Would I be welcome here.... IF?

[theMutant]

whit:

Now what we have here is a group of people who want ot call themselves Catholics, and I’m sure they beileve that they are, but who want the Church to be a democratic communion of worshippers instead of the monarchy that it was set up to be by Christ Himself.

You should really research their positions. I admit that I disagree with their reasoning but they do NOT want the Church to be a democratic communion of worshipers. Additionally, you further prove that they are not Protestants because call themselves Catholic. No Protestants call themselves Catholic because the reject the Catholic Church’s idea of the Church’s authority along side that of the Scripture. The sedevacantists do not reject this idea.

Some of you may wonder why I, who disagree with their position, am spending so much effort defending them on this matter. It is because I want to help to bring them back into full communion. We will not be able to progress to the real issues that divide us while we continue making false accusations about them being Protestant. It is true that the Protestants got that label because of their initial protest against certain practices and teachings of the Church. Over the centuries, however “Protestant” and “Protestantism” has come to mean that specific group of Churches that grew out of this SPECIFIC movement.

 

[Gratias_Grace]

whit:

To Mutant and all-
First of all I want to state that Myrna and JLC are Protestants regardless of the fact that Mutant wants to argue differently. The word itself denotes “protesting”, being against something vocally and in action. That is what makes a Protestant;someone who is protesting against the Church itself and/or it’s actions.

Hi Whit!

I really agree with you in that Myrna and JLC PROTESTS against The Catholic Church. But they don’t represent the Sola Scripura “tradition”. So even if they disobey the authoroty of the Church, pope John Paul II, they are not followers of Luther, Calvin and the other protestants that denied and still denies Sacred Tradition.

Their problem is rather the way they look upon Sacred Tradition.

That problem has made them at SCHISM with todays Rome (and ironically also with the Tradition). The only way they can solve their problem is to see that: “The Mass has not changed since Christ instituted this sacrament on the night before His crucifixion. In essence, there is neither an “old” Mass nor a “new” Mass, but only the Mass. In fact what changed after the Second Vatican Council was not the Mass, but the liturgy” … “In short, the Rome of Tradition and the Rome of Today were the same Rome.” … “Just as at the Incarnation Christ was fully human and fully divine, without sacrificing either nature, so too must the Church, as Christ’s Mystical Body, be a perfect union of the visible and the invisible”.(from Envoy Magazine, vol. 4,6).

When the sedevacanists declare the chair of Peter for empty they weaken the Church and are themselves heretical.

The “CMRI, which departed from Schuckardt and obtained conditional reordination from Fr. Musey in the early '80’s, and eventually obtained their own bishop through Fr. Moises Carmona”
shows the same tendencies as the the protestants (The Sola Scriptura-believers). They split and split.

In some way or other the sedevacanists most come to recognice that it is not the Novo Ordo Mass (post Vat II) and the Pope that is heretical, but they themselves. They want to be catholics (part of the unity) and we must pray for them to return HOME and to stop their practises of teaching their youth the heretical ideas that the chair of Peter is empty.

More information about sedevacanists here:
catholiccouncil.homestead.com/SedeVacanteNihilInnovetur.html

I will like to thank you, Whit, for the link you gave to Envoy about SSPX in this thread’s post # 166. The article is informative and has something to teach us about all the heretic sects. I repeat the adress:
envoymagazine.com/backissues/4.6/lefebvre.htm

(Please excuse any spellingmistakes. English is not my first language).

ET UNAM, SANCTAM, CATÓLICAM ET APOSTÓLICAM ECCLESIAM!

Peace in Christ!

G.G.

 

[theMutant]

JLC:

I want to call your attention to legislation by Pope Julius II at the 5th Lateran Council. It involved the crime of “simony”. Simony is the sin named after the early Church heretic “Simon Magus” (Acts 8:18). It is defined in A Catholic Dictionary (TAN) as “the deliberate intention of buying and selling or otherwise trafficking in sacred things”. To prevent corruption involving a man trying to become a pope by gaining votes through simony, Pope Julius II ruled on it by saying that such an act invalidates the election, and that such a person is to be regarded as a heretic. Simony is an act much more difficult to discern than manifest heresy, yet Pope Julius ruled that lesser clergy and laity can judge such a man not to be a true pope even if he is unanimously elected by the cardinals!

