Would I be welcome here.... IF?

[Paul_Danon]

newcrusader92:

[T]here are back up plans, if you will, for electing a pope. … It is the principle of epikeia that makes it possible. … It is the same principle of epikeia which could even allow the possibility of laymen participating in papal elections.

Do you think the time has yet come, and that epikeia requires it, for the faithful to elect a pope? After all, the church militant has orders and sacraments, and people will be leaving her to join the church triumphant all the time. We could go on like this for ever, but mightn’t epikeia dictate that, with all the confusion around (*cf. *certain posts here), the church mightn’t need a supreme pastor? Unless, of course, you think she has one, only occult.

 

[newcrusader92]

Paul Danon:

Do you think the time has yet come, and that epikeia requires it, for the faithful to elect a pope? After all, the church militant has orders and sacraments, and people will be leaving her to join the church triumphant all the time. We could go on like this for ever, but mightn’t epikeia dictate that, with all the confusion around (*cf. *certain posts here), the church mightn’t need a supreme pastor? Unless, of course, that you think she has one, only occult.

As long as there is at least one bishop, things will be fine in the grander scheme of things. But it doesn’t mean it will be easy to find the remaining Catholic bishops.

I don’t think anything will happen in the near future. Eventually, if people get tired of the situation they’re in and decide to pursue an election. Once they see what happened to the College of Cardinals, they will quickly realize another method has to be used.

Does the Church really need a Supreme Pastor? Of course. Even during the “Great Western Schism” people were trying to find ways of ending the chaos. It may very well happen again, especially when enough people are tired of the confusion.

The only possible way I can see there being a “hidden” pope (at least to me) if there is rock solid evidence which supports Cardinal Siri being elected pope after the 1958 conclaves. There is so much contradictory information out there that I would be able to comment on that right now.

 

[theMutant]

The sedevacantists make three basic assertions regarding the last four popes not being valid. Some of these assertions have been posted on this forum and others are on their own web sites. Let’s take a close look at these assertions to see if they can stand up to reason and the Faith. To make this easier to discuss, I will limit my comments to the validity of John Paul II with the understanding that these also apply to John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul I.

1: Some sedevacantists assert that John Paul II was a heretic/apostate prior to his election as pope so that election is invalid. The teaching of the Church is that only the authority of the Church can declare someone to be a heretic or apostate (in regard to apostacy, a person can also declare themselves to be apostate). If you consider someone to be a heretic you cannot declare them to be so, you must bring them before the authority of the Church. You must accept the Church’s decision on the matter. Only a bishop can declare someone to be a heretic or apostate. In the case of a bishop, only a pope can declare him to be a heretic or apostate. What bishop declared John Paul II to be a heretic or apostate prior to his episcopal ordination? The sedevacantists have not shown one such declaration. What about after he was ordained a bishop? What pope declared him to be a heretic or apostate prior to his election as pope? Once again, the sedevacantists have not shown such a declaration.

2: Some sedevacantists assert that, even if his election to the papacy was valid, John Paul II has fallen into heresy/apostacy since and is therefore no longer pope. They have cited numerous theologians, canonists, and even Saints on this matter and I concede that it is a teaching of the Church that a pope can lose the papacy through apostacy. However, common point in all of the citations they have given on this matter is that no one knows how such a judgment could be made against a pope. Why is this? Because the authoritative Magesterium of the Church has yet to define such a process and it is only the Magesterium that can do so. Therefore, all opinion on this matter are just that; OPINIONS. This is true regardless of the impressiveness of the source; be it canonist, theologian, Saint, or even Doctors of the Church. In the case of Saints and Doctors of the Church, we need to give their teachings serious consideration, but this also applies when they teach that their propositions are only to be accepted to the extent that they conform to the authoritative teaching of the Church.

