Would I be welcome here.... IF?

[scaxter]

*Hello everyone! This is my first post and I hope it won’t be my last, but I must tell you first that I am a sedevacantist. *

*Having said that, I suppose I would like to know if I am welcome? *

Of course, myrna, you are welcome here. You sound like a person in love with the Lord and His blessed Motehr. Welcome, hope to hear from you more.

I think though that if you are asking people to “be quiet” about our beloved “Papa” you will find the love we have for him becomes expressive love, and he will be part of our forums. I hope you respect our position and belief in him. Thank you.

(By the way, I really haven’t heard the word sedevacantist. It was not in my Catholic dictionary by Fr. John Hardon, nor Webster’s. Can you explain?).
scaxter

 

[theMutant]

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?

I’m afraid you need to do some more homework. Pope Pius IX clearly disagreed with you and taught something quite different.

QUARTUS SUPRA
Encyclical Promulgated on 6 January 1873

1. Since this does not please the neo-schismatics, they follow the example of heretics of more recent times. They argue that the sentence of schism and excommunication pronounced against them by the Archbishop of Tyana, the Apostolic Delegate in Constantinople, was unjust, and consequently void of strength and influence. They have claimed also that they are unable to accept the sentence because the faithful might desert to the heretics if deprived of their ministration. These novel arguments were wholly unknown and unheard of by the ancient Fathers of the Church. For "the whole Church throughout the world knows that the See of the blessed Apostle Peter has the right of loosing again what any pontiffs have bound, since this See possesses the right of judging the whole Church, and no one may judge its judgment." (St. Gelasius, epistle 26, sect. 5, to the bishops of Dardania)

 

[theMutant]

newcrusader92:

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

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.

You know, I really love this. If the sedevacantists aren’t just repeating the same “verbatim” quotes of documents we have already refuted with our own “verbatim” quotes of these same documents (like Paul Danon), they are providing other quotes from new documents that can also be used to refute their own claims.

Here we have a claim that the Catholic Church has just tossed aside the centuries old condemnations of the Council of Trent in the Joint Declaration. Funny, because the very first paragraph of that declaration says otherwise.

JOINT DECLARATION ON JUSTIFICATION The Catholic Church & The World Lutheran Federation
1.The doctrine of justification was of central importance for the Lutheran Reformation of the sixteenth century. It was held to be the “first and chief article” and at the same time the "ruler and judge over all other Christian doctrines.” The doctrine of justification was particularly asserted and defended in its Reformation shape and special valuation over against the Roman Catholic Church and theology of that time, which in turn asserted and defended a doctrine of justification of a different character. From the Reformation perspective, justification was the crux of all the disputes. Doctrinal condemnations were put forward both in the Lutheran Confessions and by the Roman Catholic Church’s Council of Trent. These condemnations are still valid today and thus have a church-dividing effect.

Still, in light of this statement, we have a right to wonder just what brought about the possibility of a joint declaration.

OFFICIAL COMMON STATEMENT The Catholic Church and The World Lutheran Federation

1. On the basis of the agreements reached in the Joint Declaration regarding the doctrine of Justification, the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church declare together: “The understanding of the doctrine of justification set forth in this Declaration shows that a consensus in basic truths of the doctrine of justification exists between Lutherans and Catholics” (JD 40). On the basis of this consensus the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church declare together: “The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent. The condemnations in the Lutheran Confessions do not apply to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church presented in this Declaration”

Now, if you actually bother to read the declaration, it reveals some very interesting things. It mainly focuses on the fact that we are justified by grace alone. New Crusader would like us to believe that the Lutheran position has not changed one iota, but reading the declaration shows that this is not at all the case. The major example of the change in the Lutheran position presented in the declaration is the idea that their understanding of “faith alone” includes works. This is contrary to what Luther himself taught.

And what about the supposed changes in the Catholic teaching from the Council of Trent that New Crusader says has been abandoned by the declaration. There are none. Does this represent an abandonment of the ancient principle of ecumenism that the sedevacantists claim that Vatican II and John Paul II have abandoned? No. The declaration only discusses topics where the Lutheran position has moved to almost completely mirror the Catholic Church’s own teaching. This is the reason that the basic truths concerning justification presented in the declaration are not subject to the condemnation of the Council of Trent; whose condemnations still remain in effect as stated in paragraph 1 of the declaration.

 

[theMutant]

newcrusader92:

The reality is that no one outside the Church is saved. There are no exceptions.

