Would I be welcome here.... IF?

  • Thread starter Thread starter myrna
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Joe Omlor,

Thank you for the links.
Some of them I already know.
The others I intend to check out asap.
 
Joe Omlor said:
Please feel free to opt out anytime you wish.

No one is keeping you here.
Click to expand...

Yes, as a matter of fact I feel free in Gods Church, The Roman Catholic Church build on Peter about 2000 years ago, still alive with the roman Pontiff, John Paul II, in Peters chair, and with the Novo Ordo mass.

We have Jesus’ words:** “— and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it” (Mat 16:18)**

I am not leaving the forum. I have only informed about that this tread were the sedevacantists call JPII and Vatican II heretical, is no longer in my interest.

"Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God". (1John 4:7)

This thread started with Myrna asking: “Would I be welcome here… IF?” Yes of course; Myrna! You and your fellow-men/-women are welcome here, but you can’t expect us to bow down for your scismatic and heretical version of the catholic faith.

Thanks to everybody who have contributed to a lot of good information! Some of you I will “see” on other treads, othes I will perhaps not meet again. God knows!

:amen:

G.G.
 
Queen of Sheeba:
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…
Click to expand...
What I find most interesting in the posts from the sedevacantists is that they claim to read our posts thoroughly and that they have the evidence to prove us wrong yet they never bother to provide the evidence to refute what we have actually said. Instead, they just keep repeating the same accusations and using the same kind of evidence. Often the same evidence is presented yet again. Not one of you has bothered to answer the questions put forth by us with any Magesterial teaching that actually supports your position.

Queen of Sheeba, the “evidence” you have provided still does not answer the questions that have been put to those who hold your position. Did Sts. Bellarmine or de Sales or Ligouri ever claim that their teaching was superior to that of the Magesterium of the Church? Did any of them ever reveal who has the authority to pass such a judgment over a pope that was affirmed by the Magesterium?
 
Mutant, apologies for still not having read all the posts properly. I may choose to answer some points if anyone on this forum actually would consider reconsidering their position. Would you? Just kidding! Just the name “Mutant” suggests the ability to change.

This might have already been covered, so please forgive me, if I’m repeating something.

I can’t see why so many Catholics find sedevacantism to be unreasonable. If the True Faith exists in merely one layperson then there lies the Church and the gates of hell have not prevailed. It seems many opponents of the sede position can reconcile having a visible hierarchical structure professing a defective faith as not contradicting the doctrine of Indefectibility (a Divine Law/Dogma), yet find it an insurmountable stumbling block to acknowledge that there could be an extended period of time when the Catholic Church is inbetween reigning popes.

Perhaps they see the method of electing the next pope to be the barrier. It isn’t one, even though the current law (that is, the one in effect at the time of the last valid Pontiff) states the method of election involves cardinals, this is merely an ecclesiastical law which is in no way binding if impossible to conform to. The sedevacantist position is the only one which poses no real contradiction to the dogma of Indefectibility. As it is impossible for the Magisterium of the Catholic Church (which includes the official teachings of the Vicar of Christ) to promulgate anything which is erroneous in matters of faith and morals or harmful to souls. And if you do the homework, you will find that JP2 et.al. have done this.

p.s. Obviously, one layperson cannot constitute the Church Militant for too long. And the day may come when the Church will be reduced to one (then we would be justified in thinking the end is nigh) AND we can be certain (as we are now) that as promised, Our Lord remained with us to the end of time. Meanwhile, there are plenty of valid bishops as far as sedes are concerned who are operating licitly with supplied jurisdiction whilst we are between popes so there is no obstacle to the continuation of apostolic succession.
 
Hey there again “the Mutant”,

Why don’t you check out some of the links Joe Omlor recommended? Then you might find the answers to most of your questions. No sede is claiming the right to judge the pope; Divine Law and Church Law have already done this. We just recognize that this judgment has taken place and patiently await the official pronouncement. Thank God, that these laws are in place and are so clear (no interpretation is needed nor is made by sedes), as these laws protect us from the unthinkable, that of being led astray from those who are supposed to lead us and safeguard us.

Anyway, you all would benefit from reading some sede material with an open mind, as recognizing or believing for good reasons that a particular person isn’t a valid Pontiff does not render anyone outside the True Faith. Surely you can understand this? I can understand that those who honestly can’t recognize this (all the sedeplenists) aren’t necessarily outside the Ark of Salvation.
 
