T
thecoach
Guest
In the revised Canons, I dont believe Freemasonry carries automatic excommunication anymore
- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
Then again it must be asked, does Catholic determine for themselves which pope is heretical and a false pope and which pope is a true pope? Rather that quoting a bunch of canon law, long since expired about automatic excommunication and anathema, let me say right now that that argument is nothing but the continued fallacy of begging the question. This is one of the re-cycled logical fallacies that SV people use over and over again.
Sure they have grounds, to the extent that Fred Phelps has grounds in the Bible for his theology. It just doesn’t hold any water unless one already believes it.
G
gorman64
Guest
Dear pnewton,
Can you sustantiate the above comments?
Can you find a manualist or canonist who teaches that it is not divine law that only a Catholic is valid matter for the papacy? It would be particularly interesting to find one who wrote after St. Pius X issued his legislation, with a view to noting any citation of that legislation. It appears that no canonist or theologian thought that St. Pius X (or Pius XII) had made it possible for a public heretic or any other non-Catholic to be validly elected pope. Indeed, all of the ones I have seen state the exact opposite; that it is a matter of divine law that only a Catholic is valid matter for the papacy.
What you are stating is that ecclesiastical law was modified to negate divine law.
This is contrary to St. Robert Bellarmine’s opinion and all the Church Fathers and Popes.
A public heretic is not a member of the Church. He is also ipso facto excommunicated. The first fact is a matter of divine law. The second fact is a matter of ecclesiastical law. St. Pius X (and afterwards Pius XII) altered only the ecclesiastical law. This is very simple and obvious, and it seems to me that the only way one could be confused about it is if one were familiar with only one or two documents, so that the import of them was not fully grasped, or if one were incapable of distinguishing between divine and ecclesiastical law.
St. Robert Bellarmine has already answered this objection, as follows:
Yours,
Gorman
L
litllulu
Guest
G
gorman64
Guest
An interregnum does not suspend the natural law written on all men’s hearts, nor the positive natural law, nor all ecclesiastical law. If you do these things with full consent of the will you will be lost. This should be obvious.
Yours,
Gorman
L
litllulu
Guest
Sorry you took that so litterally. FYI- I was not really planning on having orgies or abortions. But thanks for your ideas.An interregnum does not suspend the natural law written on all men’s hearts, nor the positive natural law, nor all ecclesiastical law. If you do these things with full consent of the will you will be lost. This should be obvious.
Yours,
Gorman
J
Jacafamala
Guest
Serious but without any merit. Whew, long thread, but I’ve slogged through most of it.
So, the “Sedes” would have us believe that, after 2000 years of Church history the Holy Spirit has abandoned the visible Church—for nearly fifty year now–and has taken up residence with this obscure little group–not the SSPXers, nor the ones that follow “pope” Michael, or “Call to Action?” Now only the Sedes know the real secret? This is more fictional than the Da Vinci Code. And God has left us to figure it out all for ourselves or else what? Live a clueless life as he breaks his promises that he would never leave us or forsake us?
Sedevacatism is just another heresy creating yet another little schism. It’s not worth all the fuss and feathers it produces.
Pax Christi,
Ann
So, the “Sedes” would have us believe that, after 2000 years of Church history the Holy Spirit has abandoned the visible Church—for nearly fifty year now–and has taken up residence with this obscure little group–not the SSPXers, nor the ones that follow “pope” Michael, or “Call to Action?” Now only the Sedes know the real secret? This is more fictional than the Da Vinci Code. And God has left us to figure it out all for ourselves or else what? Live a clueless life as he breaks his promises that he would never leave us or forsake us?
Sedevacatism is just another heresy creating yet another little schism. It’s not worth all the fuss and feathers it produces.
Pax Christi,
Ann
L
litllulu
Guest
Well said Ann :tiphat: This is just another example of the Devil inflitrating the Church. He wants to create schisms. Didn’t he say “brother against brother…” I truly believe this is what he was talking about. The devil wants to separate whoever he can from the true Church. He is the father of lies, this is just another one of his lies and he has a lot of people believing it.
P
pnewton
Guest
Substantiate which comments? The use and meaning of logic or the definition of canon law?
G
gorman64
Guest
What is your source for your position? You are not an authority…so you’ll need to at least quote one.
Can you find a manualist or canonist who teaches that it is not divine law that only a Catholic is valid matter for the papacy? It would be particularly interesting to find one who wrote after St. Pius X issued his legislation, with a view to noting any citation of that legislation. It appears that no canonist or theologian thought that St. Pius X (or Pius XII) had made it possible for a public heretic or any other non-Catholic to be validly elected pope. Indeed, all of the ones I have seen state the exact opposite; that it is a matter of divine law that only a Catholic is valid matter for the papacy.
Yours,
Gorman
G
gorman64
Guest
They are not my ideas.
I didn’t take it literally. You were trying to make a point with your post…I merely answered it.
Yours,
Gorman
L
litllulu
Guest
M
MTD
Guest
Okay now, this is why I draw the distinction between recognizing the heresy and recognizing a heretic. It’s all very good to say a heretic is not valid matter for the papacy. Agreed. However, how does Bellarmine’s statement that a heretic cannot have jurisdiction in the Church by nature of the heresy and not of some ecclesiastical penalty give you the ability to determine the pertinacity of the heresy of a person, which pertinacity is necessary for such a person to lose jurisdiction? I have yet to see a source to back that one up.
Maria
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Smacks of Protestantism. Are you Protestant?