3: Some sedevacantists assert that individual bishops, or even individual Catholics, can render such a judgment about a pope on their own and even that they cannot be considered schismatic for doing so. In making this last assertion, they are introducing a completely new teaching that has not existed in the Church before. Every example they have cited in defense of this assertion depends on an accusation of heresy/apostacy made by someone with the authority to make such an accusation or on an accusation made by a cardinal involved in a papal election that the election was invalid. They have failed to present even one example of an accusation. They have failed to name even one cardinal involved in any of the last four papal elections that has claimed that one of those elections was invalid.

In these threads, we who disagree with the sedevacantist have raised the issues I have presented here several times. Instead of addressing any of these issues, they just make new accusations or repeat old ones that have already been refuted. Numerous posts have been made showing how they have taken texts out of context. They have not been able to refute these posts but they continue to make their accusations about these texts. All requests that they present authoritative teaching supporting their views have been answered with quotes from Saints, theologians, and canonists; many of these quotes actually refute their claims.

Just to make my own position perfectly clear, my opinion is that John Paul II has had many profound failings as pope that have led to confusion and error among the faithful. These include acts that contradict his own teaching and an inconsistency in the use of his papal authority. He is, nonetheless, the successor of Peter. My opinion in regard to his failings is just that; MY OPINION.

 

[theMutant]

newcrusader92:

Actually, I don’t even have to use Canon Law to support my view. If you read the Apostolic Constitution Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, you will find out that an automatic deposition and excommunication takes effect for a pope who falls into heresy (paragraph 3). In addition, if a manifest heretic is elected pope, the election is null and void (paragraph 6). (These two principles form the basis for Canon 188.4 in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, by the way.)

Once again, we have an example from sedevacantists that prove them wrong. First of all, paragraph 3 lists many clerical states (as well as temporal ones) that are subject to this automatic excommunication. One interesting state is missing from the list; that of the papacy itself.

In regard to paragraph 6, I would like to offer the following quote from Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio:

*1.In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind * is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff,who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith.

1. In addition, by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define: that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
   (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;

(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;

(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;

(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;

(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;

(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.

Once again, we have authoritative teaching stating in no uncertain terms that NO ONE can pass judgment on a pope and that a person elected pope can only be considered invalid if it can be shown that he fell into heresy prior to his election. The document, doesn’t however state what kind of evidence is required concerning to prove this or who has the authority to make such a judgment. The sedevacantists want us to accept that they (we) have this authority but they cannot provide one authoritative source to defend this view. This declaration only states that we can “contradict” a pope in a matter of faith. This, of course, would only apply to those matters that are not infallibly defined.**

 

[newcrusader92]

theMutant:

1: Some sedevacantists assert that John Paul II was a heretic/apostate prior to his election as pope so that election is invalid. The teaching of the Church is that only the authority of the Church can declare someone to be a heretic or apostate (in regard to apostacy, a person can also declare themselves to be apostate). If you consider someone to be a heretic you cannot declare them to be so, you must bring them before the authority of the Church. You must accept the Church’s decision on the matter. Only a bishop can declare someone to be a heretic or apostate. In the case of a bishop, only a pope can declare him to be a heretic or apostate. . . . .] Once again, the sedevacantists have not shown such a declaration.

If you read Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, paragraphs 3 and 5, you will find that no declaration is necessary for automatic excommunication from the Church. That’s because of situations like today: why would John Paul II excommunicate former Cardinal Law for going to a mosque to pray with non-Catholics? Incidents like that and the controversial plans at Fatima will not result in any kind of penalty by anyone at the Vatican right now. As far as the Vatican seems to be concerned, it is compatible with the teachings of Vatican II.

Besides, heresy is a sin against Faith, and therefore if it is manifest heresy, people must break communion immediately for the sake of the salvation of their souls. We are not required to judge inner dispositions (and we couldn’t anyway) but we can and must judge the actions we do see.

