind it is this very creed that the Catholic church changed, an we continue to recite unchanged at every service for the past 1700 years.

You don’t even make sense when you posit the question: “As for eastern christianity, it seems your separating Catholicism in your radical statement”

I simply asked that you proffer any proof that the Orthodox church is not the True church, and visit the Eastern Christian forum to discuss any one of your points. How this is a radical statement, I’m not sure, but I already asked to keep the discussion to the SV’s.

What are you talking about?
Check the dictionary rite and ritual are the same and can be used interchangeably. Please look up your thoughts before you post.
Stay on topic, or the thread will close

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

No, I don’t. But the pope did not deny Christ in saying that there was something in Islam to esteem (it IS a monotheistic religion, if nothing else).

So, let me see if I understand you correctly, you agree with his comment of Deep Respect for Islamic Faith, The same Islam that denies The Holy Trinity and Jesus Christ as divine? Remember, I know you do not like the references, that I have used but they are from the Vatican website. Please do not be selective in the words you choose to mention that benedict used. (Again, lest us not forget he used ‘deep respect’, ‘high esteem’ and indebted to’).

** He contributes to the distribution of the Qur’an.**

This is grounds to support the SV position.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Hmmmm…no, you are.

St. Matthew is speaking of those who obstinately oppose Christ. Yet, the internal disposition of another’s soul is judged by God alone.

You are incorrect in all . St. Matthew may have put pen to paper, but those are the words of Jesus+ the Christ+!!! This null and voids all your following comments.

St. Thomas Aquinas taught that culpability for sin is linked to voluntariness. For instance, Saul explicitly rejected Christianity, but he “**obtained…mercy…because [he] did it ignorantly.” (1 Tim 1:13). Thus, St. Thomas taught “whatever is a reason for sin to be forgiven, diminishes sin.” (ST, IIa, 76, 4).
**
please see post #193, you are quoting a Saint I am Quoting the words of Jesus+. MMMmmmmm

St. Peter tells us to “honor all men.” (1 Pet 2:17) So, I do. Even if they happen to be wrong about Christianity

.

I see no argument here nor anything that is supporting your position.