40.png
Schmuck:
As it is impossible for the Magisterium of the Catholic Church (which includes the official teachings of the Vicar of Christ) to promulgate anything which is erroneous in matters of faith and morals or harmful to souls. And if you do the homework, you will find that JP2 et.al. have done this.
Click to expand...
See this everyday!!!:crying:
 
40.png
Mandi:
See this everyday!!!
Click to expand...
What, those type of statements, or JP2 doing harm?

Both can be seen just about every day.

Doesn’t that tell you something?

Why are so many good Catholics warning about the new false teachings and leaders if everything is just fine?

Joe
 
Of course your welcome, im just wondering, do you have respect for the pope?
 
40.png
rianredd1088:
Of course your welcome, im just wondering, do you have respect for the pope?
Click to expand...
What pope???

I sure wish we had a true pope, then the state of affairs would not be what they are.

Have you read what Pope Saint Pius X wrote about the heretic Modernists and their doctrines, when he warned about them and condemned them?

He described JP2 and his behaviour very well.

How about that: we warned beforehand by a Pope and Saint!

I respect all true Popes and the Papacy.
 
Joe Omlor said:
What pope???

I sure wish we had a true pope, then the state of affairs would not be what they are.
Click to expand...

Ah, my dear “vacants,” full of judgments, accusations, heretics and heresies. You would take for yourself authority that is not yours to take. Much as Protestants feel free to interpret Scriptures to their individual tastes, you twist the words of saints and church documents and interpret them the way you like. The Bishop of Rome and the Magisterium alone can interpret infallible teachings. As with Scripture, if something in the Church’s teaching seems contradictory, it is our misunderstanding of what is being taught - the Church’s teachings, yesterday, today, and to the end of the ages, cannot contradict themselves.

What you suggest is that the Bishop of Rome and the Magisterium, the only infallible teaching authority, have all fallen into error and their positions are vacant.

Did it ever occur to you that to assert that the Roman See and the Magisterium could fall into error now implies that it could have been in error before, and so you have no idea what teachings are fallible, and what are infallible. If at any point your average “schmuck” can decide for himself what the teachings mean, we’ve never really needed a Magisterium. I don’t think you believe that.

If you want to say you don’t understand a thing, or believe something to be heresy, fine. But don’t make authoritative interpretations, and call people heretics. You have no right.

I have read every post (painfully), although many of you quite obviously have not. I have looked at your websites and references. I find that you have, through pride and misunderstanding, cut yourselves off from the living Church - the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic - whose earthly head is the Bishop of Rome, Pope John Paul II, in union with the Magisterium and the Episcopal College.

I beg you to cease with your fallible interpretations of Church teachings, and your calling people heretics. By much of your own banter, and the sources you’ve posted, you are all on the “heretic eligibility list.”

You are leading people astray by your fallible teachings, determinations, convictions, pronouncements, etc. If you could see it, you undermine your own faith by your words. Who could feel obligated to follow the Church in anything she’s ever said, if “lesser clergy and the laity” can differ from infallible Church authority…and be right. May God have mercy!
 
40.png
Schmuck:
Why don’t you check out some of the links Joe Omlor recommended? Then you might find the answers to most of your questions. No sede is claiming the right to judge the pope; Divine Law and Church Law have already done this. We just recognize that this judgment has taken place and patiently await the official pronouncement.
Click to expand...
Schmuck,

I have been checking out the links that Joe Omlor has recommended and I find the answers lacking; just like every example given by sedevacantists to support their position I have encountered on this forum. I suggest that you complete reading the rest of the posts on this thread thoroughly. Maybe you can provide the answers that the other sedevacantists have not been able to.

You claim that you hare not judging the pope, but then you turn around and claim that you recognize that Divine and Church Law has already done this. This is a self-contradicting position because you admit that no official pronouncement has been made and without that, you have no ability to declare a pope to be a heretic or an apostate. This has been demonstrated very clearly in the preceding posts using the very texts that the sedevacantists have presented to defend their position. Again, I suggest that you read the posts.

If you are declaring that the pope is a heretic when no such judgment has been made by the Church’s Magesterium, then I am left to wonder from where you got your authority to make such a declaration. Many quotes have been given from canonists, theologians, saints, and even authoritative delcarations from past popes. However, each example given has failed to reveal how a handful of bishops and their followers can declare a pope to be a heretic, schismatic, apostate, or call into question the validity of his election. Yet, this is exactly what the sedevacantists, including yourself, have done repeatedly on this forum.
 