If a bishop were to deny the teaching on the Real Presence, what would you do? Wait until there’s a trial and formal declaration while he is at work getting others to believe his false teaching?

theMutant:

2: Some sedevacantists assert that, even if his election to the papacy was valid, John Paul II has fallen into heresy/apostacy since and is therefore no longer pope. They have cited numerous theologians, canonists, and even Saints on this matter and I concede that it is a teaching of the Church that a pope can lose the papacy through apostacy. However, common point in all of the citations they have given on this matter is that no one knows how such a judgment could be made against a pope. Why is this? Because the authoritative Magesterium of the Church has yet to define such a process and it is only the Magesterium that can do so. Therefore, all opinion on this matter are just that; OPINIONS. This is true regardless of the impressiveness of the source; be it canonist, theologian, Saint, or even Doctors of the Church. In the case of Saints and Doctors of the Church, we need to give their teachings serious consideration, but this also applies when they teach that their propositions are only to be accepted to the extent that they conform to the authoritative teaching of the Church.

See my reply to assertion #1. It is not an opinion that I have; it is a statement based on the Magisterial teachings. The same Apostolic Constitution I mentioned there also provides for automatic deposition for any bishop or pope who falls into heresy. It is mentioned in paragraph 5. Therefore, the Magisterium has already spoken on the matter, causa finita est.

(to be continued)

 

[newcrusader92]

(part two. . . continuing)

theMutant:
3: Some sedevacantists assert that individual bishops, or even individual Catholics, can render such a judgment about a pope on their own and even that they cannot be considered schismatic for doing so. In making this last assertion, they are introducing a completely new teaching that has not existed in the Church before. Every example they have cited in defense of this assertion depends on an accusation of heresy/apostacy made by someone with the authority to make such an accusation or on an accusation made by a cardinal involved in a papal election that the election was invalid. They have failed to present even one example of an accusation. They have failed to name even one cardinal involved in any of the last four papal elections that has claimed that one of those elections was invalid.

Please see Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, paragraph 7. That should address your concerns. It is not a new teaching.
the Mutant:
In these threads, we who disagree with the sedevacantist have raised the issues I have presented here several times. Instead of addressing any of these issues, they just make new accusations or repeat old ones that have already been refuted. Numerous posts have been made showing how they have taken texts out of context. They have not been able to refute these posts but they continue to make their accusations about these texts. All requests that they present authoritative teaching supporting their views have been answered with quotes from Saints, theologians, and canonists; many of these quotes actually refute their claims.

So an Apostolic Constitution like Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio is not authoritative teaching, according to you.

The truth is that it is a part of the solemn Magisterium: a manifest heretic can not be a pope. If you reject this assertion then you are allowing the possibility that a heretic can be in the Church - which is already defined as heresy.

Remember that Nestorius preached heresy by denying that Jesus was both divine and human at the same time, telling people that Our Lady should be referred to as “Mother of Christ” instead of “Mother of God”. He had excommunicated people who would not obey him or accept his heresy, but the Holy See later said that Nestorius’ excommunications after he began preaching heresy carried no force - because by his committing heresy he automatically left the Church.

 

[SocaliCatholic]

theMutant:

Once again, we have an example from sedevacantists that prove them wrong.

Amen.

Amazing. I am so uneducated and yet I can refute everything they say simply becuase they are laymen and not a bishop with authority.

They have no authority becuase Jesus didn’t give it to them.

**Authority vs. Personal Opinion. **

Said it since the beninning of this thread.

I have no authority to change church laws, but I can point to someone who does. Apparently some people believe they are self-appointed authorites becuase they have read and self-interpeted church documents

Nothing more than simple logic is needed to see the truth. Been through this before with my protestant friends.

The thread will keep diverting away from the issue of authority until some people start to see the light.

 

[Redeemerslove]

newcrusader92:

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?

Thus We will and decree that the aforementioned sentences, censures and penalties be incurred without exception by all members of the following categories: (Cum ex Apostolatus Officio)

Illogical, what were the penalties before the Apostolic Consitution? Did previous Popes have different penalties and censures? If so, this work is reformable. One pope is not bound by another pope’s non-infallible teaching: Nor by a previous pope’s Apostolic Constitution.