So, what you’re saying is that all those Native Americans, and anyone else who died after the Church was established but before the faith was brought to their part of the world went straight to Hell, no exceptions, no matter how good they were? Even if they obeyed the natural law God wrote upon their hearts completely? You are taking the teaching out of context for it was intended to judge the ability of other religions to save people apart from the Church; not to judge individuals.

I have found several references that Pope Pius IX wrote an Allocution on 9 December, 1854 stating, “It must be regarded as true that he who does not know the true religion is guiltless in the sight of God so far as his ignorance is invincible. Who would presume to fix the limits of such ignorance, amid the infinite variety and difference of peoples, countries, and mentalities, and amid so many other circumstances? When we are free from the limitations of the body and see God as he is, then we shall see how closely and beautifully God’s mercy and justice are conjoined.”

Once again, New Crusader, you are contradicting papal teaching.

 

[Paul_Danon]

theMutant:

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 (sic), a person can also declare themselves to be apostate).

I can become a heretic at any time without the church’s declaring it. Also:
Paul IV:

[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 … 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.]

Note the “[If] ever at any time it shall appear …” rather than “if the church declares it so”. Also:
Paul IV:

[Any] and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted or elevated … shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs.]

Note the “shall be permitted at any time” rather than “only if the pope [presumably in his capacity as a heretic] declares the see vacant”.

theMutant:

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.

The archbishop of Canterbury is a heretic. I don’t believe he’s been brought before the church. Does he remain a Catholic until he is? I suspect not.

Say one’s bishop were to say from the pulpit persistently that our Lord was not divine. Would the laity be wrong to think him a heretic? Would they need to say: “Well, while I know what he says is contrary to church-teaching, we had better await the judgement of the metropolitan or of the holy see. In the mean time we shall carry on going to his cathedral and receiving communion from the hands of a man who thinks it’s just bread.”? I suspect you wouldn’t see the true faithful for dust.

theMutant:

… all opinion on [a pope’s losing his see] are just that; OPINIONS.

Sure, but we have our souls to save in the mean time. We must do something.

theMutant:

… 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.

But, looking at the rest of what you say about how we’re in no position to conclude about this, who are you to judge?

 

[Paul_Danon]

theMutant:

… the sedevacantists … keep repeating the same accusations and using the same kind of evidence. Often the same evidence is presented yet again.

At least we’re consistent! Also, maybe we’re a bit repetitive because we’re right. There are only so many ways of saying the same thing.

theMutant:

Did Sts. Bellarmine or de Sales or Ligouri (sic) ever claim that their teaching was superior to that of the Magesterium (sic) of the Church?

Not as far as I know, but then their teaching conforms to it.

 

[Paul_Danon]

SocaliCatholic:

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

I think this thread actually is very much about authority, and whether one has a duty to follow those in authority who go astray. There are those who, though they see what’s gone wrong in Rome, think they must follow it because it’s Rome. This would be a bit like me, here in England, following the archbishop of Canterbury because he occupies a medieval Catholic cathedral and dresses in a mitre.

 

[Paul_Danon]

theMutant:

… 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.

We are, I believe, mercifully, all at one on this.

theMutant:

Then you turn around and say that a pope can lose the papacy by committing heresy. Which is it?

Both. I would lose my faith by embracing heresy and the same applies to the pope. He is not deprived of freewill by his election. He loses the papacy (as would any other bishop lose his see) by promulgating “anything which is erroneous in matters of faith and morals or harmful to souls”. He can also resign.

 

[Paul_Danon]

The quote below is in smaller letters than in the original to save bandwidth.

SocaliCatholic:

On what authority do you make such a claim?

The teaching of the church. There is none other in such matters.

I’m not sure that all the SVs are failing to read posts by the folks who follow John Paul II and/or following any links. Maybe it’s that they’re not persuaded by them. I suppose the SVs could start saying that the V2ists weren’t reading their posts and/or following their URLs but then we’d be deadlocked. Isn’t it better, rather than posting dictionary definitions of words we all understand, and inserting clickable off-site references, to argue out the points themselves?

Cum ex apostolatus officio comes up a lot in this thread. Would anyone like to suggest an exegesis of it which means: “A heretic can be elected pope and, if he is, the faithful owe him allegiance.” or an interpretation which means: “A heretic can be elected pope but, if he is, the faithful can’t say he’s a heretic unless the pope solemnly declares himself to be a heretic.”?

[BTW, thanks to all posters for this very interesting discussion, the best I’ve been in.]

 

[Paul_Danon]

SVs on this thread are often challenged to cite scripture, teaching or canons in support of their assertions. When they do they get:

theMutant:

It is all well and good to provide this teaching as a principle for your position …

as if that somehow undid the SVs’ attempts to support their assertions with teaching. It’s like the guy in the restaurant who asks for the bill and, when the waiter brings it, says:
guy in the restaurant:

It is all well and good bringing me the bill …

theMutant:

I ask by what authority do the sedevacantists make such a declaration in regard to the pope?

