Traditionalists not attending Novus Ordo

[JKirkLVNV]

What?! You missed it again?! Sedevacantists have to deny the Visible Church if they’re going to stick to their argument. I guess gorman’s out today since he hasn’t commented.

And super interregnum is what the sedevacantists believe we’re in now which, of course, goes back to the secret invisible Church. We see no interregnum in the Visible Church. They see super interregnum and that the Visible Church is only seen by a few who have super cool glasses that allow them to see it.

So, they can say that they believe in the Visible Church but it’s a hard claim to stick to when nobody can see it but them. The Church they see certainly isn’t a “beacon on the hill” to us. The Church we see is a fraud to them.

Good argument!

 

[MTD]

I guess gorman’s out today since he hasn’t commented.

I’m sorry to burst your bubble, bear06, but I don’t think he’s going to comment on it because…uh…it’s not really relevant to the topic we were debating; i.e., what to do about heretical members of the Teaching Church.

Maria

 

[bear06]

I’m sorry to burst your bubble, bear06, but I don’t think he’s going to comment on it because…uh…it’s not really relevant to the topic we were debating; i.e., what to do about heretical members of the Teaching Church.

Maria

LOL! You might want to read post #1. I don’t think this was the topic at all. It’s evolved, as conversations do, so I was addressing gorman’s post which I don’t think he’ll address because he didn’t on any of the thread in which I responded the same thing.

What you haven’t noticed is that he brings the same point up a lot. There is no heresy in the Church therefore what you (actually he) sees as heresy isn’t the Church - i.e. the Pope.

 

[bear06]

Good term!

(feel better? )

So much! I worked hard on that one. Make sure you use it at your next dinner party.

 

[MTD]

LOL! You might want to read post #1. I don’t think this was the topic at all. It’s evolved, as conversations do, so I was addressing gorman’s post which I don’t think he’ll address because he didn’t on any of the thread in which I responded the same thing.

Um, I think I said “topic we were debating,” not topic of the thread.

What you haven’t noticed is that he brings the same point up a lot. There is no heresy in the Church therefore what you (actually he) sees as heresy isn’t the Church - i.e. the Pope.

Oh yes I have noticed. Hence my argument that the Taught Church isn’t in a position to judge the orthodoxy of the Teaching Church; that’s the duty of the Teaching Church.

Maria

 

[bear06]

Oh yes I have noticed. Hence my argument that the Taught Church isn’t in a position to judge the orthodoxy of the Teaching Church; that’s the duty of the Teaching Church

.

The problem here is that you both have different definitions of Teaching Church. He considers the Teaching Church any member of the Church whether acting in union with Rome or not. It would seem that you consider the Teaching Church any member of the heirarchy in union with Rome which, of course, is correct. We can judge the orthodoxy of someone who break with Rome. His problem lies in the fact that he believes Rome broke with Rome and therein lies the super interregnum and the invisible Church that he sees. It’s all tied in together.

 

[MTD]

The problem here is that you both have different definitions of Teaching Church. He considers the Teaching Church any member of the Church whether acting in union with Rome or not. It would seem that you consider the Teaching Church any member of the heirarchy in union with Rome which, of course, is correct.

I don’t think we really do have different definitions of Teaching Church. I think we share the definition that the Teaching Church is the whole episcopal body, including and united to the head of the episcopal body, the pope. The difference between us is that for him there currently is no head whereas for me there is. So if there is no head and thus no infallibility, he, a member of the Taught Church, is forced to teach himself in order to determine which members of the Teaching Church are in union with past heads of the episcopal body and thus indeed the present Teaching Church.

We can judge the orthodoxy of someone who break with Rome.

If you mean we can judge whether a member of the Teaching Church is a heretic, I disagree. Once a member of the Taught Church is in a position to judge the orthodoxy and communion with the pope of a member of the Teaching Church, there’s no reason to have a Teaching Church because the Taught Church is now on the same level.

Maria

 

[TNT]

…
If you mean we can judge whether a member of the Teaching Church is a heretic, I disagree. Once a member of the Taught Church is in a position to judge the orthodoxy and communion with the pope, of a member of the Teaching Church, there’s no reason to have a Teaching Church because the Taught Church is now on the same level.

Maria

Just a thought, but according to that logic there is no such thing as a Taught Church in that they are either never taught or they never learn what they are taught, and thus can never make a judgment.
So, being taught is quite useless for making any reasonable judgment regarding heresy.
Therefore, the taught church, since it cannot judge whether or not a heresy is manifested, is never responsible for practicing heresy itself either.

 

[TNT]

…So if there is no head and thus no infallibility,…

Are you saying that whenever the Chair is Vacant, the Church is not an Infallible Institution, ie loses its Infallible nature, during that vacancy?

Wouldn’t the Deposit of Faith remain as Infallible, and thus the Church that is holding to it?

 

[bear06]

I don’t think we really do have different definitions of Teaching Church. I think we share the definition that the Teaching Church is the whole episcopal body, including and united to the head of the episcopal body, the pope. The difference between us is that for him there currently is no head whereas for me there is. So if there is no head and thus no infallibility, he, a member of the Taught Church, is forced to teach himself in order to determine which members of the Teaching Church are in union with past heads of the episcopal body and thus indeed the present Teaching Church.

If you mean we can judge whether a member of the Teaching Church is a heretic, I disagree. Once a member of the Taught Church is in a position to judge the orthodoxy and communion with the pope of a member of the Teaching Church, there’s no reason to have a Teaching Church because the Taught Church is now on the same level.