Why? The disciplines of the Church change. They changed before Paul IV, they changed with Paul IV, and they changed after him.

 

[Gratias_Grace]

newcrusader92:

Yes, the infamous “Joint Declaration”.

Let’s look at one point in particular:

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?

Did you read this?
Gratias Grace:

"Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, .

The church is **pilgrim ** on earth …

Yes I know that Luther’s teaching about justification was the reason he was condemned as heretic.

For 400 years lutherans and catholics called eachother for for children of the devil. Then both parts excused. The luterans was to blame for the split AND so was the catholics.

The Joint Declaration don’t tells that lutherans and catholics agree totaly. If yo read it, you can sum it up in the following: Both lutherans and catholics believe that none can get saved without the grace of God. The luterans don’t say that the ‘Sola Fide’ is enough to get saved. They say that ‘Fide’ has to be practiced in daily life. when ‘Fide’ is practiced, it will turn out in good work. Good work, love and charity helps us catholics on our way to heaven. Conclusion: What once separated, specially, (on justification) dosn’t exists now.

There are still differences, the luterans don’t believe in pennance (as an example). But the **main diferances ** on justifications doesn’t exist no more.

It is not correct that lutherans has not modified their teachings. Still you can find many luterans saying that they believe that Jesus is their saviour. They strongly believe in ‘Sola Fide’. For them it don’t matter how much the sin because once saved always saved. They believe that all they have to say is that they believe! Magic?

The lutherans has in some way changed their heretical teachings!

G.G.

 

[Gratias_Grace]

This is stupid! You are telling me that no one, passed away, in my lutheran family can be saved. My pious great-grandmoter a loving old lady, dyed 92 years old, full of charity, prayers, work, kindnes and believe in God, will never be saved? She had never heard about the catholic Church!

Your god must be an evil god!

God, the Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit is good! Through baptism we enter the door that can save us!

‘Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. 6What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7Do not be astonished that I said to you, “You must be born from above.” 8The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.’ (John 3:5-8)

May be you should reflect more about the content of the word PILGRIM-CHURCH?

I think you need someone to pray for you!

I also think it is time for you to sit down and reflect over the content in the word HUMILITY!!! :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

G.G.

 

[mrS4ntA]

Gratias Grace:

This is stupid! You are telling me that no one, passed away, in my lutheran family can be saved. My pious great-grandmoter a loving old lady, dyed 92 years old, full of charity, prayers, work, kindnes and believe in God, will never be saved? She had never heard about the catholic Church!

Your god must be an evil god!

God, the Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit is good! Through baptism we enter the door that can save us!

‘Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. 6What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7Do not be astonished that I said to you, “You must be born from above.” 8The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.’ (John 3:5-8)

May be you should reflect more about the content of the word PILGRIM-CHURCH?

I think you need someone to pray for you!

I also think it is time for you to sit down and reflect over the content in the word HUMILITY!!! :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

G.G.

“No Salvation outside the Church” is true, but the context people often perceive of the statement is often not true.

We (human beings) are in this together: our journey of life on this earth we make together with the rest of the world – Catholic or non-Catholic.

We cannot be sure of God’s judgment on individual person – that we leave in the mercy of God. The redemption of a soul, if it is saved, can only be through Christ – “the way, the truth, the life” – Who is the Head of the Church. Hence, the necessity to be united with her – Christ’s body – to be able to be united with her Head. All those good and true things that we acknowledge in other religions are, essentially, to lead men to the Church. If he be saved after death, he would have been saved through the Church, by adhering these good things he followed with the intention of living and searching for the Truth to the best of his ability, even though he hasn’t been formally entered into the Church.

 

[BakerBob]

Gratias Grace:

newcrusader92:

This is stupid! You are telling me that no one, passed away, in my lutheran family can be saved. My pious great-grandmoter a loving old lady, dyed 92 years old, full of charity, prayers, work, kindnes and believe in God, will never be saved? She had never heard about the catholic Church!

