Would I be welcome here.... IF?

[theMutant]

myrna:

You see my faith is very simple, I believe the Pope is infallible and can not err in matters of Faith and Morals, since JPII has made some serious errors he can not be a true pope. JLC has been able to sort out these matters in much detail for those of you who can face the truth of the matter.

Myrna,

The pope is only protected from erring in matters of faith and morals when speaking ex cathedra. This has always been the teaching of the Church. I agree that JPII has made some serious errors; but only in matters of Church government. You claim that JLC has been able to sort out these matters in much detail for those of us who can face the truth but he has not given even one example of JPII having proclaiming a change to the teaching of the Church’s faith or morals in non ex cathedra documents. He has also not been able to provide one example of Church teaching to show that the faithful, or even bishops, can judge a pope in a matter of heresy and thereby declare him to be a heresy and no longer the pope. This is an entirely new teaching. It was never as part of the faith prior to Vatican II and has only been taught by the sedevacantists since. It is this teaching that constitutes a REAL change of the faith. It is this teaching that is a SERIOUS error in a matter of faith.

 

[theMutant]

the_geezer:

It is supremely Protestant in its model and function.

I would respectfully ask that we NOT go back into the Protestant issue again.

 

[Carrie_Andrews]

Mandy,

And the difference between the Church now and when Christ walked the earth is…??? Peter denied Christ 3 times, yet he was the first leader of the church. Judas sold Christ, yet he was a follower of Christ, he walked and talked with God, and yet was still able to turn his face from him. Yes, even in my own family there are those who think they can chose what church teaching to follow. And yet, there are those of us who are trying to bring about the “New Springtime” of the Catholic church. Who struggle daily to live up to and teach all that she stand for. The Church is a living, growing entity. All things that live and grow must be flawed and daily struggle to correct the flaws and become as Christ! This is why Jesus has given us this living saint, John Paul 2. Not because we’ve earned him, but because we desperately need him! I thank God for him, I thank God for His Church, and I thank Catholic Answers for daily showing me and all who will listen the truths of our faith.

 

[theMutant]

Carrie Andrews:

The Church is a living, growing entity. All things that live and grow must be flawed and daily struggle to correct the flaws and become as Christ!

Carrie,

Please be sure to clairify that it is ONLY the MEMBERS of the living Church that are flawed. The Church herself is flawless. This is doctrine.

 

[theMutant]

myrna:

And if the most adamant traditionalists are right and both the New Canon Law and the New Mass are invalid, then we have the obligation to attend the Latin Mass.

Myrna,

The main problem I have with this statement is that these “most adamant” traditionalists are, in fact, REJECTING the traditional teaching of the Church in making such a claim. The traditional teaching of the Church upholds ONLY three requirements to make a mass valid.

1: The offering must be the proper matter; unleavened bread and wine.

2: A validly ordained priest must actually consecrate the offering. According to the traditional teaching of the Church throughout history, the operative words here are “This is my body” and “This is my blood.” These words are used in the current rite of mass and the current law prohibits the substitution of any other words. It is these words, and these words alone, that determine the validity of the Mass because they are the words that make Christ’s Presence a reality. It is through these words alone that we re-present His Sacrifice.

3: Communion of the faithful is required.

The current rite of mass conforms to ALL of these requirements. The rest of the liturgy is changeable. In the earliest days of the Church, mass was not offered in glorious church buildings on ornate stone altars. It was offered in caves and in people’s homes. I am not saying that we SHOULD go back to that type of practice, just that the trappings of the traditional liturgy are not required for validity. They are glorious and should not have been abandoned but they are just not required for validity. To assert otherwise is to introduce a NEW teaching in the Church; one that contradicts tradition.

In regard to whether or not the new Canon Law is valid, once again these “most adamant traditionalists” are taking a position that opposes the traditional teaching of the Church. The authority of the Church was not given to theologans, it was given to the bishops as the successors to the Apostles; and in a supreme sense to the pope as the successor to St. Peter as the head of the Church. Submission to the authority of the pope is a requirement that has been taught throughout the Church’s history as doctrine.