Maria

Maria, I agree with you but I still don’t think that you and gorman still share the same definition.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1967314&postcount=130

 

[MTD]

Just a thought, but according to that logic there is no such thing as a Taught Church in that they are either never taught or they never learn what they are taught, and thus can never make a judgment.
So, being taught is quite useless for making any reasonable judgment regarding heresy.
Therefore, the taught church, since it cannot judge whether or not a heresy is manifested, is never responsible for practicing heresy itself either.

Members of the Taught Church can conclude privately (in their own minds) that a member of the Teaching Church is a heretic but they cannot act on that judgment by denying his jurisdiction. In other words, while they can suspect his heresy privately, his jurisdiction must be assumed until/unless he is acknowledged as a heretic by his authorities.

Are you saying that whenever the Chair is Vacant, the Church is not an Infallible Institution, ie loses its Infallible nature, during that vacancy?

No, I’m not; you do have a good point though. Basically, although the Church would be infallible during a brief vacancy, if the vacancy were to remain for a long period of time because the Teaching Church is not doing anything about electing a new pope, that Church could no longer be said to be infallible because it would have fallen into the heresy of believing that the Church could be indefectible without the infallible head, the rock of Peter that Christ built his Church on. In other words, a Teaching Church that believes it can exist for an extended period of time without the head which gives it infallibility has already lost its infallibility by reason of heresy.

Maria, I agree with you but I still don’t think that you and gorman still share the same definition.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1967314&postcount=130

You’re right, bear06!!! I forgot all about that.

gorman64:

It is too simplistic to think that if one obeys the pope (I read this as expresses allegiance to the pope), then that is all that matters. One obeys the pope when he obeys the teaching Church.

I don’t think he has any sources to back that up. It truly is the other way around, and there a plenty of sources to back my position.

Maria

 

[gorman64]

I don’t think we really do have different definitions of Teaching Church. I think we share the definition that the Teaching Church is the whole episcopal body, including and united to the head of the episcopal body, the pope. The difference between us is that for him there currently is no head whereas for me there is. So if there is no head and thus no infallibility, he, a member of the Taught Church, is forced to teach himself in order to determine which members of the Teaching Church are in union with past heads of the episcopal body and thus indeed the present Teaching Church.

The difference between us is that for him there currently is no head whereas for me there is.

Maria:

Yes, but I would point out that your position (as you see it) has a heretical Bishop united to a true Pope…which is impossible. That why no one wants to admit there are heretical Bishops…especially for decades now with no judgment from the Church. It’s a huge problem for you and me.

Think about the definition of heresy before you reply.

Yours,

Gorman

 

[gorman64]

It is too simplistic to think that if one obeys the pope (I read this as expresses allegiance to the pope), then that is all that matters. One obeys the pope when he obeys the teaching Church. Many Catholics do not obey the teaching Church. And not just a small number of the members of the Teaching Church are heretics…

Maria:

Maybe what I stated above was unclear. I was attempting to say that just because one expresses allegiance to the Vicar of Christ does not mean that he may also reject some Church teaching that he figures he does not or cannot submit to. Some maintain this…if someone appears to be a heretic but says they are “under the Pope” then they are somehow exempt from any judgment other than that by some ecclesiastical authority.

Gorman

 

[MTD]

Yes, but I would point out that your position (as you see it) has a heretical Bishop united to a true Pope…which is impossible.

First, a heretical bishop being true pope is impossible according to one theological opinion.

Second, I do not believe that you, a member of the Taught Church, are in a position to judge the heresy and therefore the jurisdiction of a heretical bishop.

gorman64:

That why no one wants to admit there are heretical Bishops…especially for decades now with no judgment from the Church.

I did admit there are bishops very probably heretics. But that doesn’t alter the fact that the Taught Church isn’t in a position to deny the jurisdiction of bishops who have not been acknowledged as heretics by their authorities. Such defies the reason for a Taught Church.

Maria

 

[bear06]

Maria:

Yes, but I would point out that your position (as you see it) has a heretical Bishop united to a true Pope…which is impossible. That why no one wants to admit there are heretical Bishops…especially for decades now with no judgment from the Church. It’s a huge problem for you and me.

Think about the definition of heresy before you reply.

Yours,

Gorman

If you could, name the heresy.

 

[MTD]

Yes, but I would point out that your position (as you see it) has a heretical Bishop united to a true Pope…which is impossible.

I’m sorry. I misunderstood your statement for some silly reason. So the first sentence, especially, is totally out of place.

Yes, but I would point out that your position (as you see it) has a heretical Bishop united to a true Pope…which is impossible.

How?

Maria

 

[gorman64]

Yes, but I would point out that your position (as you see it) has a heretical Bishop united to a true Pope…which is impossible.

How?

Maria:

A non-member of a body united to the head of that body.

How?

Gorman

 

[MTD]

A non-member of a body united to the head of that body.

How?

Oh, I’m sorry! I wasn’t very clear at all. I meant to ask, not how it’s impossible for a heretical bishop to be united to the pope, but how my position has a heretical bishop united to the pope.

Maria

 

[bear06]

Maria:

A non-member of a body united to the head of that body.

How?

Gorman

Really Gorman, you’re arguing against yourself. First you say that there are heretics in the Teaching Church and then you go onto say that they are non-members. Which is it?

 

[gorman64]

Really Gorman, you’re arguing against yourself.

bear06:

Well, then I’ll win won’t I?

I think you are just missing something here…I never argue against myself…at least not on purpose.

Yours,

Gorman