Your God must be an evil god!

GratiasGrace,
I don’t know where 92 gets his heresy in the CCC, give me chapter, paragaph,etc… The understanding of the statement that no one out side the church is saved takes some explaination. It is not a wholesale condemnation of anyone out side the Catholic Church. Contact or read books by Fr. Neuhause ( a former Lutheran minister) or a good priest. Don’t worry about your pious g-g-grandmother she probably got to heaven faster than any of us will. I suggest that you quiz Karl directly or find a GOOD theologian to explain what 's involved.

 

[Queen_of_Sheeba]

MYRNA,

Don’t let anyone make you feel you have to tread softly simply because you are a Sedevacantist. When one takes into account the litany of heresies of JP2, it is hardly any wonder that people arrive at the conclusion that he is not a true Pope and Christ’s representative on earth. I spent years trying to convince myself that he must somehow be able to go about carrying out his atrocities against the True Faith and scandalise millions of Catholics while at the same time remain head of the Church, but eventually I could no longer make excuses for his actions and had to face the daunting reality that the man is in fact acting against the Catholic Faith.
Naturally, one does not just arrive at this conclusion and take the sedevacantist position without making careful and thorough investigations. I have done that and now practise my Faith the only way my conscience will allow - as a Sedevacantist!
I say thank God for “Sedevacantism” because it has enabled me to remain a Catholic. If I had to believe that a man such as JP2 was a true vicar of Christ, I’m sure I would have lost my Faith by now.
I have heard most (if not all) of the arguments put forward here and I have found that people generally prefer to stay in their comfort zones and cling to what they want to believe. However I have noticed that there seem to be more young people emerging, who are prepared to look at things differently and who seem receptive to sedevacantism.

There is more than ample evidence available to support the sedevacantist position and it is not difficult to find. However I would only recommend it to people who are prepared to have their eyes opened and who are capable of dealing with reality.
So Myrna, don’t feel uneasy about participating on forums because you are a “sede.” Believe me, there are many more out here and the numbers continue to grow.

 

[SocaliCatholic]

MYRNA,

Don’t let anyone make you feel you have to tread softly simply because you are a Sedevacantist.

On the contrary, I believe Myrna is very well educated, articulate and polite even though many of us disagree with her views/beliefs.

What “tread softly” posts are you referring to?

When one takes into account the litany of heresies of JP2, it is hardly any wonder **that people arrive ** at the conclusion that he is not a true Pope and Christ’s representative on earth.

Bolds Added.

This is the main point of disagreement on this thread.

**Personal opinions or conclusions do not have any authority. **

Jesus gave the keys to Peter, not to the layman Jon Doe

I spent years trying to convince myself that he must somehow be able to go about carrying out his atrocities against the True Faith and scandalise millions of Catholics while at the same time remain head of the Church, but eventually I could no longer make excuses for his actions and had to face the daunting reality that the man is in fact acting against the Catholic Faith.
Naturally, one does not just arrive at this conclusion and take the sedevacantist position without making careful and thorough investigations. I have done that and now practise my Faith the only way my conscience will allow - as a Sedevacantist!
I say thank God for “Sedevacantism” because it has enabled me to remain a Catholic. If I had to believe that a man such as JP2 was a true vicar of Christ, I’m sure I would have lost my Faith by now.

Sedevacantism is more than just JPII, love him or hate him. It doesnt acknowledge any pope since Vatican II.

Have you HONESTLY read the last few posts from the Mutant?

By what **authority ** have you permission to schsim?

I have heard most (if not all) of the arguments put forward here and I have found that people generally prefer to stay in their comfort zones and cling to what they want to believe. However I have noticed that there seem to be more young people emerging, who are prepared to look at things differently and who seem receptive to sedevacantism.

True what you say about comfort zones… but do you think that Catholics who stuck in their comfort zones would having ongoing discussions with sedevacantist?