M
MTD
Guest
It is necessarily so. Just take a peek into all the theological controversies in the past centuries over grace…
Well, the Orthodoxy is actually not the Church. The only reasons it is much easier for the Orthodox to reach salvation is because most err in good faith (they do not know that they are in material heresy) and because they have the sacraments. Remember that the Protestants only have two: Baptism and Matrimony. Thus, whereas the Orthodox can easily retain sanctifying grace through the sacraments, the Protestants cannot since they receive the sacraments only once or twice in their whole lives.
Christ instituted the sacraments as the normal means of salvation. Whatever extra-sacramental graces He might give to Protestants to ensure their salvation are by necessity extraordinary. Otherwise there is no reason to have instituted the sacraments, for after all, they aren’t necessary since He gives the graces necessary for salvation extra-sacramentally. It is very difficult for Protestants to die in the state of grace because they lack the normal means of sanctification. This is not to say God doesn’t work in their souls, but it is to say that it is extraordinary and a mark of predilection for Him to do so.
I don’t think I denied that as I did say those who correspond to the graces they may be given are saved. However, it is by necessity extraordinary for them to receive those special graces because Christ already instituted the sacraments to do that. To say that it is normal and frequent for non-Christians to receive the light and grace necessary to die in the state of grace is to say that Christ had second thoughts, so to speak, about the institution of the sacraments. They really aren’t necessary, in that respect, since He already makes it a normal way to achieve salvation without the sacraments.
You see, this is actually just a case of simple logic.
Actually, I don’t think so. There is a lot of mystery to my explanation. It leaves the manner and frequency of God’s action in the souls of non-Catholics hidden and unknown. I think, on the other hand, that your theories try to determine what His thoughts and ways are since they seek to determine the frequency and universality of His actions in those souls. But this I don’t think we have the power to do; we can hope and pray for the salvation of all souls, but in the end we have to trust in the justice and mercy of God.
I’m happy to hear that.
One of the best ways, in my opinion, to not get turned off is to think positively and generously by offering up your pain to Christ for the salvation of souls.
Maria
P
pnewton
Guest
I am not going to teach Logic 101. If the statment that I needed to support is that only a Catholic may be a pope, then I can not support that, because I did not make such an absurd statement. Nor have we ever had a pope that was not a Catholic. That is silliness and amounts to nothing but a strawman (look up that fallacy, if you know not what it means). If the argument is that someone (like Cardinal Ratzinger) is not a Catholic because two or three people in the world think he said something heretical, then I have to point out, once again, that you are begging the question.
I do know that St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Pius X and Pius XII are not the pope, because they lack valid matter, namely being alive.
T
ThereCanBeOnly1
Guest
ThereCanBeOnly1;2027847:
Read the passages again and read the passages from the Qur’an. They are clear.
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.
Oh good, That means that I can have group orgies, use birth control and if I get prego from it I can have an abortion. Since there has been no pontiff for decades, there is no humanae vitae or anything. :extrahappy: :extrahappy:
Since we have no pontiff we can not be excommunicated either. Lets all skip on our merry way to hell.:hypno: NOT!
Excuse me. Are you for real?: You may do as you will, God+ shall judge your actions,
but I advise against your temptations. If you are performing these, need not worry your are already in excommunication by your own admission.
I do not know if you realize but whether you are SV or not, these are still not permitted, and you would definitely be a living contradiction to the Faith. Once again, you have shown your truisms. I ask you in all seriousness, do know of any of the heretical comments of benedict?
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
To be clear, the respect goes to people of other religions. This need to respect them is nothing new. St. Peter demanded it. So too do other popes after him.
*Pope St. Gregory VII (d. AD 1085), writing to the Muslim King Anazir, the pope affirmed that there is an "affection we and you owe to each." Why? "…because we worship and confess the same God though in diverse forms and daily praise and adore him as the creator and ruler of this world…This grace granted to you by God is admired and praised by many of the Roman nobility who have learned from us of your benevolence and high qualities…how highly they regard your prudence and high character and how greatly they desire and are able to be of service to you." *(St. Gregory VII, letter XXI to Anzir (Nacir), King of Mauritania (Pl. 148, col. 450f.)].
As I said before, we are called indeed by St. Peter to honor all men. How are we to honor infIdels, apostates, heretics, and schismatics? As Pope St. Gregory VII affirms, we do so insofar as they affirm what is true and do what is good, not because of what they assert which is false. Truth and goodness can only come from God. That’s what St. Gregory meant when he told the Muslim King Anazir that his “*good action was inspired in your heart by God…He who lighteth every man that cometh into the world enlightened your mind in this purpose.” *(ibid.).
Such affirmation of truth and goodness, even by Muslims, demand high esteem and respect, as St. Gregory affirmed, “*the same respect which we desire always to show toward you.” *(ibid.)
You can attempt to thrust a false dichotomy between the words of Christ and His Vicar if you wish, but that Protestant polemic isn’t very convincing to Catholics.
T
ThereCanBeOnly1
Guest
Smack, sorry I do not use drugs nor do I think your Protestant Brethren would appreciate you affiliating their ritual with smack.
I guess you have no comment again w.r.t. the passages. One can see you like to ‘Protest’ much. mmmmmmm.
In any event it is irrelevent, this thread is SV …serious or without merit. So let us continue with that.
From your position, is there any grounds for SV?
J
Jean_Anthony
Guest
This thread is now closed. Thank you to all who participated.
- Status