40.png
Schmuck:
As it is impossible for the Magisterium of the Catholic Church (which includes the official teachings of the Vicar of Christ) to promulgate anything which is erroneous in matters of faith and morals or harmful to souls. And if you do the homework, you will find that JP2 et.al. have done this.
Click to expand...
We have done our homework and have shown you to be completely incorrect on this point. First of all, you say that it is impossible for the Magisterium of the Catholic Church to promulgate anything which is erroneous in matters of faith and morals or harmful to souls. Then you turn around and say that a pope can lose the papacy by committing heresy. Which is it? Sedevacantists seem to take both sides on this issue but they are mutually-contradicting.
 
40.png
jordan:
Ah, my dear “vacants,” full of judgments, accusations, heretics and heresies. You would take for yourself authority that is not yours to take. Much as Protestants feel free to interpret Scriptures to their individual tastes, you twist the words of saints and church documents and interpret them the way you like. The Bishop of Rome and the Magisterium alone can interpret infallible teachings. As with Scripture, if something in the Church’s teaching seems contradictory, it is our misunderstanding of what is being taught - the Church’s teachings, yesterday, today, and to the end of the ages, cannot contradict themselves.

What you suggest is that the Bishop of Rome and the Magisterium, the only infallible teaching authority, have all fallen into error and their positions are vacant.

Did it ever occur to you that to assert that the Roman See and the Magisterium could fall into error now implies that it could have been in error before, and so you have no idea what teachings are fallible, and what are infallible. If at any point your average “schmuck” can decide for himself what the teachings mean, we’ve never really needed a Magisterium. I don’t think you believe that.

If you want to say you don’t understand a thing, or believe something to be heresy, fine. But don’t make authoritative interpretations, and call people heretics. You have no right.

I have read every post (painfully), although many of you quite obviously have not. I have looked at your websites and references. I find that you have, through pride and misunderstanding, cut yourselves off from the living Church - the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic - whose earthly head is the Bishop of Rome, Pope John Paul II, in union with the Magisterium and the Episcopal College.

I beg you to cease with your fallible interpretations of Church teachings, and your calling people heretics. By much of your own banter, and the sources you’ve posted, you are all on the “heretic eligibility list.”

You are leading people astray by your fallible teachings, determinations, convictions, pronouncements, etc. If you could see it, you undermine your own faith by your words. Who could feel obligated to follow the Church in anything she’s ever said, if “lesser clergy and the laity” can differ from infallible Church authority…and be right. May God have mercy!
Click to expand...
Amen.

Could not have said it any better. I hope they understand the **LOGIC ** behind your argument.
 
Jordan you wrote:
“I find that you have, through pride and misunderstanding, cut yourselves off from the living Church - the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic - whose earthly head is the Bishop of Rome, Pope John Paul II, in union with the Magisterium and the Episcopal College.”

Whoa there! I think all of us (sedeplenist or sedevacantist) can see that none of us can judge another’s motive. You have demonstrated here that you have made not only a judgment of another’s motive but have also declared another is outside the Church. Isn’t this exactly what sedevacantists are accused for doing, re JP2? (Which I might add, we do not).
 
40.png
theMutant:
Schmuck,

I have been checking out the links that Joe Omlor has recommended and I find the answers lacking; just like every example given by sedevacantists to support their position I have encountered on this forum. I suggest that you complete reading the rest of the posts on this thread thoroughly. Maybe you can provide the answers that the other sedevacantists have not been able to.

You claim that you hare not judging the pope, but then you turn around and claim that you recognize that Divine and Church Law has already done this. This is a self-contradicting position because you admit that no official pronouncement has been made and without that, you have no ability to declare a pope to be a heretic or an apostate. This has been demonstrated very clearly in the preceding posts using the very texts that the sedevacantists have presented to defend their position. Again, I suggest that you read the posts.

