Who's in schism and who is teaching heresy?

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

You’re spreading dissent in the flock of Christ and trying to lead the faithful into doubt and disobedience. Genesis is spot-on.

I am not spreading dissent. Why do you say this, I am only reiterating what your Genesis Brother cited?

Secondly:

So you agree with the statement: “The Catholic Church subsists in the Catholic Church”?

Here is again for your quick reference:

From the latest document On Certain Questions regarding the Doctrine on the Church:

“Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe… in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.”

Lastly:
Am I spot-on with your agreement, if not clarify your position since your brethren Genesis has left the building? Or have you been left on-the-spot

BTW, you did not address the post only made false accusations and criticism. This is the usual position when in err or in fear. It is good your natural defense mechanism is intact, but not required, since I only speak of truth. Anybody can be a critic.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Firstly, you are a liar. I am not spreading dissent. Why do you say this, I am only reiterating what your Genesis Brother cited?

Secondly:

So you agree with the statement: “The Catholic Church subsists in the Catholic Church”?

Here is again for your quick reference:

Lastly:
Am I spot-on with your agreement, if not clarify your position since your brethren Genesis has left the building? Or have you been left on-the-spot

BTW, you did not address the post only made false accusations and criticism. This is the usual position when in err or in fear. It is good your natural defense mechanism is intact, but not required, since I only speak of truth. Anybody can be a critic.

I am not a liar.

You have posted the same thing, over and over, seeming to intimate that the Pope is a heretic or teaching heresy.

I agree with what the Holy See said in its recent clarification of the word “subsits.” To assert otherwise is to cease to be a Catholic, ie, to NOT speak truth.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

I am not a liar.

You lied about me and that is a sin.

I agree with what the Holy See said in its recent clarification of the word “subsits.” To assert otherwise is to cease to be a Catholic, ie, to NOT speak truth.

You talk of Truth? You and some others should be politicians with amount spin going around.

So do you agree with your Brother Genesis and his reference that:

**“The Catholic Church subsists in the Catholic Church”?
**

Here one more time:

From the latest document On Certain Questions regarding the Doctrine on the Church:

“Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe… in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.”

Since the One Church is the Catholic Church (UNLESS of course you disagree- Gotcha ), then this says:
"the Catholic Church subsists in the Catholic Church’ or “the One Church subsists in the One Church”. (Gotcha)

Do not be afraid just answer the question. If what you believe is true and your faith is strong, you should have no fear (except of fear itself) and say YES or NO. So come now, you can do it.

The thread awaits your ‘YES’ or ‘NO’.
I am confident you will continue to be evasive, as spin usually does involve evasiveness.

GOD bless.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

You lied about me and that is a sin.

You talk of Truth? You and some others should be politicians with amount spin going around.

So do you agree with your Brother Genesis and his reference that:

**“The Catholic Church subsists in the Catholic Church”?
**

Here one more time:

Since the One Church is the Catholic Church (UNLESS of course you disagree- Gotcha ), then this says:
"the Catholic Church subsists in the Catholic Church’ or “the One Church subsists in the One Church”. (Gotcha)

Do not be afraid just answer the question. If what you believe is true and your faith is strong, you should have no fear (except of fear itself) and say YES or NO. Some come now, you can do it.

The thread awaits your ‘YES’ or ‘NO’.
I am confident will continue to be evasive.

GOD bless.

You’ll not trick anything out of me, if that’s what you mean. And I’ve not difficulty at all in believing that the “gotcha” is more important to you than the Truth (but this is true of sooooo many of you “traditionalists.”)

Here is PLAINLY what I believe (which is plainly what I MUST believe):

“Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe… in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.”

And I have not lied about you at all. I would invite anyone to read your posts and then ask THIS simple question: “Do these writings seem to cast doubt on the teachings of the Church or the leadership of the Pope?” Now, why don’t you just admit the truth of that. C’mon, you can do it.

 

[ncjohn]

---

We are not blind and deaf puppets —to not know what is and what is not heresy.

Baloney.

None of us get to sit back in our armchairs with our limited knowledge and think we can make judgments on someone being a heretic. We might be able to *define *heresy, but that is about as far as we get to go.