If you want any of us to accept that JPII is not a valid pope, then you must explain in what way his election was not valid. Every attempt by JLC to do this has been self-refuting. The only example he has brought up that can be considered truly authoritative also limited his position to a particular circumstance; if a cardinal involved in the election makes a claim of invalidity in the election process. He has not named one cardinal that has made such a claim in regard to JPII or any other pope since Pius XII.

 

[Carrie_Andrews]

Geez David, Docturnally yes, but can the people of the church be separated from the Church? Aren’t we the church?

 

[theMutant]

Carrie Andrews:

Geez David, Docturnally yes, but can the people of the church be separated from the Church? Aren’t we the church?

“We” are only the Church to the extent that we conform to her teachings. This is the problem that I have with the expression. Yes, the Church is the universal body of believers; but it is also more than that. The expression that “we are the Church” is one that has led to many errors and so, while there is an element of truth to it, we must be very clear about the distinction. The Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. The Church cannot err but “we” can. The Church is all holy but “we” are not. Etc. etc.

 

[theMutant]

JLC,

You said that we have not responded to the majority of points that you have raised in defense of your position. I will now attempt to do so. For the sake of brevity, I will try to limit myself to only those points that have not been addressed already.

David W. Cooney

Points raised in post 77

JLC:

I do not believe JP2 is a true pope because of his heresy

St. James (2:10): “whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all.”

St. Thomas Aquinas: “To reject but one article of faith taught by the Church is enough to destroy faith as one mortal sin is enough to destroy charity…”

Baltimore Catechism: “A person who denies even one article of our faith could not be a Catholic; for truth is one and we must accept it whole and entire or not at all.”

St. Francis de Sales: “Now when [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.”

Catholic Encyclopedia: “a heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head.”

You have not provided even one example of any heresy of JPII that held up under closer examination.

Your inclusion of St. Thomas Aquinas in interesting. He denied the Imaculate Conception. Because the teaching had not been authoritatively defined, he was not deemed a heretic for this. This fact, however, shows us that even saints can err in matters of faith. Therefore, any time that a saint declares a teaching that contradicts the authoritative teaching of the Church, it is the Church’s teaching we must accept. Where is your declaration from the infallible authority of the Church that proclaims the teaching of St. Francis de Sales you quote above?

The Catholic Encyclopedia and the Baltimore Catechism are not protected by infallibility but, even if you can back up the statements you quote from an authoritative source, you have still not shown JPII to be in heresy. The same applies for the quotes from the Baltimore Catechism and St. James.

New points raised in post 80

JLC:

Papal Infallibility protects a pope from accidentally erring. It does not prevent him from wilfully losing the Faith as a private individual. And if he becomes a heretic as a private individual and proceeds to deal with the official magisterium, he is no longer protected and his errors can manifest themselves. Once they manifest themselves, we can see that the man is not a true pope, otherwise the Holy Ghost would have protected him.

1. People must realize that it is possible.
2. People must realize that we can make that moral judgment that it has occurred.
3. What JP2 might have done for this to apply to him.

Because papal infallibility only applies to the pope when making ex cathedra statements, it is not logical to make a blanket statement that he would be protected in all of his official acts of the “official magesterium” because most of those acts do not fall into the category of infallibility.

While we can make a moral judgment regarding heresy, we do not have the authority to declare each other to be in heresy. Until an authoritative declaration is made your judgment is simply a personal opinion. You have not provided one example of Church teaching that says we may not be considered to be in schism for believing a pope to be invalid on the basis of our opinion regarding his being a heretic. You have also not shown one example from the Church’s infallible magisterial teaching showing that the Supreme Pontiff loses the office of Peter if he commits heresy.

