Sedevacantist... serious or without any merit?

[gorman64]

Yes, but that is not remotely typical of the Catholics posting here who disagree very strongly with you or Therecanonlybe1.

Dear JKirk:

Of course it is not typical of those who post here. It is true of many NO adherents however…because that’s what they have been taught…by the “Church Teaching”.

And I hope you’ll also agree that “Pope Pius XIII” has no following among traditionalists…repeated attempts to link the the two notwithstanding.

Yours,

Gorman

 

[BobP123]

Dear JKirk:

Of course it is not typical of those who post here. It is true of many NO adherents however…because that’s what they have been taught…by the “Church Teaching”.

And I hope you’ll also agree that “Pope Pius XIII” has no following among traditionalists…repeated attempts to link the the two notwithstanding.

Yours,

Gorman

Good thing you brought up Fr. Pulvermacher. Isn’t his OFM Cap order to total communion with Rome? And wasn’t he a valid priest in valid communion with Rome?

Oh, I get it. Those that are in “full” communion with Rome because they accepted Vatican II are immune from excommunication. Hans Kung is another example. All the Freemasons still another.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Good thing you brought up Fr. Pulvermacher. Isn’t his OFM Cap order to total communion with Rome? And wasn’t he a valid priest in valid communion with Rome?

Oh, I get it. Those that are in “full” communion with Rome because they accepted Vatican II are immune from excommunication. Hans Kung is another example. All the Freemasons still another.

I daresay that “Pope Pius XIII” is no longer a part of his order, which is still in communion with the Holy See (St. Pio was a Capuchin as well, what of it?). And I don’t understand the point you’re making regarding him. He WAS a valid priest in communion with Rome, just as Archbishop Lefebreve WAS. Perhaps the Holy See regards him as simply a harmless nut job (insanity at the least diminishes culpability if it doesn’t render the person entirely inculpable). And last I heard, Freemasonry resulted in an automatic excommunication, though I’m not certain.

 

[gorman64]

I daresay that “Pope Pius XIII” is no longer a part of his order…

Nor is he a sedevacantist. So why does anyone bring him up in the first place?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Nor is he a sedevacantist. So why does anyone bring him up in the first place?

You’d have to ask your fellow “traditionalists” that question. I didn’t bring him up.

And he must have been something of a sedevacantist at one point, because it’s hard to sit down in a seat unless you think it’s vacant.

 

[Feanor]

Feanor:

As Catholics, we must embrace the whole of our tradition, the whole of Scripture, the whole of the magisterium, going back to the first pope (and all the coucils). As much as I reverence and love Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, they are only the 265th and 266th of their line. What the others taught is of no small consequence.

I understand that we must accept the entirety of tradition yet don’t the most current and current Popes carry more weight than say Urban II or Innocent III or the charming Adrian VI? There are teachings that have been changed- the Church no longer teaches that “outside of the Church there is no salvation.”

Shouldn’t we follow the Church in it’s most recent understanding? Isn’t there a portion or voluntary optional prayer that was used in the TLM that is now seen as doctrinally incorrect? What is it the “Dies Irae” or something? I’m sorry I do not recall the specific example and I could be mistaken. I do know that the Church’s revelation is fluid. The Pope said that portions of the theory of evolution could be accepted as valid if God is seen as the creator and the human species is seen as distinct from animals.

 

[gorman64]

You’d have to ask your fellow “traditionalists” that question.

I don’t think the traditionalists care about this…only those seeking to link it to them…sometimes it’s their last refuge.

I didn’t bring him up.

I didn’t say you did.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I understand that we must accept the entirety of tradition yet don’t the most current and current Popes carry more weight than say Urban II or Innocent III or the charming Adrian VI? There are teachings that have been changed- the Church no longer teaches that “outside of the Church there is no salvation.” **No, the Church still teaches EENS. She may have further explained it, clarified it, etc., but she still proclaims that as objective truth. She doesn’t deny that people seemingly outside the Church may be saved, but she proclaims still the normative truth of EENS. **

Shouldn’t we follow the Church in it’s most recent understanding? Isn’t there a portion or voluntary optional prayer that was used in the TLM that is now seen as doctrinally incorrect? What is it the “Dies Irae” or something? I’m sorry I do not recall the specific example and I could be mistaken. I do know that the Church’s revelation is fluid. The Pope said that portions of the theory could be accepted as valid if God is seen as the creator and the human species is seen as distinct from animals.

I don’t know anything about the “Dies Irae” being removed at all.

 

[gorman64]

I understand that we must accept the entirety of tradition yet don’t the most current and current Popes carry more weight than say Urban II or Innocent III or the charming Adrian VI? There are teachings that have been changed- the Church no longer teaches that “outside of the Church there is no salvation.”

It’s a dogma. Did you learn this in your RCIA class?

Shouldn’t we follow the Church in it’s most recent understanding?

Isn’t there a portion or voluntary optional prayer that was used in the TLM that is now seen as doctrinally incorrect?

What is it the “Dies Irae” or something? I’m sorry I do not recall the specific example and I could be mistaken. I do know that the Church’s revelation is fluid.

The Pope said that portions of the theory could be accepted as valid if God is seen as the creator and the human species is seen as distinct from animals.

I am stunned.