There is more than ample evidence available to support the sedevacantist position and it is not difficult to find. However I would only recommend it to people who are prepared to have their eyes opened and who are capable of dealing with reality.
So Myrna, don’t feel uneasy about participating on forums because you are a “sede.” Believe me, there are many more out here and the numbers continue to grow.

If you read Myrna’s first post, SHE volunteered that she was a “sede”.

I am happy that she’s here and open about sharing her faith with everyone… it takes guts and we can all learn from each other.

 

[Joe_Omlor]

Queen of Sheeba:

MYRNA,
There is more than ample evidence available to support the sedevacantist position and it is not difficult to find. However I would only recommend it to people who are prepared to have their eyes opened and who are capable of dealing with reality.
.

Queen,

I liked your whole post, but in regard to the above bit, here are just some of the websites:

cathinsight.com/statusjpii.htm

cmri.org

catholicrestoration.org

strc.org

traditionalmass.org

sgg.org

promultis.blog-city.com/

stjosephschurch.net/

Hope this helps some people here.

In Christ and His Church,

Joe

 

[Joe_Omlor]

SocaliCatholic:

If you read Myrna’s first post, SHE volunteered that she was a “sede”.

I am happy that she’s here and open about sharing her faith with everyone… it takes guts and we can all learn from each other.

Yes, good for you, Myrna!

---

I applaud you and all the other Catholics who are of the sedevacantist conviction for seeing the truth and acting on it.

---

**Praise be to God! **

---

It is a work of charity to share your faith (The Faith) and alert unsuspecting people to the current errors emanating from Rome.

---

God bless you!

---

Joe

 

[Gratias_Grace]

TO newcrusader92 AND OTHER -VACCANTS:

In post 276 I say:
Gratias Grace:

Newscrusader92, the heresies you think John Paul II has bin involved in are these (from your link to ‘heresies’): Ecumenism, Non-Christian Religions, Sacred Scripture, Education, Religious Liberty and Liturgy.

Here we will take a short look on Ecumenism:

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

My wish was to try to tell Newscrusader92 that John Paul II can’t be called a heretic because he is invovled with ecumenism. Jesus wanted one Church, not many. (John 17:21)

To be in an ecumenical prosess is not to say that the proesess will go quick. Personally I don’t think we will make it before the end of time. We are to imperfect to be ready to make a union of what to day are split. One problem is that it is not a question about to reunite two churches. The protestants live in so many divided churches, that I don’t understand how all of these churches shall be able to agree.

But that’s my opinion. **It is not mine or anyone elses opnion that counts. It is the will of God!**We are called to the will of God and to love God and eachother. (Mat 6:10 and Mat 22:37-40).

John Paul II can’t be called a heretic because he is invovled with ecumenism.

In the same post i also said:
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. HE has said: **“No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6). ** Jesus has also said: “I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd”. (John 10:16)

:bible1: Peace

G.G.

It all ends up with Newscrusader92 telling me (about the heretical teaching of the pope) showing me, at the end, that the cathechism is heretical, in post 303.

newcrusader92:

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

This must mean that Newscrusader92 is rejecting what I said, and rejecting the way the majoroty of Catholics understands the catholic faith:IF ANYONE OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS SAVED IT IS BECAUSE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH EXISTS
(CCC 846)

Well, his understanding has some implications, namly that most of the people living in Northern Europe, will go stright to hell. Espesially the scandinavian population will go to Hell. In Scandinavia the catholics are a minorotygroup (1-2% catholics) of Scandinavias total population.

Should God be so evil that he punishes the ancestors of good catholics that had the lutheran faith FORCED upon them by their kings (in 1537 for Norway and Denmark)? People could get killed for being catholic. Some got killed.

I don’t beleive in an evil God!

On the day of judgement we will not be judged after how welleducated we were or how smart we are, but on how we lived our life.