New points raised in post 84
None

 

[theMutant]

New points raised in post 88

JLC:

A pope cannot be judged. This is true. And you will especially hear it said by those of the SSPX who argue about the sede vacante. What they fail to take note of in this, is that, if a pope were to cease to be pope because of heresy, the man would no longer be “a pope” to be judged…he would be a man claiming to be a pope. So, the judgment would be on “a man” who is not a pope. This is a substantial difference, and very important.

Allow me at this point to give a quote from a 1887 law book in 3 volumes, called Elements of Ecclesiastical Law. This was 17 years after the Council of the Vatican. This work was one of the first in English for the clergy. In its 5th edition it was scrutinized for errors by the Holy Office and approved, containing the following:

1. Q. Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso facto, of the Pontificate?
   A. - 1. There are two opinions: one holds that he is, by virtue of divine appointment, divested, ipso facto, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, jure divino, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church - i.e., by an oecumenical council of the College of Cardinals.

So, the Holy Office approved a statement in an ecclesiastical law book that admitted that there are two opinions on this matter but did not give a definitive answer to the question. How, exactly, does this prove your point? Unless the Holy Office, with the approval of the pope, declared that either or both of these opinions is true as a matter of faith, it does nothing to support your position. In fact, it works against it as do all of your other examples. What ecuminical council of the College of Cardinals has delcared JPII (or John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul I) guilty of heresy? In other words, you are not justified in considering JPII to be in heresy and no longer holding the office until such a declaration is made by them.

New points raised in post 91
Already addressed.

New points raised in post 93
Already addressed

New points raised in post 98
None

New points raised in post 100
None

New points raised in post 109

JLC:

Notice here that Smack Daddy continues to claim that a pope falling into heresy and out of the Church is against what Our Lord promised? Why say this when the Saints and Doctors of the Church explicitly say that a pope CAN do so? Smack Daddy is obviously wrong because he will have to say that the Saints and Doctors were going against what Our Lord said.

The saints and doctors of the Church are not protected by infallibility and we are only required to accept their teachings to the extent that they conform to the official magesterium of the Church. The fact that St. Thomas Acquinas, the angelic doctor, denied the teaching on the Immaculate Conception is proof of this.

You also claim that Ut Unum Sint taught the error condemned in Mortalium Animos. I have already proven this accusation to be incorrect.

New points raised on post 111

JLC:

Mjdonnelly, the point I made is the particular error of considering “ut unum sint” as a desire that is yet to be fulfilled. JP2 has fallen directly into this error. Ecumenism is based on it. The concept of “partial communion” for heretics and schismatics is part of this heresy. It didn’t exist before Vatican II.

The concept of the partial communion did exist before Vatican II. The Church has always acknowledged that the Orthodox Churches are true churches because of Apostolic succession. Ut Unum Sint makes the same declaraion as I have pointed out in other posts.

New points raised in post 115
None

New points raised in posts 125 and 126
Already addressed.

New points raised in post 131
None

 

[theMutant]

New points raised in post 132
None, but you again claim that the pope and the bishops at the Vatican have fallen into heresy.

New points raised in post 163
None but you asked a question:

JLC:

Do you believe it is possible for a pope to cease to be pope by going into at least one heresy?

You have tried to post “proof” that asserts that the answer is yes, however, you have not shown any actual authoritative teaching that answers the question. The closest you have come are quotes from Saints and Doctors of the Church who are not protected by infallibility and a law book that presented two “views” on the answer but did not state a definitive answer that has been accepted by the Church’s magesterium.

New points raised in post 195
All points have been addressed except the following:

JLC:

Interesting to see Whit accused the so-called “sedevacantist” Catholic of believing in a “democratic communion of worshippers”. No sedevacantist would dare say anything other than that the Church is a monarchy. And this is further ironic because if Whit thinks it is a monarchy, then he violates Vatican II which started the innovation of “collegiality” among the bishops, which is a democracy.