The reason that the example you cite here doesn’t support your position is that it deals with a defect in the process of electing the Pope. If it can be PROVED that the process was made null by an act such as simony, the the election itself is null and the papal see would still be vacant. However, I have not heard you, or any other sedevacantist, give an example of how JPII’s election is invalid. In what ways were the laws of the Church governing the election of the pope violated? In what ways did the process of his election go against the teaching of the Church and thereby nullify its result? If you cannot show this in regard to JPII, your example does nothing to prove your point.

JLC:

The judgment is in lieu of higher judgment but nevertheless a real and necessary judgment that can FULLY be acted upon. Here are portions of that legislation:

*"…even if the election resulted in a majority of two-thirds or in the unanimous choice of all the cardinals, or even in a spontaneous agreement on the part of all, without a scrutiny being made, then not only is this election or choice itself null, and does not bestow on the person elected or chosen in this fashion any right of either spiritual or temporal administration, but also there can be alleged and presented, against the person elected or chosen in this manner, by any one of the cardinals who has taken part in the election, the charge of simony, as a true and unquestionable heresy, so that the one elected is not regarded by anyone as the Roman pontiff."

“A further consequence is that the person elected in this manner is automatically deprived, without the need of any other declaration, of his cardinal’s rank and of all other honors whatsoever…”

“…the elected person is to be regarded as, and is in fact, not a follower of the apostles but an apostate and,…and a heresiarch…”

“It shall be lawful for… all the clergy and the Roman people, …to withdraw without penalty and at any time from obedience and loyalty to the person so elected even if he has been enthroned (while they themselves, notwithstanding this, remain fully committed to the faith of the Roman church and to obedience towards a future Roman pontiff entering office in accordance with the canons) and to avoid him as…a heresiarch.”

“Those who break off obedience to him are not to be subject to any penalties and censures for the said separation…”*

According to the legislation you quote, the claim of simony (or, I suppose, any othe violation of the election process) can be brought forward by a cardinal involved in the election process. It is only lawful to break communion with someone elected pope once a cardinal involved in the election makes the accusation. So to my previous question asking in what way JPII’s election was invalid, I must also add the question of what cardinal involved in his election has brought forth the claim of invalidity?

 

[CD4]

Excellent post.

 

[choicenctr]

To the Mutant, I really enjoy your comments, you seem to do your homework. With regards to whether sedevacantists or SSPX people are protestant or not, I think that due to their rejection of the New Catechism, the Last three Popes, VAT. II, other Priests and Bishops that do not agree with them, and their tendency towards individual interpretation, they are at least moving towards the direction of protestantism, wouldn’t you think?

 

[WanderingCathol]

choicenctr:

To the Mutant, I really enjoy your comments, you seem to do your homework. With regards to whether sedevacantists or SSPX people are protestant or not, I think that due to their rejection of the New Catechism, the Last three Popes, VAT. II, other Priests and Bishops that do not agree with them, and their tendency towards individual interpretation, they are at least moving towards the direction of protestantism, wouldn’t you think?

But we are not the one’s that changed the faith. You have. Just like the arians did but God always had a remnant for himself.

I like the quote that Myrna used from athanasius " you might have the buildings but we have the faith".

 

[theMutant]

WanderingCathol:

But we are not the one’s that changed the faith. You have. Just like the arians did but God always had a remnant for himself.

I like the quote that Myrna used from athanasius " you might have the buildings but we have the faith".

But the faith has not been changed in any way. Not by Vatican II, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, or by John Paul II. It is true that external aspects of the practice of the faith have changed and, in my opinion, changed for the worse; especially the liturgy (you can read my posts in the Universal Indult thread in the Liturgy forum in you’re interested in my views on these changes) but NOT ONE doctrine or dogma of the Catholic faith that was taught prior to Vatican II has been modified or denied. If you think otherwise, then specify the doctrine or dogma and in what way it has changed.

JLC has attempted to show that JPII has fallen into heresy but the example he provided failed the test. He has also tried to show how sedevacantists can justify their judgment over the council and the popes but that too failed the test. No, it is the sedevacantists who have changed the faith in claiming that individual bishops can judge the validity of an ecumenical council or of papal elections. So far, I have seen no information that actually justifies this claim.

 

[theMutant]

choicenctr:

To the Mutant, I really enjoy your comments, you seem to do your homework. With regards to whether sedevacantists or SSPX people are protestant or not, I think that due to their rejection of the New Catechism, the Last three Popes, VAT. II, other Priests and Bishops that do not agree with them, and their tendency towards individual interpretation, they are at least moving towards the direction of protestantism, wouldn’t you think?