The Church itself has on numerous occasions believed people to be guilty of heresy, only to admit later that that was not the case, and that was after very learned people in the hierarchy, and tribunals established for the purpose, were convinced that they were heretics. Galileo, Joan of Arc, John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila, and the great Thomas Aquainas were all suspected of or condemned for heresy. Secular justice has clearly had similar problems through the ages.

We may think we can sit in our chairs, reading selectively from those who agree with our biases, and determine that someone is a heretic. But I would challenge you to show one place where the Church has ever taught that the laity is able to pronounce someone to be a heretic.

As Genesis noted, only a higher authority can declare a lower authority as heretical. We don’t get to set ourselves as judges, or assemble kangaroo courts of a like-minded group to pronounce judgment on the servants of God. We don’t have anywhere close to the degree of certitude necessary to be casting such aspersions, however knowledgeable we might think we are on the “facts”.

And as I said before, when we start acting as if we do have that authority, and start acting in ways to lead people away from the unity of the Church, we are treading on very dangerous ground. Since we were told by Jesus himself to obey our religious leaders, there will be much to answer for if we choose to do otherwise and lead others to do the same, especially if we turn out to be wrong.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

You’ll not trick anything out of me, if that’s what you mean. And I’ve not difficulty at all in believing that the “gotcha” is more important to you than the Truth (but this is true of sooooo many of you “traditionalists.”)

Let us not go there, but I know you could not even define what a Traditionalist is nor do you know if I am one. You are evasive and leading others astray by going off topic.

What is the truth? I have shown you truth in exactly what that reference says, whether choose to acknowledge is up to you.

There is no trick it is quite simplistic. Is not that statement post by you and Genesis saying That:

**'The One Church subsists in the One Church" or “The Catholic Church subsists in the Catholic Church”? **
you obviously believe this because you have noted you believe the citation.
You are in PARADOX.

I cannot discern why you have such difficulty in answering a question from a citation you agree with?

Spin, Spin way.

you have clearly said you believe the cited reference. Look below for yourself:

Here is PLAINLY what I believe (which is plainly what I MUST believe):

“Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe… in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.”

And I have not lied about you at all. I would invite anyone to read your posts and then ask THIS simple question: “Do these writings seem to cast doubt on the teachings of the Church or the leadership of the Pope?” Now, why don’t you just admit the truth of that. C’mon, you can do it.

Your words speak for themselves as you exude evasiveness. As many who live in fear they Answer Questions with questions. My prediction of you was spot on as all this thread can view for themselves.

BTW, I am unsure if you realize it, but you already answered the question.(Gotcha Sorry I could not resist )

God Bless

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

This completely UNTRUE. Stop spreading falsehood in your ignorance. See, this is where the humility comes in. To acknowledge one’s ignorance over a matter and see where your misunderstanding comes in, and rectify it. We should not judge rashly. If we see something that seems suspect, we should give it the benefit of the doubt until we exhaust all possible explanations.

The CDF has on MULTIPLE occasions ruled out that there could be multiple subsistences or that the Church of Christ subsists in other communities.

I think the following quote should settle the matter:

"He [Cardinal Ratzinger] explained that Vatican II did not use Pius XII’s expression according to which ‘the Roman Catholic Church is the only Church of Christ.’ Instead it preferred the expression ‘The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church…’ because, he said, ‘it wished to affirm the being of the Church as such is a larger identity than the Roman Catholic Church.’ (VATICAN CITY, OCT. 8, 2000 (ZENIT.org).)

 

[Walking_Home]

Baloney.

None of us get to sit back in our armchairs with our limited knowledge and think we can make judgments on someone being a heretic. We might be able to *define *heresy, but that is about as far as we get to go.

The Church itself has on numerous occasions believed people to be guilty of heresy, only to admit later that that was not the case, and that was after very learned people in the hierarchy, and tribunals established for the purpose, were convinced that they were heretics. Galileo, Joan of Arc, John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila, and the great Thomas Aquainas were all suspected of or condemned for heresy. Secular justice has clearly had similar problems through the ages.

We may think we can sit in our chairs, reading selectively from those who agree with our biases, and determine that someone is a heretic. But I would challenge you to show one place where the Church has ever taught that the laity is able to pronounce someone to be a heretic.

As Genesis noted, only a higher authority can declare a lower authority as heretical. We don’t get to set ourselves as judges, or assemble kangaroo courts of a like-minded group to pronounce judgment on the servants of God. We don’t have anywhere close to the degree of certitude necessary to be casting such aspersions, however knowledgeable we might think we are on the “facts”.