The teaching on the collegiality of bishops is neither new teaching or a democracy. Exactly what do you think ecumenical councils are if not an exercise of the collegiality of the bishops? Additionally, the new standing conferences do not constitute a democracy in Church government because they do not override the authority a bishop has in his own diocese; a point that the Vatican has made several times. The monarchical authority has given authority over certain matters to the conferences but each individual bishop can appeal to the pope if he feels that a decision abrogates his authority as a pontiff to govern his particular Church. This does not constitute a democracy because it maintains the authority of each bishop in his own diocese and that of the Supreme Pontiff over the entire Church.

New points raised in post 198
Already addressed.

This is the point where I stopped to go back over all of your posts to make sure that all the points you have raised have been addressed. Now the burden in on you to address those questions and points raised against your own positions. The “evidence” you have provided so far does not support your position and, in some cases, directly contradicts it.

 

[kwitz]

After lurking on this thread, I’ve come up with the following definitions:

Protestant: someone who denies there is an authority so it comes down to what I think

Schismatic: someone who agrees there is an authority as long as that authority agrees with me so it comes down to what I think.

Perhaps too blunt and yes I know there is more to it than these definitions give but it does summarize what “I think”!

Kris

 

[Mandi]

kwitz:

After lurking on this thread, I’ve come up with the following definitions:

Protestant: someone who denies there is an authority so it comes down to what I think

Schismatic: someone who agrees there is an authority as long as that authority agrees with me so it comes down to what I think.

Perhaps too blunt and yes I know there is more to it than these definitions give but it does summarize what “I think”!

Kris

My goodness! I think you’ve got it! but don’t forget all the those pick and choose Catholic’s who only do what “they think” you might find them to be a larger majority then the rest put together.

Those who are totally in obedience seem few and far between.

What tube is this ship going down!!!:crying:

 

[Redeemerslove]

Here is a primer on what the Author Calls Schismatic Traditionalists.

Here is a Traditionalist webpage with relevant links.

I have dealt with Sede Vacantists quite often, and am familiar with many of their sects. But there are simply to many divisions, to know all the sects.

 

[bernie]

“Protestant: someone who denies there is an authority so it comes down to what I think”

I’m a former Catholic, now Protestant. Can I define a Catholic as one who blindly follows hierarchy? Or would that be as inflammatory as the above statement?

…Bernie
www.FreeGoodNews.com

 

[kwitz]

I resent the blindly, but yeah, you can define a Catholic as one who follows the hierarchy all you want.

Kris

 

[jordan]

“Protestant: someone who denies there is an authority so it comes down to what I think”

I’m a former Catholic, now Protestant. Can I define a Catholic as one who blindly follows hierarchy? Or would that be as inflammatory as the above statement?

This thread is really, after all, about authority and obedience. Whether or not the Church has a God-given authority to represent Him. Whether or not the same Church that defined the canon of the NT did so under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and authoritatively interprets it today.

Our Lord commissioned the eleven to “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” (Mt 28: 19,20)

He promised His disciples that the Advocate, “the Spirit of Truth…will guide you to all truth.” (John 16: 12)

He gave the keys to one disciple, and one disciple only, promising to build His Church upon the Rock, against which the gates of hell would not prevail. (Mt 16: 18)

After Peter’s threefold denial, Our Lord gets a threefold affirmation of love from Peter, commanding Peter successively: “Feed my lambs…Tend my sheep…Feed my sheep.” (Jn 21: 15-17)

We know that the hierarchy was established by Our Lord Himself, and passed down by the apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and that it still exists today in the successor of Peter, the first among the apostles, the Bishop of Rome. This after two millenia of sinful humanity, and our sinful tendency toward divisiveness that you can read about throughout the NT letters in particular.

We know that Our Lord gave us what we need to be one, and he prayed for just that. (Jn 17: 20) Saul of Tarsus, St. Paul, railed against the divisiveness of the early Christians, “I urge you, brothers, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.” (1 Cor 1: 10)

Christianity cannot be what Christ wants it to be, unless we humbly submit to the authority He gave us…the two thousand year old Rock, and the brother successors to the apostles who lead the Church, and have throughout the ages; through the wars and rumors of wars; through the amazing roller coaster ride of human history. That the hierarchy of the Church still exists in continuity is a miraculous testimony to Christ’s promise to protect His Church.