I wouldn’t describe the direction they are moving as being toward Protestantism; but only because “Protestantism” means something specific in the religious world. Believe me, Protestants would not consider sedevacantists as belonging to their numbers. The founding prinicples of Protestantism are sola fide and sola scriptura; these are the beliefs (and the only beliefs) that ALL Protestants agree on and the sedevacantists reject these beliefs!

Sedevacantists are in schism, which means to break away. Protestants are also in schism as are the Orthodox churches.

 

[Mandi]

choicenctr:

To the Mutant, I really enjoy your comments, you seem to do your homework. With regards to whether sedevacantists or SSPX people are protestant or not, I think that due to their rejection of the New Catechism, the Last three Popes, VAT. II, other Priests and Bishops that do not agree with them, and their tendency towards individual interpretation, they are at least moving towards the direction of protestantism, wouldn’t you think?

The Mutant is very very right about the stance of sedevacantists and SSPX - please get this notion of protestantism out of your head - they are soooooo Catholic, it hurts - Ouch!!! And the one thing they know better than other Catholic’s is their religion inside and out. They are very very well versed. Be prepared if you want to argue with them!

 

[WanderingCathol]

theMutant:

But the faith has not been changed in any way. Not by Vatican II, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, or by John Paul II. It is true that external aspects of the practice of the faith have changed and, in my opinion, changed for the worse; especially the liturgy (you can read my posts in the Universal Indult thread in the Liturgy forum in you’re interested in my views on these changes) but NOT ONE doctrine or dogma of the Catholic faith that was taught prior to Vatican II has been modified or denied. If you think otherwise, then specify the doctrine or dogma and in what way it has changed.

JLC has attempted to show that JPII has fallen into heresy but the example he provided failed the test. He has also tried to show how sedevacantists can justify their judgment over the council and the popes but that too failed the test. No, it is the sedevacantists who have changed the faith in claiming that individual bishops can judge the validity of an ecumenical council or of papal elections. So far, I have seen no information that actually justifies this claim.

what test are you talking about? the one comparing it to past popes, church fathers and councils? I think JLc as done a very good job.

The only thing is that you guys don’t want to believe that the pope could turn into a heretic and this is treathing to you. It has been documented( church fathers, popes, saints) that it is possible but you guys just don’t want to face it.

Honeslty, do you know what I see. I see lots of catholics trying top justify many things with the usual " you just don’t understand", " it was not infallible statement", " we just have a better understanding of it".

My favorite change is doctrine is the " christ’s churchr SUBSITS in the catholic church". when the teachings has always been the christs church is the catholic church.

Now we have all these apologist trying to say that there is no contradiction but there is. Even someone who is not catholic would come to this conclusion. all of these changes is just to promote ecumenism. To make it more palatable for the protestants, orthodox, hindus, jews, etc…

Let the documents speak for themselves.

I believe that ecumenism is even a bigger heresy than Arianism ever was. In ecumenism the faith is compromise. Indifferetism!!!

 

[WanderingCathol]

theMutant:

I wouldn’t describe the direction they are moving as being toward Protestantism; but only because “Protestantism” means something specific in the religious world. Believe me, Protestants would not consider sedevacantists as belonging to their numbers. The founding prinicples of Protestantism are sola fide and sola scriptura; these are the beliefs (and the only beliefs) that ALL Protestants agree on and the sedevacantists reject these beliefs!

Sedevacantists are in schism, which means to break away. Protestants are also in schism as are the Orthodox churches.

To us you are the protestant because you have protested the faith handed down to us by Holy Mother Church. It has been compromise and only a segment holds to the teaching of Holy Mother church.

Like Athanasius said " You have the buildings we have the faith".

We are living in the time of the great apostasy. But take heart the gates of hell won’t prevail against Holy Mother Church.

 

[theMutant]

WanderingCathol:

To us you are the protestant because you have protested the faith handed down to us by Holy Mother Church. It has been compromise and only a segment holds to the teaching of Holy Mother church.

You can continue to make that assertion, but you can’t seem to name one doctrine or dogma that I have protested against or that has been changed by Vatican II or any of the popes since Pius XII. Here I am defending you against the charge of being Protestant and you accuse ME of it. Very confusing, and disappointing.