By the teaching of the church.

Imagine someone parks a huge truck outside my house. I point out to the driver that parking isn’t allowed there. He asks: “By what authority do you make that claim?” and I point to a sign on a lamp-post which says so. “Aha,” he says, “but you’re not the parliament which made that law nor are you a judge nor are you a police officer. Therefore, not only do you not have any authority to tell me what the law is, but I have no duty to obey it.” Now, the truck-driver may be much bigger than me and I may think it prudent to retire indoors, but what he says doesn’t mean that it is actually lawful to park outside my house. I can point out the existence of a law without being a lawyer.

theMutant:

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.

Maybe our repetitiveness betokens consistency. Also, would I win the argument by saying that the followers of John Paul II on this thread consistently refute our claims (including the church teaching we quote) and that we refute their refutations? I doubt it.

 

[Paul_Danon]

theMutant:

…Pope Pius IX wrote an Allocution on 9 December, 1854 stating, “It must be regarded as true that he who does not know the true religion is guiltless in the sight of God so far as his ignorance is invincible. Who would presume to fix the limits of such ignorance, amid the infinite variety and difference of peoples, countries, and mentalities, and amid so many other circumstances? When we are free from the limitations of the body and see God as he is, then we shall see how closely and beautifully God’s mercy and justice are conjoined.”

This doesn’t contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus. If it does, we’re in trouble because the church will be disagreeing with herself. By contrast, unitatis redintegratio does say that the holy Ghost works through protestant liturgy.

 

[jordan]

Schmuck:

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).

Schmuck: I didn’t declare you outside the Church, merely that you have cut yourself off from the living Church.

 

[JLC]

Hi all! Since Wednesday morning I have had to travel and I couldn’t get any access to the Internet. Things sure have picked up here! Unfortunately, the focus of discussion I was involved in has taken somewhat of a detour. I will need to respond to Mutant’s post #228 to continue the focus.

Quickly looking over Mutant’s newer posts, I would say that his main problem is that he doesn’t understand the difference between “papal infallibility” and the “infallibility of the Church”. It is a common problem for people to mistakenly think you are free to reject all non-ex cathedra teaching. A terrible mistake with terrible consequences! His other big mistake is not be able to see the difference between a *juridical *judgment and a *moral *judgment.

I will soon post my response to #228.

JLC

 

[Paul_Danon]

theMutant:

If the sedevacantists aren’t just repeating the same “verbatim” quotes of documents we have already refuted with our own “verbatim” quotes of these same documents (like Paul Danon), they are providing other quotes from new documents that can also be used to refute their own claims.

Bit puzzled by this. In posts above I quoted from unitatis redintegratio. Are you saying that the words I used weren’t from that? Maybe we have different translations. We could try to find the Latin and see which English version was closer. My English text is from www.vatican.va.

BTW, the fact that one repeats oneself doesn’t mean one is wrong. Also, to say that one has refuted something doesn’t mean the discussion is at an end. If I say that white is white rather than black, and someone else says they refute that, that doesn’t mean they’ve proved white is black.

I don’t think it would help progress on this thread if, every time someone from the Vatican II side disagreed with me, I said: “These Vatican II people keep repeating themselves in asserting opinions which I have already amply refuted in multiple postings and URLs.” It might sound as though I was taking upon myself some authority to which I was not entitled!

 

[Paul_Danon]

jordan:

Schmuck: I didn’t declare you outside the Church, merely that you have cut yourself off from the living Church.

Is there a dead church, then, and, if so, in what respect is it a church?

 

[SocaliCatholic]

Paul Danon:

The quote below is in smaller letters than in the original to save bandwidth.

The enlarged text was not sent in a .jpg, .bmp or .gif format. On the web server side, the extra load in bandwith is precisely 16 extra characters used to format the font in an html tag. On the client side, your browswer renders the font as it interprets the html tag. In theory, if I had chosen to use a normal size font, you might have saved the electricity from the extra computing cycles in the processor of your graphics card.

On the contrary, by electing to use a larger font actually might have acutally saved the catholic.com web server bandwith in the long run if it caused sedevacantists to actually read the post the first time without multiple re-posts to get an answer to the simple question: Who gave you your authority in the church? Man or Jesus Christ?

Example: What authority gave a protestant authority to interpret scripture? Answer: nobody.