We have our God-given authority, and our problem is not that we blindly follow them, our problem is that we do not. We need to heed the words found in the Letter to the Hebrew, “Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account…” (Heb 13:17)

When we depart from the fold, we make ourselves gods by making ourselves the authority. We make objective truth subject to our own whims. If I feel abortion, artificial contraception, homosexuality, etc. are OK, then why not? Who is the Church to teach otherwise? There are plenty of people who call themselves Catholics and Christians in our country today who don’t want the Church to tell them how to live their private (and in some cases public) lives. But that is what Jesus commanded of His disciples. Not only to teach us…but to teach us to **observe…**that is to obey.

We have an authority. Disobedience is the wrong option.

 

[Wampa]

Myrna and JLC, I have appreciated the opportunity to learn about your beliefs. I keep faith that someday everyone will get back together (and I mean not only Sedevacantists, but Protestants, too). In the meantime, I’m staying with JPII and his Church

Way back in post #12, Myrna invited us to lurk on their board to better understand where they are coming from. I have done so. Sadly, I have to say that I get the impression that their thread here has been a calculated conversion attempt, despite their initial statements to the contrary (I get that feeling partially due to comments that their fellow Sedevacantists made about how good and effective her approach was). And I wonder if that is why other boards banned you. Regardless, I am open to learning about anybody’s beliefs. The Truth will win out in the end. The debate is always welcome, as far as I am concerned.

If anyone else is lurking on their boards, I recommend the thread “The Earth does not Move”. Now there’s a theological argument I never expected to read in 2004. I didn’t realize that we were still arguing whether or not the Earth went around the sun

 

[JLC]

theMutant:

Well, I’ll have to find and read the entire texts from which you are extracting these very limited quotes. From what you’ve quoted, though, I can see that these maintain the same teaching as the other quote you previously provided. The only basis for denying one’s subjecting to the Pontiff or viewing him as an illegitimate successor to the see of Peter is if his election was invalid. You have consistently ignored this point and you have consistently failed to demonstrate that the election of John Paul II was in any way invalid. These quotes clearly do not support your view that you can lawfully refuse to submit to the Supreme Pontiff or consider him to be illegitimate because you consider him to be a heretic. Unless you can show that the election of the pope was somehow invalid, your own defense convicts you of schism.

Mutant, I see you have written on multiple points in several messages, and I wish to go there eventually, but as I said, one can only efficiently talk about one point at a time. I wish to continue my point with my three quotes from my last message.

There is no reason to doubt three separate quotes from three separate authors on the matter when the wording in all three is apparent.

These quotes don’t explicitly talk about a pope falling into heresy, it is true, because something such as that was not meant to cloud the subject from the ordinary, since it never actually happened and was never accounted for in canon law. It was not considered practical to bring that up explicitly. However, it was not meant to be definitive as far as circumstances went because the authors generalize things apart from doubtful elections such as, "consider his person to be suspect" and “doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power”. They leave it open as to the reasons why one would suspect his person or powers. Yes, such people the authors refer to, would not be consdered schismatic, even if they were mistaken. And it is completely in accord with the Catholic Faith that one of the reasons for suspecting the person or powers of a pope is because he ceased to be a Catholic through heresy. It fits completely in.

Furthermore, the Catholics who believe JP2 is not a true pope do indeed have probable doubt also that he was never validly elected. This is because the Church teaches that a heretic cannot become pope either. So there is a solid doubt in that regard also. Even in regard to Paul VI who signed the heretical 1965 documents, it doesn’t matter whether he ceased to be Catholic before or after his election, the simple fact is, the Holy Ghost would not allow a true pope to do so.