 

[WanderingCathol]

theMutant:

You can continue to make that assertion, but you can’t seem to name one doctrine or dogma that I have protested against or that has been changed by Vatican II or any of the popes since Pius XII. Here I am defending you against the charge of being Protestant and you accuse ME of it. Very confusing, and disappointing.

I gave you one.

Christ’s church subsits in the catholic church.

when the teachings has always been the catholic church is christ’s church.

 

[Gratias_Grace]

WanderingCathol:

Honeslty, do you know what I see. I see lots of catholics trying top justify many things with the usual " you just don’t understand", " it was not infallible statement", " we just have a better understanding of it".

You are wrong, WanderingCathol. You don’t have a better understanding. You have the wrong understanding. You are schismatics: “Schismatics, says St. Thomas, in the strict sense, are they who of their own will and intention separate themselves from the unity of the Church. The unity of the Church consists in the connection of its members with each other and of all the members with the head. Now this head is Christ whose representative in the Church is the supreme pontiff” (from New Adwent on Heresy).

I believe that ecumenism is even a bigger heresy than Arianism ever was. In ecumenism the faith is compromise. Indifferetism!!!

Ecumenism is not a compromise. It is buildt on the understanding of what Jesus himself said before he was taken to Pontius Pilate: “…that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (John 17:21, NRSV).

The split in diffrent Protestant churches after the reformation, was a SIN against Christ’s wish that we may all be one.

Ecumenism is about to try to be together at christian topics that unite. It is not giving up what can’t be given up. Ex.: When luterans and catholics celebrate “a together mass” there are two rows for the bread, on for Holy Comunion (catholic) and one for “bread where Jesus is espesially near the parttakers in the meal” (the lutherans).

If there had been only one row of catholiics and lutherans, then you could talk about error and bad compromise.

The last word in article at the the link I will leave here is: “The step taken by the Declaration on Justification is an important one. On the threshold of a new millennium, it allows Catholics and Lutherans to give joint witness to a central element of their common faith, so that the world might believe” As we remember from the Bible ((John 17:21), Jesus told us the same : “SO THAT THE WORLD MAY BELIEVE”

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=2659

I have one more thing to say to your post at this moment. You said: “To us you are the protestant because you have protested the faith handed down to us by Holy Mother Church”. (Originally Posted by WanderingCathol).

This is noncence! If the Roman Catholic Church starts to claim “Sola Schriptura”, then you can call us Protesatants. You know very well that we don’t do that.

(Please excuse any spellingmistakes. English is not my first language).

Peace in Christ!

G.G.

 

[theMutant]

WanderingCathol:

I gave you one.

Christ’s church subsits in the catholic church.

when the teachings has always been the catholic church is christ’s church.

Unitatis Redintegratio

1. The term “ecumenical movement” indicates the initiatives and activities planned and undertaken, according to the various needs of the Church and as opportunities offer, to promote Christian unity. These are: first, every effort to avoid expressions, judgments and actions which do not represent the condition of our separated brethren with truth and fairness and so make mutual relations with them more difficult; then, “dialogue” between competent experts from different Churches and Communities. At these meetings, which are organized in a religious spirit, each explains the teaching of his Communion in greater depth and brings out clearly its distinctive features. In such dialogue, everyone gains a truer knowledge and more just appreciation of the teaching and religious life of both Communions. In addition, the way is prepared for cooperation between them in the duties for the common good of humanity which are demanded by every Christian conscience; and, wherever this is allowed, there is prayer in common. Finally, all are led to examine their own faithfulness to Christ’s will for the Church and accordingly to undertake with vigor the task of renewal and reform.
   When such actions are undertaken prudently and patiently by the Catholic faithful, with the attentive guidance of their bishops, they promote justice and truth, concord and collaboration, as well as the spirit of brotherly love and unity. This is the way that, when the obstacles to perfect ecclesiastical communion have been gradually overcome, all Christians will at last, in a common celebration of the Eucharist, be gathered into the one and only Church in that unity which Christ bestowed on His Church from the beginning. We believe that this unity subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time.
   For although the Catholic Church has been endowed with all divinely revealed truth and with all means of grace, yet its members fail to live by them with all the fervor that they should, so that the radiance of the Church’s image is less clear in the eyes of our separated brethren and of the world at large, and the growth of God’s kingdom is delayed. All Catholics must therefore aim at Christian perfection(24) and, each according to his station, play his part that the Church may daily be more purified and renewed. For the Church must bear in her own body the humility and dying of Jesus,(25) against the day when Christ will present her to Himself in all her glory without spot or wrinkle.

