Would I be welcome here.... IF?

[theMutant]

“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,

You need to brush up on the rules of this forum. You are introducing a completely new topic to this thread and that is against the rules. This thread is not about “inflamatory” statements but about the disagreements between two groups who believe that Peter was appointed by Christ as the head of the entire Church; those who consider the see of Peter to be vacant and those who do not.

You are free to start new threads on this forum, and you will find plenty of people willing to discuss your views with you.

Peace,

 

[Redeemerslove]

“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?

Well I don’t know why you choose to leave the Catholic Church, I myself was indifferent to my Catholic Faith until I was 22. Then I spent alot time reading the bible and trying to decide what to do about my Spiritual Life.

But I can say this, Christ demanded obedience to Religious Superiors:

“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.”(Matt 23:2-3)

Sounds like a blind obedience, at least according to your implied definition…

Obedience is not a bad word - though many Protestants think it is. This issue is not about blind obedience, but a trust in the insitution that Christ founded.

Getting doctrine right is not about being smart - if it was about intellect many of our religious forefathers, such as Jeremiah, would have had the Gospel figured out. But a different word is used for Christ’s doctrine - Revelation. Since the Truth had to be Revealed to us, this implies that intelligence doesn’t matter very much. We simply, with our limited intellects, cannot grasp the full meaning of what Christ intended to convery. So we have a Divinely instituted Church - guided by his Spirit - to be a constant guide in our understanding.

So “blind obedience?” No, not really. But do we have the gift of Christ, manifested through those who speak with his voice (Luke 10:16).

Otherwise I have no beef with you. You’re an adult, I suppose: It’s your soul, not mine.

 

[theMutant]

To date, the only real claim that the sedevacantists have made to show that the Second Vatican Council and the popes after Pius XII have fallen into heresy rests on the statements that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. In my reading of the documents, I found statements that the unity of Christ’s Church subsists in the Catholic Church. I have posted the relevant portions of those documents to show that these statements do not constitute a change in Church teaching. However, it seems to me that the real issue that the sedevacantists is their assumption that the term “subsists” is the operative word that constitutes the change in teaching. They seem to think that, by using subsists instead of another word like exists, the Council and the popes in question have altered the teaching to mean that the unity, and possibly even the nature of the Church is somehow less than was upheld prior to the Council.

Therefore, for the sake of clarity, and for those who have not already looked it up themselves, I am presenting here the meaning of the word in question. I am taking this from Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language published in 1949. I chose this particular version to avoid any claim that I am using some new definition from after the Council.

Subsist: To be, to have existence

Another realted word is also defined that will help to shed light on this discussion:

Subsistor: One who is dependent on another

With these definitions in mind, let’s take a close examination at the phrase in question to determine if the claims of the sedevacantists are correct. Does the phrase “this unity of Christ’s Church subsists in the Catholic Church,” or even the phrase “Christ’s Church subsists in the Catholic Church” constitute a change in teaching? Is it incompatible with the clear teaching from before the Council that Christ established only one Church and that Church is the Catholic Church?

To say that the unity of Christ’s Church subsists in the Catholic Church means the same as saying that the unity of Christ’s Church “has its existence” in the Catholic Church. The teaching prior to the Council was the same that of the Council itself; the unity Christ gave to the Catholic Church is part of her very nature and is something that she can never lose. It cannot even be diminished. So far, I do not see any change in teaching.

In relation to those Christian Churches and other Christian communities that have broken full communion with the Catholic Church, their unity also subsists (has its existence) in the Catholic Church. Their claim to Christian unity is dependent upon the Catholic Church and they cannot possess the unity Christ willed for his followers apart from it. It could be said that, in terms of unity, they are subsistors of the Catholic Church. Their unity is incomplete to the level that they have broken unity with the Catholic Church. This also applies to each of us individually for our unity as members of the Church is completely dependent on the Church. Once again, I can see no change in teaching.

 

[Mandi]

To JLC & Mutant - On another thread (Loyalty to the Pope or Church) a post was made (post #138 by mrS4ntA) that quoted the new catechism #839 - 845, dealing with why Muslims and Jews worhiping the same God as Catholics.