I can’t help it but the discussion with the sedevacantists has made me to remember Jesu words to the schribes and the Pharisees

“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you lock people out of the kingdom of heaven. For you do not go in yourselves, and when others are going in, you stop them”. (Mat 23:13)

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cross sea and land to make a single convert, and you make the new convert twice as much a child of hell as yourselves”. (Mat 23:15)

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence” (Mat 23:25)

You remind me of the protestant-fundamentalists in your believe in that you and you alone (as a group) has found the ONLY truth.

**I want to end the discussion with the sedevacantists about John Paul II and the Vatican II here. **

The CHUCH is a pilgrim on earth!
(Please excuse any spellingmistakes. English is not my first language).

Prayers and peace!

G.G.

 

[Joe_Omlor]

Gratias Grace:

**I want to end the discussion with the sedevacantists about John Paul II and the Vatican II here. **.

Please feel free to opt out anytime you wish.

No one is keeping you here.

 

[Schmuck]

Hi everyone,

I must say I am very impressed by the extensive range of topics on this forum. I normally just lurk and don’t get involved but I have chosen to do otherwise now to say that I am a “sedevacantist.” I can defend my position as being without ANY contradiction to the one True Church (Faith) established by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Obviously this isn’t the place to be able to achieve this. I really waded into say that I think Myrna and the other “sedes” are to be commended for their valor, as from experience, I know that in almost all cases once a “sede” voices their opinion they are seldom treated reasonably nor charitably.
I haven’t read all these posts properly yet but I’m sure all those who disagree with our position are in good faith and also trying to defend their beliefs. I recommend that if you are honestly in the search of truth on this issue please look into the links provided by Joe Omlor for a start. And study the teachings of the Catholic Church up until recent times and see for yourself how recent “popes” promulgate doctrines and liturgy which are contrary to the Spotless Bride of Christ. There are and can be no inconsistencies, the answers are all there for those who pray and will see.

Meanwhile, well done Myrna et. al.
And God Bless you all.

 

[Queen_of_Sheeba]

Whoa! Settle down SocaliCatholic.

“What “tread softly” posts are you referring to?”

I was referring to Myrnas experience on other forums. I have also been on other forums and have found that sedevacantists are generally treated with suspicion, sometimes even contempt, which tends to make them feel they have to be extremely guarded in what they say. This Forum is very good compared to most of them.

“Have you HONESTLY read the last few posts from the Mutant?”

Yes I have, but there is very little in them that I have not heard before.

I quote these to illustrate that the possibility of a vacant chair has been covered by esteemed Catholics such as Saint Robert Bellarmine, a canonised Saint and Doctor of the Church and other Catholic heavyweights such as Saint Francis de Sales and Saint Alphonsus Ligouri

**"…a pope who is a manifest heretic by that fact ceases to be pope ****and head, just as he by that fact ceases to be a Christian and a ****member of the body of the Church; wherefore he can be judged and ****punished by the Church. This is the judgement of all the early ****fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all ****jurisdiction." **

- St. Robert Bellarmine, “On the Roman Pontiff”

Saint Francis de Sales** –**

“Now when he (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.

And the great Saint Alphonsus Ligouri –

"If God permitted a pope to be notoriously heretical and

contumacious, he would then cease to be pope, and the Apostolic

Chair would be vacant."

**- **St. Alphonsus de Liguori, “The Truths of the Faith”

“By what **authority **

have you permission to schsim?”

As I believe Rome has defected from the Faith and that JP2 is not a true Pope, I am not in schism.

“Finally they cannot be numbered among schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumors in circulation…” – Wernz-Vidal: Ius Canonicum, Vol V11, n. 398

“True what you say about comfort zones… but do you think that Catholics who stuck in their comfort zones would having ongoing discussions with sedevacantist?”

No. That is why I think this forum is better than most.
I am sure that Myrna is very well educated,as well as being articulate and polite and It is nice to discover someone like her who shares my views.

I’m glad you are happy that Myrna is here and hope you don’t mind me being here either, though I will understand if you do.

---

Not to oppose error is to approve it, and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and indeed to neglect to confound evil men when we can do it is no less a sin than to encourage them. Pope Felix III