It is clear from this that the expression “subsists” does not indicate that there is an incompleteness in Catholic doctrine or that the other Christian churches are in any way equal to the standing of the Catholic Church. Indeed, quite the contrary. As the council stated, the Catholic Church has been endowed with all divinely revealed truth and with all means of grace. The word “subsists” indicates the lack of complete unity among all of the Christians in the world; a unity which will only be achieved when all Christians separated from the Catholic Church return to that one Church to which Christ has delivered the fullness of divine revelation and grace. In other words, the word “subsists” is only used to describe the extent to which the term “unity” may be applied to those churches that have separated from the one Church of Christ. Their unity subsists in the one Catholic Church; which contains the true and complete unity that Christ established in the Church through the Holy Spirit. This is simply an acknowledgment of fact that the Church recognizes the fruits from Christ that exist in those churches that have separated from the bishop of Rome; fruits which were recognized before the council as well.

Those fruits include the sacraments. The Church recognizes that Protestants have valid sacraments of baptism and matrimony. The Orthodox have all seven sacraments, as do the sedevacantist groups (at least those of which I have heard). This acknowledgment in no ways raises these churches to the same level as the one Church which Christ established – the Catholic Church; indeed, the validity of their sacraments only exists because they were formerly in union with that one Church.

 

[Gratias_Grace]

theMutant:

Their unity subsists in the one Catholic Church; which contains the true and complete unity that Christ established in the Church through the Holy Spirit. This is simply an acknowledgment of fact that the Church recognizes the fruits from Christ that exist in those churches that have separated from the bishop of Rome.

This is what ecumenism is about!

God Bless!

G.G.

 

[theMutant]

theMutant:

In other words, the word “subsists” is only used to describe the extent to which the term “unity” may be applied to those churches that have separated from the one Church of Christ.

Correction, it is also used to describe how each of us, individually, fails in unity when we fail to live up to the complete teaching of Christ; which is found ONLY in the Catholic Church.

 

[theMutant]

WanderingCathol:

what test are you talking about? the one comparing it to past popes, church fathers and councils? I think JLc as done a very good job.

The only thing is that you guys don’t want to believe that the pope could turn into a heretic

WOW! I really can’t understand where you got this from MY posts. The test that I was talking about were the tests of HIS OWN examples. The very examples he cited refute his claims. Likewise, your example also failed to demonstrate your claim.

While there are many who have asserted that the pope cannot commit heresy, I am not one of them and have asserted that he can do so in every post I have written on the topic. I reassert it now, just in case you missed it. However, YOU need to show where in official Church teaching before Vatican II that ANYONE had the authority to judge the pope in matters of heresy. As I pointed out in my previous post, only the authority of the Church can pass judgment on this matter and there is NO ONE in the Church who has the authority to judge the pope.

What I do deny is that JPII has, in fact, taught heresy and you have presented no evidence that shows he has. An attempt has been made regarding Ut Unum Sint, but I demonstrated that it actually taught nothing different ABOUT THE FAITH than the previous papal encyclical cited; it merely made lawful certain efforts at ecuminism that were previously unlawul. This does not constitute a change in faith, but a change in law and the law is temporal and subject to change.

 

[choicenctr]

theMutant:

I wouldn’t describe the direction they are moving as being toward Protestantism; but only because “Protestantism” means something specific in the religious world. Believe me, Protestants would not consider sedevacantists as belonging to their numbers. The founding prinicples of Protestantism are sola fide and sola scriptura; these are the beliefs (and the only beliefs) that ALL Protestants agree on and the sedevacantists reject these beliefs!

Sedevacantists are in schism, which means to break away. Protestants are also in schism as are the Orthodox churches.

Good point, thanks.

 

[choicenctr]

I think that I have come to the end of my participation on this forum. I do not think that either of us have moved any closer to the other on this issue and I cannot see it happening. I would like to thank “The Mutant” for all of the time and research you have added to this thread. I would like to thank Myrna, JLC, and Wandering Catholic for the insight into the sedevacantists and SSPX. I will pray for you three and your friends that wake up and see your error and that the Lord brings you bakc into the fold. Try to read the Mutants responses again sincerely without just trying to refute them. God Bless.