Could you please debate this for me - to say I find this teaching horrific is an understatement. Please debate how the pope can say this and it not be heresy. Although I am aware that you are not Doctors of the Church this seems to follow into your on going debate.
JLC - is this an example of heresy?
Mutant - If the Pope has not commited heresy, how is this justified?

I think myself and other people need this answered!!!
Thank you for taking this subject seriously!

 

[theMutant]

A quick reply for Mandi, to be followed up when I re-read the sections of the Catechism in question.

To begin with, the Catholic Church does not say that the views that each of these religions have regarding God are in any way equal. On the contrary, the views of Jews and Muslims are only correct in so far as they agree with Catholic Teaching. When the Church says that we believe in the “same” God, she is referring to the historical context and NOT equating the teachings of these religions with Catholicism.

While Jews don’t have the same understanding of God that we do, especially in regards to the Trinity, as Catholics we MUST accept that we believe in the same God as the Jews. Our God is the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. The fundamental difference is that the Jews do not believe that the Messiah has come because, for them, it is not possible that Jesus could have been the Messiah. This answer is VERY simplified and the details go much deeper. To be Catholic is to accept that our God is that of Judaism who revealed himself in a more complete manner when he became man and established the Catholic Church.

In regard to Muslims, I must admit that I do not know a great deal of the history of Islam, but what I have heard and read is that Mohammed initially learned Christianity and subsequently Judaism. His teachings of Allah are based on his understanding (misunderstandings) of the teachings of those two religions. Muslims believe in the God of Abraham. I’m not certain if they go beyond that. It is in this sense that they believe in the same God as do we. If I can find further information, I will try to post it in the thread you mentioned.

 

[Paul_Danon]

Vatican II teaches that non-Catholic churches’ liturgies “most certainly can truly engender a life of grace” and “must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation”. It says those churches “have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation” and that the holy Ghost uses “them as means of salvation”.

Thus it suggests that heretical sects can impart grace and salvation, and that one might benefit from attending an Anglican communion-service led by a divorced lady vicar.

This can’t be the teaching of the church and the organisation teaching it can’t be the church.

 

[theMutant]

Mandi:

To JLC & Mutant - On another thread (Loyalty to the Pope or Church) a post was made (post #138 by mrS4ntA) that quoted the new catechism #839 - 845, dealing with why Muslims and Jews worhiping the same God as Catholics.

Paragraphs 839-845 of the Catechism are explaining the relationship between the Church (the People of God) and non-Christian religions. One principle that must be remembered when reading the Catechism is that none of the paragraphs can be considered in total isolation of the others. The Catechism is a progressive explanation of the Faith and any part must be taken in the context of the whole. It is a failure to realize and do this that leads many into error when trying to interpret its teachings.

In terms of the relationship between Catholicism and Judaism, the relationship is strong because Judaism is the birthplace of Catholicism. Christ did not abolish the covenant with the Jews, He fulfilled it, re-established it, and expanded it to include the Gentiles. I highly recommend the book, “Salvation is from the Jews” which goes into this topic at great length. In every comment I have heard or read by converts to Judaism, they do not consider themselves to have converted “from Judaism” but rather to have discovered the fulfillment of Judaism. One said that the most Jewish thing that she ever did was to become Catholic.

In regard to the Muslims, the important point is to not go beyond what the Catechism actually says; which is what I’ve found most people do. The catechism lists three points where Muslims share faith with Catholics. The believe in only one God, the God of Abraham. So do we. They believe that God is merciful. So do we. They believe that God will judge us on the last day. So do we. The catechism says nothing beyond that. To say that we believe in the same God (the God of Abraham) does not mean that what we believe about that God is the same or equally true. The Catechism makes that clear in paragraph 844, “In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them.”

Paragraph 843 teaches that God allows non-Christian religions as “a preparation for the Gospel” and that all truth in these religions is “given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.” Because all that is good and true in non-Christian religions has God as its source, the Church does not reject the good and true aspects of these religions. This is not the same as saying that everything in these religions is good and true or that they are in any way equal to the Church Christ established for our salvation.

This is made perfectly clear in paragraph 845. “To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son’s Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. …she is prefigured by Noah’s ark, which alone saves from the flood.” From this we can see that the Catechism does not teach any kind of heterodoxy that states that all religions are equal or that they are all paths to salvation. The purpose of the truths held by these religions is to lead them to Christ and His Church; the one and only Catholic Church. Once again, we see here the principle that the unity of the Church and humanity subsists (has its existence) in the Catholic Church and only the Catholic Church.

In what way does this constitute heresy? We have a teaching that Christ established one Church for our salvation and that all of humanity is called by God to this Church. All that is true and Good in those religions comes from God for the purpose of leading them to salvation in the Catholic Church. Their religions are not capable of providing salvation except to the extend that they lead to the one and only Catholic Church. Among the non-Christian religions the Church has the closest bond with the Jews because Judaism is the source of the covenant. Its religious history is our own. Among the other non-Christian religions, the Muslims have a closer bond than the rest because they are monotheistic (as opposed to polytheistic or pantheistic), the believe that they follow the God of Abraham (although their understanding on this point is flawed), and they believe that God is merciful and will judge us on the last day. We also believe this.

So far, I see no heresy. Indeed, I see an affirmation of the historic authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church on these matters.

 

[Mandi]

Paul Danon:

Vatican II teaches that non-Catholic churches’ liturgies “most certainly can truly engender a life of grace” and “must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation”. It says those churches “have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation” and that the holy Ghost uses “them as means of salvation”.

Thus it suggests that heretical sects can impart grace and salvation, and that one might benefit from attending an Anglican communion-service led by a divorced lady vicar.

This can’t be the teaching of the church and the organisation teaching it can’t be the church.

I have been saying this for quite awhile what happened to “The One True Church”???

 

[Paul_Danon]

Mandi:

I have been saying this for quite awhile what happened to “The One True Church”???

Happily, our Lord hasn’t let us down. The gates of hell haven’t prevailed against his church. The church has become rather small, though. Millions have been taken in by Vatican II and its teaching that the church actually isn’t necessary.

 

[theMutant]

Paul Danon:

Happily, our Lord hasn’t let us down. The gates of hell haven’t prevailed against his church. The church has become rather small, though. Millions have been taken in by Vatican II and its teaching that the church actually isn’t necessary.

In what paragraph of what document did Vatican teach that the Catholic Church isn’t necessary?

 

[Paul_Danon]

theMutant:

In what paragraph of what document did Vatican teach that the Catholic Church isn’t necessary?

Unitatis redintegratio 3 from which I quote above.

 

[Sparky]

JLC:

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

No.

A pope can sin. It is possible to have a valid pope who is a heretic. He cannot teach error with regards to the faith however. If you believe a pope has taught error with regards to the faith, then you are calling Christ a liar, because he would have failed to protect the church.

There is a difference, in other words, between being a heretic and teaching heresy.

So - by saying a pope is not pope anymore because he is a sinner (heretic) then you are calling Christ a liar. Plain and simple.

–Ann

 

[Paul_Danon]

Sparky:

So - by saying a pope is not pope anymore because he is a sinner (heretic) then you are calling Christ a liar. Plain and simple.

It’s a mistake to identify sin and heresy. Both Catholics and heretics sin. Catholics, however, remain Catholics unless they embrace heresy. Heretic popes fall from office.

 

[Sparky]

Paul Danon:

It’s a mistake to identify sin and heresy. Both Catholics and heretics sin. Catholics, however, remain Catholics unless they embrace heresy. Heretic popes fall from office.

Heresy is a sin. A heretic is someone who is Catholic who has embraced heresy thereby committing sin. They can reject that sin and return to good standing. You have to be Catholic first to be a formal heretic.

Please show me the canon law that states that a pope who becomes a heretic and does not teach heresy is no longer pope.
–Ann

 

[theMutant]

Paul Danon:

Unitatis redintegratio 3 from which I quote above.

Yes, you quote a small part of Unitatis redintegratio, from which I have also extensively quoted. You are taking the texts completely out of context. The “graces” imparted by the liturgies and anything else good and true in any other religion are those which will lead the adherents to the fullness of the Gospel in the Catholic Church.

 

[Paul_Danon]

Sparky:

Heresy is a sin. A heretic is someone who is Catholic who has embraced heresy thereby committing sin. They can reject that sin and return to good standing. You have to be Catholic first to be a formal heretic.

Please show me the canon law that states that a pope who becomes a heretic and does not teach heresy is no longer pope.
–Ann

Because heresy is a sin which evicts you from the church doesn’t mean that all sins do that.

I wouldn’t suggest that a pope who didn’t teach heresy would cease to be pope. If I embrace heresy, I cease to be Catholic, and I don’t have to be pope to do that.

 

[Paul_Danon]

theMutant:

Yes, you quote a small part of Unitatis redintegratio, from which I have also extensively quoted. You are taking the texts completely out of context. The “graces” imparted by the liturgies and anything else good and true in any other religion are those which will lead the adherents to the fullness of the Gospel in the Catholic Church.

Quotation means taking parts of texts otherwise it wouldn’t be quotation.

Do you deny that unitatis redintegratio teaches that the holy Ghost uses protestant churches’ liturgies and that those churches are means of salvation?

That document doesn’t teach that Anglicans can become Catholics, but that the church of England is a means of salvation, rendering the Catholic church un-necessary.

 

[theMutant]

Paul Danon:

Do you deny that unitatis redintegratio teaches that the holy Ghost uses protestant churches’ liturgies and that those churches are means of salvation?

I emphatically deny that it teaches what you are saying it does. Here is a more extensive quote from Unitatis Redintegratio 3

“Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church
itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.

The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such,
though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of
salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life- that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is “the all-embracing means of salvation,” that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God’s gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.

It is clear from this that Unitatis Redintegratio does not teach that the faith and practices of other Churches do not provide a means to salvation apart from the Catholic Church. Whatever graces they can provide are from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church. This is how they can provide access to the community of salvation (which is the Church itself) and each can only do so according to its own condition. In other words, because the Orthodox bishops are valid through Apostolic succession, they can provide the graces available in the seven Sacraments. The Episcopal church cannot.

Additionally, the Holy Spirit does work in those communities in order to try and lead them to follow the natural law established by God and back to Christ and His Church. To deny this is to deny the possibility of conversion! Have you never heard of the baptism of desire? This is the underlying principle of that doctrine! Once again, we see that the teaching of the Church was not changed by Vatican II.

 

[Rattivore]

As a former seperated brother and now a priest I can say that my previous religious practice led me eventually to the fullness of faith. God’s grace was at work in my sunday school teachers and ministers. I learned the scriptures and began to desire to know more. I learned to love the truth and to follow wherever it led. It led me to Catholicism. The grace of my valid baptism was working in me to bring me into unity. So while it may not have been the whole truth there was enough there to get me moving in the right direction. All of it was anchored in the faith which they had split from centuries ago. Now I am in the Church of my ancestors and am very grateful. Don’t discount the Holy Spirit’s ability to work with whatever is available.

 

[theMutant]

Paul Danon:

If I embrace heresy, I cease to be Catholic, and I don’t have to be pope to do that.

IF you embrace heresy, you cease to be a Catholic. However, no one but your own bishop or the Pope has the authority to declare you to be in heresy. If I believe that you are in heresy, that is simply my opinion. I cannot regard you as no longer being a member of the Church until the Church herself makes an authoritative declaration. In the case of a bishop falling into heresy, ONLY the Pope has the authority to make such a declaration. This has been supported throughout the Church’s history. Not even other bishops can declare a bishop to be in heresy. The Pope is the Supreme Pontiff and no one, not even the entire remaining body of bishops, has the authority to pass an authoritative judgment against him. This point has been made several times previously by myself and others. If you disagree, then show us where in the authoritative teaching of the Church that your position is supported. All other attempts to do so simply quote the opinions of theologians. The authority of the Church has not been trusted to the body of theologians, but to the successors of the Apostles in union with the successor of Peter as the head of the Church.