If you are declaring that the pope is a heretic when no such judgment has been made by the Church’s Magesterium, then I am left to wonder from where you got your authority to make such a declaration. Many quotes have been given from canonists, theologians, saints, and even authoritative delcarations from past popes. However, each example given has failed to reveal how a handful of bishops and their followers can declare a pope to be a heretic, schismatic, apostate, or call into question the validity of his election. Yet, this is exactly what the sedevacantists, including yourself, have done repeatedly on this forum.
Click to expand...
THEORY #1 Why sedevactanists dont get it

It appears they have not seriously read any of our posts, even though we have taken much time to read theirs

THEORY #2 Why sedevacantisits dont get it

They are not answering any basic questions about authority becuase they don’t understand what authority is.

from dictionary.com

au·thor·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-thôr-t, -thr-, ô-thôr-, ô-thr-)
n. pl. au·thor·i·ties

The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge.
One that is invested with this power, especially a government or body of government officials: land titles issued by the civil authority.
Power assigned to another; authorization: Deputies were given authority to make arrests.
A public agency or corporation with administrative powers in a specified field: a city transit authority.

An accepted source of expert information or advice: a noted authority on birds; a reference book often cited as an authority.
A quotation or citation from such a source: biblical authorities for a moral argument.
Justification; grounds: **On what authority do you make such a claim? **
A conclusive statement or decision that may be taken as a guide or precedent.
Power to influence or persuade resulting from knowledge or experience: political observers who acquire authority with age.
Confidence derived from experience or practice; firm self-assurance: played the sonata with authority.
 
40.png
theMutant:
We have done our homework and have shown you to be completely incorrect on this point. First of all, you say that it is impossible for the Magisterium of the Catholic Church to promulgate anything which is erroneous in matters of faith and morals or harmful to souls. Then you turn around and say that a pope can lose the papacy by committing heresy. Which is it? Sedevacantists seem to take both sides on this issue but they are mutually-contradicting.
Click to expand...
Actually I didn’t turn around after the first statement, before I made the next one. The missing statement inbetween is that when a cleric deviates from the faith publicly he ipso facto loses all offices.(Canon1:884) Now if this office happens to be that of the bishop of Rome or any other bishopric either way the office has been lost (this protects us from our shepherds imposing their “deviations” on us). So to your question “Which is it?” The answer is both as they are NOT mutually-contradicting.
 
40.png
Schmuck:
Actually I didn’t turn around after the first statement, before I made the next one. The missing statement inbetween is that when a cleric deviates from the faith publicly he ipso facto loses all offices.(Canon1:884) Now if this office happens to be that of the bishop of Rome or any other bishopric either way the office has been lost (this protects us from our shepherds imposing their “deviations” on us). So to your question “Which is it?” The answer is both as they are NOT mutually-contradicting.
Click to expand...
from dictionary.com

au·thor·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-thôr-t, -thr-, ô-thôr-, ô-thr-)
n. pl. au·thor·i·ties

The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge.
One that is invested with this power, especially a government or body of government officials: land titles issued by the civil authority.
Power assigned to another; authorization: Deputies were given authority to make arrests.
A public agency or corporation with administrative powers in a specified field: a city transit authority.

An accepted source of expert information or advice: a noted authority on birds; a reference book often cited as an authority.
A quotation or citation from such a source: biblical authorities for a moral argument.
Justification; grounds: **On what authority do you make such a claim? **
A conclusive statement or decision that may be taken as a guide or precedent.
Power to influence or persuade resulting from knowledge or experience: political observers who acquire authority with age.
Confidence derived from experience or practice; firm self-assurance: played the sonata with authority.
 
40.png
Schmuck:
The missing statement inbetween is that when a cleric deviates from the faith publicly he ipso facto loses all offices.(Canon1:884)
Click to expand...
Could you please provide a link to the source for this canon? I am not familiar with the notation (1:884)

The problem is the same as has been asked MANY times before (please read the posts). It is all well and good to provide this teaching as a principle for your position, however, how do we determine when one has done something that constitutes deviating from the faith? Like SocaliCatholic and so many others on this thread I ask by what authority do the sedevacantists make such a declaration in regard to the pope?

You guys can send as many people this thread as you want but you will get nowhere with us until you can actually provide answers to the questions we have raised and show us where our refutations of the claims you have made are not correct. For every claim about an authoritative teaching, be it prior to Vatican II, Vatican II itself, or afterward, that has been submitted by a sedevacantist, we have presented a solid refutation using the very documents that they have cited for their own position. Every time we have done this, the response of the sedevacantist is to simply reassert the same claim without ever bothering to show us in what way we are wrong. Every time a new sedevacantist joins this thread, they simply reassert the same claims and usually use the same texts that we have already refuted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top