And as I said before, when we start acting as if we do have that authority, and start acting in ways to lead people away from the unity of the Church, we are treading on very dangerous ground. Since we were told by Jesus himself to obey our religious leaders, there will be much to answer for if we choose to do otherwise and lead others to do the same, especially if we turn out to be wrong.

---

Baloney back at you. Heresy is spoken and believed by heretics.
It seems some have become so immersed in complacency—that they cannot see heresy when it hits them over the head.

The Pope does not have to declare the following heretics —for us to know what they speak is so.

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/170066?eng=y

 

[latinmasslover]

Joan of Arc, John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila, and the great Thomas Aquainas were all suspected of or condemned for heresy. Secular justice has clearly had similar problems through the ages.

Yet these were all “traditionalists,” most definitely not liberals…these people held to tradition. I assume you don’t condemn Archbishop Lefebvre, as he soon will be cleared, as have all the others, yes?

 

[ncjohn]

Yet these were all “traditionalists,” most definitely not liberals…these people held to tradition. I assume you don’t condemn Archbishop Lefebvre, as he soon will be cleared, as have all the others, yes?

They might be viewed as traditionalists now, but they certainly weren’t at the time though the term “liberal” likely would not have been used, and maybe not available in our context at the time.

I make no condemnations of anyone as I consider that to be God’s job. I’m not nearly smart enough, nor can I see into anyone’s soul to see what their motivations are or what might have brought them to where they are or were. We’re all on our journeys, some further along than others. The roads aren’t always as clearly marked as we’d like and any one of us is capable of going off on a wrong path despite our best intentions. God will bring us back though if we continue to seek His will and listen closely enough. Because of that I try to be very careful to not talk to people in ways that will make back them into corners they need to defend and reinforce when they may really need to rethink things. Not to say I don’t often fail at that, but it is always my goal.

That is also not to say that I don’t steer clear of people whose judgment or values I might have questions about; only that I will not be the one to condemn them. As to whether Lefebvre will be cleared with time, we shall see. There is a big difference between direct disobedience to the Church, and leading others in that directon, and having your writings or positions misunderstood and later cleared. It won’t be my determination and I will stand by whatever the Church does over time, while avoiding condoning what she has censured in the meantime.

Peace,

 

[HenryV]

They might be viewed as traditionalists now, but they certainly weren’t at the time though the term “liberal” likely would not have been used, and maybe not available in our context at the time.

I make no condemnations of anyone as I consider that to be God’s job. I’m not nearly smart enough, nor can I see into anyone’s soul to see what their motivations are or what might have brought them to where they are or were. We’re all on our journeys, some further along than others. The roads aren’t always as clearly marked as we’d like and any one of us is capable of going off on a wrong path despite our best intentions. God will bring us back though if we continue to seek His will and listen closely enough. Because of that I try to be very careful to not talk to people in ways that will make back them into corners they need to defend and reinforce when they may really need to rethink things. Not to say I don’t often fail at that, but it is always my goal.

That is also not to say that I don’t steer clear of people whose judgment or values I might have questions about; only that I will not be the one to condemn them. As to whether Lefebvre will be cleared with time, we shall see. There is a big difference between direct disobedience to the Church, and leading others in that directon, and having your writings or positions misunderstood and later cleared. It won’t be my determination and I will stand by whatever the Church does over time, while avoiding condoning what she has censured in the meantime.

Peace,

Modern Catholics seem to have an allergy to truth, heresy is what it is and schism also. Nonjudgementalism is the 1 st commandment in their religion.
They cannot see that you have to judge things always otherwise you cannot leave you bed in the morning.

 

[ncjohn]

Modern Catholics seem to have an allergy to truth, heresy is what it is and schism also. Nonjudgementalism is the 1 st commandment in their religion.
They cannot see that you have to judge things always otherwise you cannot leave you bed in the morning.