Question: What authority gave you the authority to declare a pope invalid? Answer: nobody

God Bless!

 

[jordan]

Paul Danon:

Is there a dead church, then, and, if so, in what respect is it a church?

That Church lives which has a living authority, that is, the Bishop of Rome and the Magisterium, to infallibly interpret Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. All those who would suggest that this Bishop of Rome and this Magisterium are invalid have cut themselves off from this God-given, Truth-giving, living, body. I thank God for the Truth that you do have, and pray that you will accept the Fullness of Truth.

 

[SocaliCatholic]

Paul Danon:

Imagine someone parks a huge truck outside my house. I point out to the driver that parking isn’t allowed there. He asks: “By what authority do you make that claim?” and I point to a sign on a lamp-post which says so. “Aha,” he says, “but you’re not the parliament which made that law nor are you a judge nor are you a police officer. Therefore, not only do you not have any authority to tell me what the law is, but I have no duty to obey it.” Now, the truck-driver may be much bigger than me and I may think it prudent to retire indoors, but what he says doesn’t mean that it is actually lawful to park outside my house. I can point out the existence of a law without being a lawyer.

Aha!

Great example, you are on to something here!

If the truck driver IS breaking a law (No Parking Sign) whether or not someone has the authority to enforce that law (citizen vs. police officer) it is objectively valid that he is still breaking the law.

Here is the idea I am trying to get across: you don’t need authority to point to a valid sign that was posted there by the authority. But you do need authority to do anything if someone violates it. (Tow the car, Write a parking ticket)

(LOL If the truck driver assaulted you because he was angry that you were pointing him to a sign with authority , **you do have the authority ** for self-defense under most laws)

Paul Dannon,

You are more well read and educated than I am, and you could make the claim that a pope is invalid and/or a heretic, but it never goes past that: a claim. Until you have been given authority, you can not do anything about it.

I will humble myslef and try to assume your viewpoint and assume you DO have authority to judge a pope… that would imply that I too can say that I have authority to judge a pope.

Whether or not it is objectively valid that a pope is in fact valid is not the issue! (it is a fact no matter what!)

If all the laity has equal authority to judge the validity of popes, who has the ultimate authority over the validity of the pope when there is disagreement?

Again, this is why we have so many denominations of protestants. They are all self-appointed authorities that interpret the Bible differently

 

[Schmuck]

I’ve just checked in and see that many points I saw should be refuted have been already addressed by Paul Danon. So I am accused by Jordan of being outside the “Living Church” but am still a member of the “True Church”…hmmm interesting.

Anyway, I noticed the name Joe Omlor which reminded me of a book which I highly recommend for ALL Catholics who are serious about their Faith which you all seem to be. It especially applies to these times. It’s called “The Robber Church” by Patrick Henry Omlor (maybe some relation, same name?). It is very scholarly and heavy in parts. It’s available at Amazon.com and I’ve noticed it for sale on various other websites. Well worth the investment! It has enlightened me and enriched my faith enormously.
For those not too keen or able to handle deep analyses and have a simpler approach to their faith. I recommend “What Has Happened to the Church?” by Frs. Dominic and Francisco Radecki. It it an excellent book. I will try and find the website that sells this one. Perhaps some of you know where these inspirational books can be obtained and provide the links for me.

 

[scaxter]

I don’t understand why someone would think that Vatican II was not “legitimate”, and that that would be a reason for the Chair of Peter to be empty. I thought **all **the Church Councils were guided by the working of the Holy Spirit, and in the end the authority and infallibility of the Pope, which is from the Holy Spirit, speaks the truths of the Councils. Have any other Church Councils been in question throughout history? Some liberal bishops and people may have added a twist of their own after the council was done and over as their own interpretation as to what the council was allowing, but that doesn’t change the councils real truths. It only changes what people “perceived” the council to be saying, and with Vatican II, I thought there was a lot of misperceptions and interpretations.

The whole idea of sedevacantists on this forum would take hours and hours for me to follow, which a busy mother of six can only do in small chunks at a time. The common thread seems to be that there is truly a love for Jesus and His Church by all, but somewhere along the way sedevacantists themselves have fallen from the true authority of the One Church. It seems the Church has extremists in both directions.

I believe John Paul II is one of the last great known and living saints of our times [Mother Teresa was too.]. His accomplishments have been a wonderful guide to the Church, outweighing any weakness he may have. All the teachings via books, encyclicals, example to the world, World Youth Days, the fall of the Berlin wall, etc. have been true to his duty. My concern is more in the direction of what’s going to happen after this wonderful man dies? There is so much chaos in the world and he has been an instrumental leader to truth and love. God bless him.