The Extremists

  • Thread starter Thread starter Melek
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Melek

Guest
There are some extremists out there who believe Catholics who accept Vatican II will be damned to Hell. They refer to us as heretics. They believe there is no Salvation outside of the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church. Apparently St. Jerome wrote this in an official Vatican document.

Anyone know why these extremists think this way? Why do they believe that all the Popes of the Vatican II Council are “Antipopes”?
 
Melek said:
There are some extremists out there who believe Catholics who accept Vatican II will be damned to Hell. They refer to us as heretics. They believe there is no Salvation outside of the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church. Apparently St. Jerome wrote this in an official Vatican document.

Anyone know why these extremists think this way? Why do they believe that all the Popes of the Vatican II Council are “Antipopes”?
Click to expand...
There was a thread on sedevacantism just last week; you may find it informative.

Sedevacantists believe that the post-conciliar popes are not popes as a result of their being outside of the corporate Church due to heresy.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA:
By becoming a public heretic, the pope would ipso facto cease to be pope.
Click to expand...
A person who is outside of the Church via apostasy cannot be its head; therefore, if the pope is a heretic, he is deprived of his spiritual authority.

Infallibility
 
Sedevacantists are not Catholic, except in the strictest sense of the permanence of Baptism. They are acting as former Catholics and they are attacking even those Catholics who share their concern about Papal liberalism because they have removed themselves from the Communion of Saints by rejecting the Pope so completely.

When we remove ourselves from the protection of the Communion of Saints by completely rejecting Papal authority, we open ourselves to Satan. That is why you see some of them attacking Catholics over even the most trivial Catholic customs or traditions. We can question the Pope’s decisions without rejecting the Pope’s authority. If necessary, we can pray for private answers about how we are to accept something the Vatican has decreed which somehow goes against our understanding of Catholic practice or doctrine. But the sedevacantists I have encountered almost all act just like Calvinists and similar Protestants, who insist on “getting inside the head” to make sure you can completely understand and agree with all kinds of obscure doctrines that only the most scholarly have time to read.

They get mad at me when I assert that lay people in the Church do not have to be familiar with every bit of Doctrine. As long as we understand the basics and lead a steady life of attending the Mass and receiving Sacraments in a timely fashion and praying regularly, we are ok, (besides not committing grievous mortal sin). We are covered by obeying and respecting the Pope even while we question whether something he permits is 100% in line with what doctrine we know. Sedes accuse those of us who remian in Communion with the Vatican while praying for a stricter return to Tradition of heresy because they themselves are usurping the authority of the Pope.
 
Melek said:
Anyone know why these extremists think this way? Why do they believe that all the Popes of the Vatican II Council are “Antipopes”?
Click to expand...
One reason they think this way is their understanding of what is “traditional” is very, very limited. They consider the way they remember things from childhood as the true “tradition”.

Even though the Latin Church itself has changed disciplines and approaches over the centuries, they are unaware of it.

And don’t even ASK them about the Eastern Churches. Many have not even heard of them. And others don’t consider them “real Catholics.”
 
Most sedavacantists have no concept of History. They do not know the bad Popes that History has inflicted on the Church.

Secondly they tend to forget that the Roman Pontiff is visibly the head of the Church. Vatican 1.

I would equate sedavacantists with orthodox in some ways. The orthodox bishops in council accepted the teachings of the Roman Church with regards to purgatory and the filioque in council, it was only when they went home that they repudiated this. This simple fact of history proves the untenablility of the orthodox position.

Paul
 
Melek said:
There are some extremists out there who believe Catholics who accept Vatican II will be damned to Hell. They refer to us as heretics. They believe there is no Salvation outside of the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church. Apparently St. Jerome wrote this in an official Vatican document.

Anyone know why these extremists think this way? Why do they believe that all the Popes of the Vatican II Council are “Antipopes”?
Click to expand...
i don’t like Vatican II but i accept it…

and i dont’ feel i am going to Hell… When i am at the Mass… i feel many things and know many things… but i never get the feeling i am remotely near Hell…

whne i sin i do…

but its not a sin to believe that Vatican II is not from the devil …

even though i do think the devil was there trying to influence people and that he made some inroads… :mad:
 
Yggdrasil said:
There was a thread on sedevacantism just last week; you may find it informative.

Sedevacantists believe that the post-conciliar popes are not popes as a result of their being outside of the corporate Church due to heresy.

A person who is outside of the Church via apostasy cannot be its head; therefore, if the pope is a heretic, he is deprived of his spiritual authority.

Infallibility
Click to expand...
Hi Yggsy, How does one determine when the pope becomes a heretic? Who makes that decision?
 
PaulAndrew83;6230296… said:
Actualy, you’re showing your own ignorance both of history and how Orthodoxy works.

The entire agenda of the Latin side was simply to get the “Greeks” to submit. There was no hint of seeking reconciliation. I suggest you read the book THE HISTORY OF THE UNJUST COUNCIL OF FLORENCE for the Orthodox view of what happened.

The Orthodox bishops repudiated their signature of the decrees because the FAITHFUL did not accept them (as well as being forced to sign). The final test of the true ecumenicity of a council is if the faithful hear the voice of the Shepherd and receive its teaching. This is because the LAITY arethe guardians of the Orthodox Faith.
Click to expand...
 
bpbasilphx said:
The entire agenda of the Latin side was simply to get the “Greeks” to submit. There was no hint of seeking reconciliation. I suggest you read the book THE HISTORY OF THE UNJUST COUNCIL OF FLORENCE for the Orthodox view of what happened.