You truly do not know what “begging the question” is. It is a logical fallacy you have fallen into in this subject. You are saying, “Here is a legitimate pope, and because you do not obey him, you are therefore a schismatic.” But when “legitimate” has yet to be proven, and is the very contention, you cannot make that conclusion. That is why those three authors said what they said. The essense is in the will. In this case the will is upright is seeking to separate from a non-Catholic heretic. That is why there is no schism. And those who falsely accuse of schism are in fact, ironically, causing schism but causing unjust separation from other Catholics, whether they are mistaken or not.

JLC

 

[theMutant]

JLC:

There is no reason to doubt three separate quotes from three separate authors on the matter when the wording in all three is apparent.
…
These quotes don’t explicitly talk about a pope falling into heresy, it is true, because something such as that was not meant to cloud the subject from the ordinary, since it never actually happened and was never accounted for in canon law. It was not considered practical to bring that up explicitly. However, it was not meant to be definitive as far as circumstances went because the authors generalize things apart from doubtful elections such as, "consider his person to be suspect" and “doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power”. They leave it open as to the reasons why one would suspect his person or powers.
…
Furthermore, the Catholics who believe JP2 is not a true pope do indeed have probable doubt also that he was never validly elected. This is because the Church teaches that a heretic cannot become pope either. So there is a solid doubt in that regard also. Even in regard to Paul VI who signed the heretical 1965 documents, it doesn’t matter whether he ceased to be Catholic before or after his election, the simple fact is, the Holy Ghost would not allow a true pope to do so.

You truly do not know what “begging the question” is. It is a logical fallacy you have fallen into in this subject. You are saying, “Here is a legitimate pope, and because you do not obey him, you are therefore a schismatic.” But when “legitimate” has yet to be proven, and is the very contention, you cannot make that conclusion.

You say that the authors “leave it open” regarding the reasons one may consider a pope’s person or powers to be suspect. To whom do they leave it open? You obviously contend that it is open to just anyone but that position clearly goes against tradtional teaching which asserts that the authority to declare someone a heretic is part of the Church’s heirarical authority; in other words with the bishops. If I am wrong, then prove me so by presenting the authoritative teaching of the Church on this matter.

As far as doubting the wording from three different authors, I am not familiar with those authors so I am free to doubt them. You could present a hundred authors and I am free to doubt them because the Church has defined that the bishops are the only one’s with the authority to declare such a teaching. This definition goes all the way back to the Church’s origins. Unless you can show me that your interpretation of these authors is consistent with historical authoritative Church teaching (which you have failed to do) I will disagree with you. My doing so is neither illogical or a breach of the Faith.

I do know what “begging the question” is and you are the one who has repeatedly fallen into that logical fallacy. You are implying that I believe JPII to be a legitimate pope against reason. However, you have not provided even one reason to doubt his legitimacy. You claim that Paul VI signed a heretical document but you have failed to show in what way that document is heretical. You are the one begging the question and the question is, “why should we believe you?”

So far, you have not given us any reason to do so. It is unreasonable to assert that we must accept that a pope is a heretic or that his election was invalid without any proof; yet this is exactly what you are asking of us. You keep saying that we cannot approach this situation from the position that JPII is a valid pope because it is his validity that is in contention. As I have already pointed out, if this is true then it is just as true that you can not approach this situation from the position that he is not. It is hypocritical to say that we cannot approach the discussion from our own point of view while you can. This is another example of how you keep falling into logical fallacy. Haven’t you ever heard of “innocent until proven guilty?” You are asking us to consider him guilty until we can prove him innocent. This is illogical and contrary to the historical teaching of the Church.

Several of us have repeatedly asked us to to present us with proof to back up your claims. You have presented a few quotes of papal documents but it was easily shown that you were not considering the full teaching of those documents and that they did, in fact, support the same teaching you claimed they rejected. The proof of this was also posted in this thread for all to consider. All subsequent requests for proof have been met with deflection by you. We have addressed EVERY POINT you have presented so far and none of them lend ANY support to your position. Many of them explicitly contradict it.

 

[Carrie_Andrews]

Bernie,
Did you truely know who you were leaving behind when you left the Catholic church? If you think so, what are you doing here? Whistling Dixie?