 

[Feanor]

One of the aspects of the Church that I love so much is that her teachings are enlightened and show a high degree of intellectual rigor. For instance priest dealing with cases of possible demonic possession are taught to use the latest understandings of Psychology. The Church has also stated once it became scientifically suggested that homosexuality may be, in part, a biological condition. Now of course doing homosexual acts is a sin but the Church’s approach show a level of honest evaluation which our protestant brethren do not always possess. This spirit of honest evaluation and intellectual rigor sometimes seems lacking in those who have rejected VII. I am not referring to those who simply prefer the TLM and attend an episcopally approved TLM.

 

[Feanor]

Gorman,

I do not find your tone helpful or conducive to a respectful exchange. I am a cradle Catholic with a graduate level education and a very good understanding of the Church’s moral teaching and history. There is no problem with what I have posted.

 

[gorman64]

This spirit of honest evaluation and intellectual rigor sometimes seems lacking in those who have rejected VII. I am not referring to those who simply prefer the TLM and attend an episcopally approved TLM.

Dear Feanor,

You should probably refrain from speaking this way to those who, in your opinion, “lack intellectual rigor”.

Yours,

Gorman

P.S.

I do not find your tone helpful or conducive to a respectful exchange.

It is probably not…sorry.

I am a cradle Catholic with a graduate level education and a very good understanding of the Church’s moral teaching and history.

I was not questioning your education level or intelligence.

There is no problem with what I have posted.

Here we disagree. There are many problems with what you’ve posted.

 

[Feanor]

Some of the Church’s teachings have been changed. Now There are different hierarchical levels of doctrine and all of the essential aspects of faith have been constant but there have been changes- or developments is perhaps a better term. John Paul II and Benedict XVI demonstrate a developed sense of the world and the achievements of modern science.

Gorman, do you accept any portions of the theory of evolution?

 

[MTD]

And yet there is no “proper authority” that can judge the pope because he is the ultimate court of appeals. An ecumenical council cannot sit in judgment on a pope because it only acts authoritatively when done in communion with him - do we really expect an errant pope to condemn himself? The curia can’t condemn the pope for the same reason of its authority being tied to his. Bishops have no extraordinary authority, which leaves us only with the ordinary magisterium, but that magisterium does not produce “authoritative documents” of the sort that produce binding sentences against individuals.

Precisely. So I don’t know how the laity has the authority to judge a pope a pertinacious heretic. But that’s what sedevacantists hold.

I think there would be legitimate grounds for doubting an individual’s claim to the papacy, but I don’t think heresy is one of them (St. Robert’s opinion notwithstanding).

Bellarmine’s opinion doesn’t say heresy is grounds for doubting an individual’s claim to the papacy. That’s what sedevacantists say. Bellarmine just says that a heretic-pope isn’t pope at all; sedevacantists draw the further conclusion that if a papal claimant appears to be a heretic, they are not under his jurisdiction. But Bellarmine never said anything about what the Church must do if a papal claimant appears to be a pertinacious heretic.

Maria

 

[MTD]

"There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction.

I don’t. They don’t explain how private individuals have the compacity to judge the pertinacity of the heresy of a pope, which pertinacity is necessary for formal heresy, which formal heresy causes loss of jurisdiction.

Maria

 

[MTD]

Another question, can a Catholic have deep respect and hold in high esteem another religion such as Hinduism and Islam, or any other religion that rejects the Holy Trinity and Divinity of our Lord+ Jesus+?

It depends on what you mean by respect and esteem; it also depends on what the respect and esteem is directed to.

Maria

 

[MTD]

I am stunned.

Yes, and I was stunned when ThereCanBeOnly1 said, in post #49 on the Mystery of Faith thread, that the Eastern rites don’t have valid formulae of consecration because their formulae don’t conform to that outlined in St. Pius V’s De Defectibus.

Maria

 

[icxc_nika]

Yet the supposed true Catholic Church has not fulfilled that duty for 50 years and is still doing nothing about it. In practice, that Church is falling for the heresy that the Church can prevail without the rock of Peter.

Maria

How does this square with any of the dozens of anti-popes?
How is this really that different?

 

[icxc_nika]

If he is proven a pertinacious heretic by the proper authorities, he would not then be pope according to Bellarmine’s theological opinion because a formal heretic is by nature outside the Church and thus can have no jurisdiction in the Church. In such a case, he can claim no obedience from you.

Maria

Who can really claim to be the proper authorities?

When the RCC was in crisis mode when there were 3 anti-popes all claiming to be the true pope, the church convoked a council to decide on the valid pope. This council stated explicitly that no one is above the council, ( espcially not any pope in this case ), thus it had the final authority, even over Popes.

Dozens of years later, this once ecumenical council was judged (by a pope) as not being ecumenical, precicely because it placed itself above that of a pope.

It simply seems to an avg. onlooker that the rules shift and change as the wind blows.

 

[icxc_nika]

If he is proven a pertinacious heretic by the proper authorities, he would not then be pope according to Bellarmine’s theological opinion because a formal heretic is by nature outside the Church and thus can have no jurisdiction in the Church. In such a case, he can claim no obedience from you.

Maria

Who can really claim to be the proper authorities?

When the RCC was in crisis mode when there were 3 anti-popes all claiming to be the true pope, the church convoked a council to decide on the valid pope. This council stated explicitly that no one is above the council, ( espcially not any pope in this case ), thus it had the final authority, even over Popes.

Dozens of years later, this once ecumenical council was judged (by a pope) as not being ecumenical, precicely because it placed itself above that of a pope.

It simply seems to an avg. onlooker that the rules shift and change as the wind blows.