The Orthodox bishops repudiated their signature of the decrees because the FAITHFUL did not accept them (as well as being forced to sign). The final test of the true ecumenicity of a council is if the faithful hear the voice of the Shepherd and receive its teaching. This is because the LAITY arethe guardians of the Orthodox Faith.
Click to expand...
All councils are guided by the Holy Ghost and the outcomes are therefore holy and accepted and willed by God. Books and laity cannot arbitrate it.
 
giuseppeTO said:
All councils are guided by the Holy Ghost and the outcomes are therefore holy and accepted and willed by God. Books and laity cannot arbitrate it.
Click to expand...
Well, dogmatic councils are binding, right? Pastoral councils are a different matter in as much as they’re not binding, correct?
 
Lamafacaja said:
Well, dogmatic councils are binding, right? Pastoral councils are a different matter in as much as they’re not binding, correct?
Click to expand...
Well, we just had a pastoral council, and it doesn’t appear that we can just take or leave it.
 
giuseppeTO said:
All councils are guided by the Holy Ghost and the outcomes are therefore holy and accepted and willed by God. Books and laity cannot arbitrate it.
Click to expand...
  1. Was Florence a true Council?
  2. I’m telling you the ORTHODOX approach to Councils.
 
Basil.

The Bishops were not forced to sign.

And if the faithful are required to accept a council then they didnt accept Nicea because withing 20, 30 something years the world had groaned and was arian.

This orthodox idea of the faithful needing to give assent was only created by the orthodox to justify their schism.

Paul
 
Lamafacaja said:
Well, dogmatic councils are binding, right? Pastoral councils are a different matter in as much as they’re not binding, correct?
Click to expand...
That’s not correct. All councils are binding; some proclaim dogma, which must be believed. In other words, the Immaculate Conception is dogma and must be believed. You can’t disagree with that. A council that defined such a thing (and yes, I know one didn’t) would have been dogmatic. Now let’s imagine a council that says “Catholics cannot wear socks”. That would be pastoral, because its not defining any dogmas (there’s no declaration of “socks are gravely sinful”, just "Catholics cannot wear socks), but its still binding. You or I could say that this is a pretty silly rule, and write letters to the Pope begging him to change it because our feet now stink, but we still can’t wear socks. While pastoral, it is still binding.
 
\ Basil.

The Bishops were not forced to sign.\

**This is not what the Orthodox Bishops themselves said when they got home. **

\This orthodox idea of the faithful needing to give assent was only created by the orthodox to justify their schism.\

**The Roman idea that the Pope has primacy of ordinary jurisdiction and is infallible under certain conditions was only created in the Rome to justify its own schism and triumphalism–some Orthodox would say.

Just depends on how you look at it.
  • Basil**
 
Lujack said:
That’s not correct. All councils are binding; some proclaim dogma, which must be believed. In other words, the Immaculate Conception is dogma and must be believed. You can’t disagree with that. A council that defined such a thing (and yes, I know one didn’t) would have been dogmatic. Now let’s imagine a council that says “Catholics cannot wear socks”. That would be pastoral, because its not defining any dogmas (there’s no declaration of “socks are gravely sinful”, just "Catholics cannot wear socks), but its still binding. You or I could say that this is a pretty silly rule, and write letters to the Pope begging him to change it because our feet now stink, but we still can’t wear socks. While pastoral, it is still binding.
Click to expand...
Right. Or in other words, we are to at least give an assent of religious will and intellect to a council such as VII.

From Wiki:

**1. Pope ex cathedra - Extraordinary (and universal) Infallible - Full Assent of Faith
  1. Bishops, in union with Pope, defining doctrine at General Council - Extraordinary (and universal teaching of the Church) Infallible - Full Assent of Faith
  2. Bishops proposing definitively, dispersed, but in unison, in union with Pope - Ordinary and universal teaching of the Church Infallible - Full Assent of Faith
  3. Pope - Ordinary - Fallible - Religious submission of intellect and will
  4. Bishops - Ordinary - Fallible - Religious submission of intellect and will **
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium

Peace to you
 
giuseppeTO said:
Here is a great sermon by an “in-communion” Franciscan priest on
No Salvation Outside the Church
Click to expand...
Interesting that the Church has never declared that anyone *personally *is going to hell, yet this priest presumes to tell us who will and won’t make it to heaven. Me thinks that he takes a responsibility upon himself that he has no right to take.

I always love it when people try to place limits on Christ’s infinite mercy.
 
Timothysis said:
Interesting that the Church has never declared that anyone *personally *is going to hell, yet this priest presumes to tell us who will and won’t make it to heaven. Me thinks that he takes a responsibility upon himself that he has no right to take.

I always love it when people try to place limits on Christ’s infinite mercy.
Click to expand...
His sermon pretty much lined up with St. Alphonsus, who didn’t name names because, as you said, no one can predict the mercy of God towards any particular individual at the moment of death. But according to the angelic doctor, more go to hell than don’t and Our Blessed Mother seemed to back that up at Fatima.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top