I’m not sure what a “Modern Catholic” is in your definition or if you’re implying I am one, which would be pretty funny since my roots go back well before Vatican II. I’m glad that you have a full grasp on “truth” though since nobody else I’ve known of in history did. Maybe when I’m older…

There is a huge difference between making judgments about how one should act or what one should do, and making judgments about someone else’s soul. As I said, I make judgments as to what appears to be sound relative to the Church’s teaching and I steer clear of that which does not appear to be sound. That is not the same as making judgments about whether someone is or is not a heretic. If the best and brightest minds in the Church can make mistakes in that regard, including mistakes on some of the greatest of saints, I’m not going to presume to think that I have the insight to pronounce judgment on someone else’s soul. And in reading those great saints, I find no sign of them pronouncing judgment on anyone else’s soul either.

I have far too many beams in my own eye to go digging splinters out of someone else’s so I’ll stick with what Jesus said in that regard. If that makes me “allergic to the truth” as you understand it, or a heretic, then I’ll live with that. I spent far too much of my life making judgments about others and being wrong, and considering myself to be above *their *judgment and also being wrong, to play that game any more. Instead, I will just do my best to follow my patron, Francis of Assisi, and “preach the gospel always; use words if necessary.” It seemed to work pretty effectively for him.

 

[HenryV]

I’m not sure what a “Modern Catholic” is in your definition or if you’re implying I am one, which would be pretty funny since my roots go back well before Vatican II. I’m glad that you have a full grasp on “truth” though since nobody else I’ve known of in history did. Maybe when I’m older…

There is a huge difference between making judgments about how one should act or what one should do, and making judgments about someone else’s soul. As I said, I make judgments as to what appears to be sound relative to the Church’s teaching and I steer clear of that which does not appear to be sound. That is not the same as making judgments about whether someone is or is not a heretic. If the best and brightest minds in the Church can make mistakes in that regard, including mistakes on some of the greatest of saints, I’m not going to presume to think that I have the insight to pronounce judgment on someone else’s soul. And in reading those great saints, I find no sign of them pronouncing judgment on anyone else’s soul either.

I have far too many beams in my own eye to go digging splinters out of someone else’s so I’ll stick with what Jesus said in that regard. If that makes me “allergic to the truth” as you understand it, or a heretic, then I’ll live with that. I spent far too much of my life making judgments about others and being wrong, and considering myself to be above *their *judgment and also being wrong, to play that game any more. Instead, I will just do my best to follow my patron, Francis of Assisi, and “preach the gospel always; use words if necessary.” It seemed to work pretty effectively for him.

John, I just said that thinking things are heretical is not the same as saying someone is a heretic (material or formal) or a bad person and we should always presume that others have the best of intentions because that is charity. That being said you have to make judgements what seems to be heresy and not.

 

[ncjohn]

John, I just said that thinking things are heretical is not the same as saying someone is a heretic (material or formal) or a bad person and we should always presume that others have the best of intentions because that is charity. That being said you have to make judgements what seems to be heresy and not.

In that it sounds like we are in agreement. And I apolgize if I misread your intentions on your previous post.

I would still maintain though that while I am going to make judgments about what I consider sound–or “what seems to be heresy” in your statement–that does not mean that I am going to pronounce them as such. I may diminish the weight I will give them, or the degree of credibility I may give the person offering them. And I would likely advise those under my care to do likewise, without diminishing the person. But I will leave to the Church their right to actually proclaim something as heresy.

For instance, I can say to my children and their children that the Church has found Lefebvre to be in schism and that they might consider that in judging whether what he says seems sound, but I would not claim him to be a heretic, or even a schismatic, on my own authority.

I do think it is always prudent though to be very careful in wading in waters the Church has found to be dangerous without very good foundation and sound counsel. I have seen far too many who were fervent and zealous, but were lacking foundation, be swayed in unsound directions because they just didn’t know better and the speaker was persuasive. Knowing where one is out of their depth is an exercise in good judgment, and is the kind of judgment all of us need to survive the choppy waters out there.

Peace to you,

 

[dizzy_dave]

I’m getting tired of some people on this forum who love to tell that the SSPX is in schism (while even Cardinals say they’re not).
It’s also almost unbelieveable that Catholics cannot see that after Vatican II large segments of the episcopate have taught near and plain heresy.
So the question comes who is really in schism?

From your opening remarks it sounds as if you are. You might want to re-read Matt. 16:18.

 

[bear06]

But according to Pope Benedict XVI, you can be saved in other religions and so one does not need to be Catholic. Refer to Holy See website and read some of his comments.

Let’s play “Guess who said this”?

Evidently,certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion.