Would I be welcome here.... IF?

[theMutant]

Joe Omlor:

A Travelogue of Apostasy

Regarding parts 2 and three of your travelogue. It is filled with anecdotal information. We all know newspapers never misrepresent what is happening in the Church, right? My favorite example is when someone invoked the spirits the pope arrived. Note that you didn’t say he agreed with the act or that he believed that it held any merit, just that it happened.

My main problem with your examples is that I can cite many more that show the Pope upholding the same traditional Catholic teaching you claim that he has abandoned. These examples are from his own texts and not from newspaper accounts of him. You have also, once again, claimed the authority to judge the pope without providing the necessary evidence that you have the authority to do so.

You may call the actions of the pope scandalous, sacraligious, even harmful to the faith of those who see and hear of him doing these things (so do I) but you have not provided one piece of authoritative Church teachings that proves this removes him from the chair of Peter or how such a judgment has been made by the authority of the Church. Even the opinions of the greatest of Saints like Aquinas are only to be accepted to the extent that they agree with the authority of the Church.

 

[Paul_Danon]

jordan:

It is quite clear what the Catholic Church teaches, and “rendering the Catholic church un-necessary” is the furthest thing from it.

Unitatis redintegratio is clear. The holy Ghost works through a divorced lady vicar who does not believe in the real presence when she celebrates Anglican eucharist, and her church is a means of salvation.

jordan:

[W]ould you not agree that the Scriptures that Anglicans do have came from the Catholic Church? Would you not agree that adherence to the decalogue, and to Our Lord’s clear teachings in, for example, the Sermon on the Mount, would be a source of grace for a devout Anglican, or for any devout Christian (or even for one who has never heard the Gospel but lives by it)? It would be ludicrous to suggest that “elements of sanctification and of truth” cannot be found outside the Catholic Church - the necessity and role of the Church however, are emphatically affirmed.

There’s no salvation outside the church, I’m afraid. I could set up the church of Danon (God forbid) and use the bible but that wouldn’t mean that my organisation would be a means of salvation.

jordan:

Furthermore, it speaks of “rifts” in the “Church of God from its very beginnings,” and reminds us that the “Apostle” (St. Paul) strongly censured them as “damnable.”

They certainly are, which is why it’s dangerous to suggest that those rifts don’t matter and that God works through Anglicanism.

jordan:

The problem with Vatican II is not that it taught error, but that its teachings have been misinterpreted by many.

Beg to differ. Vatican II teaches that grace can be found in protestant services, which isn’t Catholic teaching.

jordan:

Who are we to sit in judgment of the successor of Peter, and the Magisterium of the Church?

We don’t sit in judgement. That is God’s job. Rather, we exercise our consciences.

jordan:

I continually here (sic) the term heretic and heresy used in this thread, and I have yet to see anything of substance that cannot, and has not, been easily refuted.

It’s not that easy to refute that unitatis redintegratio teaches that, if on Sunday I go down the road to the Anglican church and take part in the lady-vicar’s service, I will get grace from a means of salvation. Simply saying “I cannot find any problem here” doesn’t solve the problem.

jordan:

… I will grant that you may have access to graces through the Catholic Church!).

Indeed I do, though through no merit of mine. The trouble is that most people don’t.

 

[Redeemerslove]

Joe Omlor:

No but I expect him to act like a Catholic.

Do you know how many Saints were canonized despite violating Canon Law, based on thier understanding of Church Authority?

Friend, sadly you read WAY too little into JP2’s repeated acts of apostasy.

Funny, you and your like-minded band of brothers and sisters are the only ones who think so. And you don’t obey the Magisterium.

Secondly, you…are…not…a…bishop. Period. You…have…no…authority.

I never implied that I am impeccable. It is most unhelpful when when you mistrepresent others postings.

Indeed you did. When you assert that Pope John Paul doesn’t know how to act, but you do. And that all other Catholics are wrong in this regard, but you aren’t.

And let’s not just think your thinking is limited to this one instance:
Joe Omlor:

Until they can show the heresy of Vatican II and the last four popes and how they are justified in making such a judgment outside of the authority of the Church and the pope, it is they who have publicly defected from the Catholic faith.

It’s also Vatican II that was heretical, and therefore all the bishops involved, including Pope John XXIII.

EXAMPLE 3. If any Catholic (for example, one known as `Pope’) were to travel across the Tiber River from the Vatican (on, say, April 13, 1986, hypothetically) in order to visit the Jewish synagogue in Rome.

And I can go on and on Joe. Do you think you know the exact right thing to do, all the time?
Joe Omlor:

It is not alleged acts of apostasy, to all those people who have seen them being committed or who have read official Vatican reports about them.

It’s alleged if the facts themselves have not been established in a Church court. Of course, there can be no valid Church court anymore can there? Because all the “validly appointed” Cardinals prior to John XXIII, have died. So we can never elect a valid Pope, according to Canon Law. Therefore, since we can have no valid Pope:

1. 
   *]The Church has defected.
   *]The Gates of Hell have prevailed.
   *]One of Christ’s promises has failed.
   *]Therefore Christ was not Divine as he said.
   *]Therefore your faith is in vain.
   
   Funny, what a slippery slope one denial of a Church dogma (Indefectibility) can destroy in a person’s soul - their very faith and relationship to God.

 

[Paul_Danon]

Redeemerslove:

I suggest you read UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO, as others have suggested.

I have read it and I quote from it verbatim.

Redeemerslove:

Other religions have elements of the Truth in them.

Thanks but I’m not entrusting my salvation to them.

Redeemerslove:

The Protestants teach Faith Alone is needed for Salvation, they are incorrect and this doctrine is morally corrupting.

Yet unitatis redintegratio teaches that these organisations are means of salvation.

Redeemerslove:

[A]re you going to say that Protestants have no Truth based on the above examples?

No, nor have I said so.

Redeemerslove:

[A]re you going to say that these truths don’t sanctify those who believe in them?

If I believed in just six sacraments rather than seven I would be out of kilter with church-teaching and therefore a heretic. Many protestants believe there are but two sacraments. Belief in a mixture of half-truths, untruths and truths isn’t sanctifying.

 

[Paul_Danon]

SocaliCatholic:

The burden of proof will always be on the sedevacanist (sic) to prove that their church is built on **authority **from Christ.

The burden of proof is on some of Vatican II to prove that it can be reconciled with Catholic teaching.

 

[Paul_Danon]

JohnDeP:

[T]he sedevacantists STILL have not produced an AUTHORATATIVE document (or other device) that declared the “chair vacant” around the time of Vatican II forward.

I don’t think they ever will. All they’ll do is keep quoting from tedious old Church teaching to the effect that a heretic cannot be elected pope.

JohnDeP:

A single priest, single bishop, or even a small group of them does NOT “an authority make”.

After St Peter’s death, the church’s authority didn’t disappear, otherwise there wouldn’t have been a second pope.

JohnDeP:

Sedevacantists claim *they (or “we”) *have that power just by answering “yes” to the question of whether the pope can be a heretic.

Election to the Petrine see does not deprive one of free will.

JohnDeP:

This “I have the authority” mentality is the main pillar used by Luther to separate from the Catholic Church.

Sure, but that’s not what the Catholics are doing now. They are like the minority who resisted Arianism. I may lack authority but I have a conscience.

JohnDeP:

[T[he quotes from prior Catholic documents dealt with doubt of the validity of the election of the Pope not about his continued validity.

Such documents are relevant in the case of, for example, John Paul II.

JohnDeP:

So far I’ve really enjoyed the posts in this thread; they’ve made my head hurt thinking so hard!

Mine too. It’s great to talk about the faith with sincere people.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Paul_Danon]

theMutant:

… texts completely out of context … failure to take EVERYTHING the council and the popes said into account.

What a curious council V2 must be in that it appears to teach one thing in one place and somehow correct or modify it elsewhere. If I said that, not only are protestant churches means of salvation, but that none can be saved outside the Catholic church, you would reasonably take me for a knave or a fool.

 

[Paul_Danon]

puppylove:

I am truly horrified by what I’ve heard on this thread.

Don’t panic. The gates of hell won’t prevail against the church.

puppylove:

The Pope is the most Holy Person in the world.

I would beg to differ. Our Lord called St Peter “Satan” and St Peter denied our Lord three times. Some popes are saints but not all popes are saints.

puppylove:

The church has overcome many things in 2004 (sic) years and I believe we will survive.

I agree.

 

[Paul_Danon]

The Barrister:

He kissed the gift [of a copy of the koran] as a sign of respect, not out of sign (sic) that he adopted everything it stood for.

One doesn’t routinely kiss a gift. I wonder what people would say if the chief rabbi kissed a crucifix
The Barrister:

… enough with the slander.

Not sure what’s being referred to, but it’s not slander to say that John Paul II kissed the koran. As far as I know, he’s not publicly said that that was a mistake.

 

[Paul_Danon]

theMutant:

There have been plenty of times that people have falsely claimed to be the pope.

Indeed; we live in such times.

theMutant:

The key to determining the truth of their claim is based entirely on the authoritative teaching of the Church; valid election and Apostolic succession. It is this point where you fail to prove your point. JLC has repeatedly attempted to assert that we must prove that JPII was validly elected and has clearly implied that we cannot consider him valid until we do so. I have already responded to this claim and shown that this position represents a NEW teaching that did not exist prior to Vatican II and contradicts the traditional teaching of the Church on this matter.

Cum ex apostolatus officio isn’t new.

theMutant:

The pope kissed the Koran. This may be considered a scandal. It may even be considered sinful or sacraligeous (sic). Neither of these constitute heresy …

I wonder if wordlessly offering sacrifice to an idol wouldn’t constitute heresy because nothing was written down. Indeed, is an illiterate immune from heresy because, while he or she may commit profane acts, he or she can’t issue an encyclical about it?

theMutant:

because the pope’s teaching about other religions has not waivered (sic)and is the same as what was taught prior to Vatican II.

Beg to differ. Unitatis redintegratio contradicts Catholic teaching on the church’s role in salvation.

theMutant:

the sedevacantists have yet to provide one authoritiative text that supports their passing judgment on this matter.

I think I saw cum ex apostolatus officio mentioned in other posts. Do you think that isn’t authoritative?

theMutant:

This is a point that has been brought forward by several of us who disagree with the sedevacantists and has gone completely unanswered. Why should we accept your assertions when you have not provided us with even one example of authoritative Church teaching that supports you?

I thought I saw answers. They may not have satisfied you but that doesn’t mean you were unanswered.

 

[Joe_Omlor]

Paul Danon:

One doesn’t routinely kiss a gift. I wonder what people would say if the chief rabbi kissed a crucifix

---

Maybe people would think he was not a very genuine Judaic huh?

---

---

---

JP2 did not look too Catholic to me with the Hindu mark of Shiva on his forehead, that he had put there by a Hindu priestess.

---

Whoops,another accident I suppose.

---

What about when he said that Christians worhip the same God as Muslims?

---

Allah, the mono god is the same as the Blessed Trinity???

---

---

Joe

 

[Paul_Danon]

The Barrister:

You expect the Pope to be perfect …

Can’t speak for your interlocutor, but I don’t think Catholics need to or do so.
The Barrister:

But their imperfection does not challenge their right to sit upon Peter’s throne.

I’m sure that all Catholics will agree with you. The point is, rather, whether a pope can become a heretic or a heretic can become pope.
The Barrister:

Enough. Of. The. Slander. Of. A. Good. Man. Please.

These typographical conventions don’t win arguments. This is not an argument ad hominem. Here in England one can be against the monarchy without any ill-will to Elizabeth II.

 

[newcrusader92]

I don’t want to repeat what has been said many times; Jesus wanted the Church to be one.

It was a sin when the reformators left Church. Ecumenism is about to try to repair some of the damages.

The version of ecumenism we hear of these days is unity based on compromise. “Let’s focus on what we have in common” and yet the differences prevent true unity. The Church has always spoken of true unity in the sense that all heretics and schismatics return, believing in the same teachings as all Catholics and being in submission to the Roman Pontiff.

I used to be in “charismatic renewal” for some time, so I know exactly how false ecumenism works.

And just because the schismatic and heretics left the Church (I don’t think they could reform anything since the Church is indefectible), doesn’t mean the Church has split in two. Nor does it mean that the Chuch is wrong. It is on those who have left to come back, and on the terms of the Church.
Gratias Grace:

Link to the JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

If you can find anything there that is against the teaching of the Roman Chatholic Church, I want to hear it. Remember one HEAVY reason for the split in in Church in 1521 was about JUSTIFICATION.

Yes, the infamous “Joint Declaration”.

Let’s look at one point in particular:

1. The present Joint Declaration has this intention: namely, to show that on the basis of their dialogue the subscribing Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church are now able to articulate a common understanding of our justification by God’s grace through faith in Christ. It does not cover all that either church teaches about justification; it does encompass a consensus on basic truths of the doctrine of justification and shows that the remaining differences are no longer the occasion for doctrinal condemnations.

So basically, Joint Declaration is basically a rejection of the doctrines on justification which come from the Council of Trent. Did you know that Council condemned the Lutheran heresies on justification? The Lutherans have not changed their views one iota.

Now, if one can no longer condemn the heresies, then it would also follow that dogma can change, faith can change, and God can change (since He is the author of faith). But the last three are false assertions and are considered heresy. So, if one refuses to condemn a heresy, what does this say?
Gratias Grace:

To clear up in misunderstandings is genarally considered a good thing.

There’s no misunderstanding. These documents can be interpreted the same exact way as true Church documents, i.e. if they say to take something figuratively we do that, otherwise we interpret what they say in the literal sense.
(to be continued. . .)

 

[newcrusader92]

(from part one)
Gratias Grace:
I think it must be much better to look on all the good things our pope John Paul II has done then to call him a heretic.

But he signed the Vatican II documents, which teach heresy. Protestants do many good things also, but they do not profess the Catholic faith. We can not allow people to promote teachings which are clearly contrary to Catholic teaching - even if they are bishops and cardinals. People have a right to know who is leading people out of the Church so that they can protect themselves.
Gratias Grace:
"Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church".(CCC 846) IF ANYONE OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS SAVED IT IS BECAUSE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH EXISTS

That don’t contradict the Churchs old teaching: “Outside the Church there is no salvation” Christ is the head of the Catholic Church. . . . .]

It does contradict the salvation dogma. Here is what the Church actually teaches:

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215: “With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved.”

Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctum, 1302: “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this (Church) outside which there is no salvation nor remission of sin…”

**Pope Eugene IV, **Council of Florence, Bull Cantate Domino, 1441: “The most Holy Roman Catholic Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”

Even the CCC contains heresy. The reality is that no one outside the Church is saved. There are no exceptions.

 

[Redeemerslove]

Paul Danon:

I wonder if wordlessly offering sacrifice to an idol wouldn’t constitute heresy because nothing was written down. Indeed, is an illiterate immune from heresy because, while he or she may commit profane acts, he or she can’t issue an encyclical about it?

Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same.

It’s not about actions, those are simply sins.

These would be sin, but not heresy. I assume since the
Beg to differ. Unitatis redintegratio contradicts Catholic teaching on the church’s role in salvation. I think I saw cum ex apostolatus officio mentioned in other posts. Do you think that isn’t authoritative?

Actually it amplifies and clarifies the Churches teaching about the Church’s role in salvation. For it is the Church doing the clarifying and amplifying.

Secondly the statements Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio might be authoritative, but reformable. Many Pre-John XXIII popes have reformed doctrine. Pius XII reformed the (non-dogmatic) doctrine of Leo VIII about the new hermenutic methods. Don’t give me old quotes about doctrine that could have been reformed in intervening periods.

 

[Paul_Danon]

Redeemerslove:

It’s not about actions, those are simply sins.

Would you say that sins weren’t actions? Would you say that worship of an idol didn’t make a faith-statement? What would one do to apostasise? Must it be in writing? Might it merely be in thought?

Redeemerslove:

… it is the Church doing the clarifying and amplifying.

Here in England the medieval cathedrals are run by Anglicans who dress and act as priests. How do we know that they aren’t Catholics? Because, while they look like Catholics, they don’t profess the faith.

Redeemerslove:

Secondly the statements Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio might be authoritative, but reformable.

What does reformable mean? Defective?

Redeemerslove:

Don’t give me old quotes about doctrine that could have been reformed in intervening periods.

Do you dislike such quotes because they’re old? Scripture’s quite old.

 

[Paul_Danon]

Redeemerslove:

[Unitatis redintegratio] amplifies and clarifies the Churches (sic) teaching about the Church’s role in salvation.

“[C]larifies” suggests the church’s teaching was obscure. Do you think so? Extra ecclesiam nulla salus is surely quite clear. We may not like it (especially if we have friends and family who show no signs of converting and this makes our heart ache) but unclear it ain’t.

The church taught that Anglican orders were null and void. Unitatis redintegratio teaches that the holy Ghost gives grace through Anglican services. This isn’t clarification but contradiction. I don’t think holy Mother would do that to her children.

 

[newcrusader92]

Redeemerslove:

It’s alleged if the facts themselves have not been established in a Church court. Of course, there can be no valid Church court anymore can there? Because all the “validly appointed” Cardinals prior to John XXIII, have died. So we can never elect a valid Pope, according to Canon Law. Therefore, since we can have no valid Pope:

1. 
   *]The Church has defected.
   *]The Gates of Hell have prevailed.
   *]One of Christ’s promises has failed.
   *]Therefore Christ was not Divine as he said.
   *]Therefore your faith is in vain.
   
   Funny, what a slippery slope one denial of a Church dogma (Indefectibility) can destroy in a person’s soul - their very faith and relationship to God.

1. 
   As I said earlier, heretics are the gates of hell. If a heretic can be pope, then the gates of hell have prevailed. But since the Church infallibly teaches that a manifest heretic can not be a pope, the gates of hell will not prevail.
   
   Also, there are back up plans, if you will, for electing a pope. Usually, it’s the College of Cardinals which does this. However, if there are no cardinals to do this (for whatever reason, even signing the Vatican II documents), the task would fall to the Roman clergy, and then the clergy outside of Rome. Or God could select the next pope without an election. In any case, whoever participates in the election and the next pope must be Catholic.
   
   Why is this possible? It is the principle of epikeia that makes it possible. It’s best explained as following the spirit of the law. In this case, if an election were necessary, the back up plans I mentioned earlier would have to be acceptable in a situation where there are no cardinals, otherwise, there would be no way of having another pope. It is the same principle of epikeia which could even allow the possibility of laymen participating in papal elections.
   
   Last note: with regards to heresy, malicious intent is always presumed, and it is up to the accused to prove otherwise. That is the long-standing practice of the Church. This is because heresy can kill more souls than almost all other sinful acts.

 

[Paul_Danon]

newcrusader92:

But [John Paul II] signed the Vatican II documents, which teach heresy. Protestants do many good things also, but they do not profess the Catholic faith. We can not allow people to promote teachings which are clearly contrary to Catholic teaching - even if they are bishops and cardinals. People have a right to know who is leading people out of the Church so that they can protect themselves.

It’s bad enough to rumble around the fora and chatrooms professing heresy but imagine the responsibility one takes on oneself by purporting to be a prelate and doing it. One could end up responsible for the perdition of millions.
Pope Innocent III:

With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved.

Doesn’t that make one’s heart sing with joy?

 

[newcrusader92]

Redeemerslove:

Secondly the statements Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio might be authoritative, but reformable. Many Pre-John XXIII popes have reformed doctrine. Pius XII reformed the (non-dogmatic) doctrine of Leo VIII about the new hermenutic methods. Don’t give me old quotes about doctrine that could have been reformed in intervening periods.

Actually, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio can not be reformable, for it is based on the infallible teaching of the Church that heretics are outside the Church. If you say it is reformable, then the door denying the teaching that heretics are outside the Church opens wide.

Besides, that Apostolic Constitution can not be revoked or abrogated in any way whatsoever. What right do we have, then, to say it can be changed?