Would I be welcome here.... IF?

[Paul_Danon]

[bandwidth]
The enlarged text was not sent in a .jpg, .bmp or .gif format. etc

I was just kidding. I was taking the mickey out of the use of a large fount. This was obviously not successful.

 

[Paul_Danon]

SocaliCatholic:

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

Agreed.

SocaliCatholic:

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

Paul IV, cum ex apostolatus officio, 1559

SocaliCatholic:

God Bless!

Thank you. You too. Considering the seriousness of the subject, and the undoubted sincerity with which views are held, this is a very good-natured thread.

 

[Paul_Danon]

jordan:

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.

Thank you but this doesn’t quite address my point that “living church” could imply a parallel, dead one. I think the matter arose because you said someone was cut off from the church because they were an SV. Understandably, they took exception, and you replied that they’d been cut off from the “living church”. Is the church of England part of the living church?

 

[fulloftruth]

Hey, welcome to the forums.
Check this out.
geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3543/sede.htm

 

[Paul_Danon]

SocaliCatholic:

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.

Right on and that is, surely, the point here. I can see a truck driver is breaking the law without a high court judge sitting on my shoulder (God forbid).

SocaliCatholic:

… you do need authority to do anything if someone violates it. (Tow the car, Write a parking ticket)

In English law there is a citizen’s arrest, though I might not try it with our virtual 6’ 6" truck-driver. I can call the police.

More seriously, cum ex apostolatus officio doesn’t authorise me to arrest a heretic bishop but it does require me to stop going him for sacraments.

SocaliCatholic:

You are more well read and educated than I am …

… and you, sir or madam, are most gravely mistaken!

SocaliCatholic:

… 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.

If my parish-priest persistently preaches heresy from the pulpit I not only can do something about it. I must, for my sake, my fellow-parishioners’ and for his.

SocaliCatholic:

Whether or not it is objectively valid that a pope is in fact valid is not the issue!

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

But by what authority do you say that? By what authority are people saying that a pope cannot lose his faith?

 

[Paul_Danon]

Schmuck:

So I am accused by Jordan of being outside the “Living Church” but am still a member of the “True Church”…hmmm interesting.

Elsewhere I raised the idea of a dead church but that was perhaps a false extrapolation from “living church”. Also going the rounds is the idea of imperfect communion, which I can’t grasp either.

Maybe in Vatican2-think, one needs to see multiple manifestations of the church. After all, V2 acknowledges that the church which SS Thomas More and John Fisher preferred to die rather than join is actually used by the holy Ghost as a means of salvation. Why, one wonders were More and Fisher canonised? Maybe it was all a mistake and Cranmer is actually up there with them enjoying a celestial pint.

Actions by John Paul II suggest that Islam, Judaism and other faiths are legitimate creeds. Universal salvation would be convenient, though a trifle anomalous. Your unrepentant mass-murderer would enjoy heavenly bliss along with his innocent victims. However, universal salvation is not our Lord’s teaching.

 

[Paul_Danon]

Parody
Vatican2ist:

Buy what authority do you claim that a papal election can be invalidated by the candidate’s being a heretic?

Catholic:

Paul IV, *cum ex *apostolatus officio, 1559

Vatican2ist:

How dare you take papal authority upon yourself? Anyway, by what authority do you claim that the faithful must withdraw obedience to heretics elected to ecclesiastical office?

Catholic:

Paul IV, cum ex apostolatus officio, 1559

Vatican2ist:

That’s the trouble with you sedevacantists. Always quoting the same authorities against things which we have so convincingly refuted. Just who do you think you are?

Catholic:

Catholic.

 

[Paul_Danon]

Just in on the wires:

---

*** Nadir Catholic News Service ***
All The News That’s Fit To Believe​

JOHN PAUL IN UNEXPECTED DECLARATION SHOCK

VATICAN CITY, Sunday, June 20, 2004 - In a surprise departure from his otherwise routine noon Angelus address today, Pope John Paul II made the following statement: “Having welcomed pilgrims from St Futtock’s parish, Gaithersburg, Ohio, [cheers], and the totally unpronounceable but deeply loyal diocese of Zxcrzrczrz, Croatia, [hurrahs], it has come to our attention that we have ourselves fallen into heresy. Therefore, we, by the authority invested in us, declare ourselves anathema. Furthermore, given our, erm, disordered status, we declare ourselves incapable of any valid declaration which we make as part of the discharge of our office, including, now we come to think of it, this declaration. Thank you all very much and good night to you wherever you may be.”

 

[JLC]

SocaliCatholic:

**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

This needs clarification. Any Catholic is allowed to interpret scripture. What you are not allowed to do is be the **final **interpreter of scripture. The Church allows Her children to read scripture, comprehend it, and interpret it, all the while trying to do so in conformity with all other truths…all the while recognizing there is a final interpreting authority, which is the Church.

The problem with the Protestants is not that they intepret scripture, it is that they recognize no final interpreter but themselves. They don’t recognize Church authority above themselves.

Likewise, as an analogy...the **final **judge for our sins is the priest in the confessional. He is a true judge with jurisdiction to do so. Yet, we are required to "judge" our own sins and accuse ourselves and act upon our own judgment before going to confession. Ours is a moral judgment of reason, and it obliges us to act upon our conclusions....all the while recognizing the authority of the later **final **judge of our sins.

Now, you will have to read a short chapter from a booklet titled, “Liberalism is a Sin”. You can read chapter 32, “Liberalism and Authority in Particular Cases” here:

[ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/LIBSIN.HTM#32](http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/LIBSIN.HTM#32)

The question above about judging a pope is incorrectly asked. Firstly, when a pope ceases being pope, he is NOT a pope, so the judging pertains only to a man, not a pope. Nobody can judge a pope. Secondly, the judgment is not juridical. It is a moral judgment in lieu of a higher judgment, yet one we can act upon and publicly pronounce our judgment of conscience beforehand…as it says in the link above.
JLC

 

[SocaliCatholic]

Paul Danon:

I was just kidding. I was taking the mickey out of the use of a large fount. This was obviously not successful.

You were just kidding? adding smiley would have helped to clarify that

 

[SocaliCatholic]

Paul Danon:

Agreed.

Agreed.

Paul IV, cum ex apostolatus officio, 1559

If all the laity has equal authority to judge the validity of popes from reading church documents…

**What person has the ultimate authority ** over the validity of the pope when there is disagreement?

Thank you. You too. Considering the seriousness of the subject, and the undoubted sincerity with which views are held, this is a very good-natured thread.

Agreed.

 

[Paul_Danon]

myrna:

I never thought this thread would evolve like this …

Thank you for having the *chutzpah *(if you’ll forgive the vernacular) to start it.

myrna:

I believe the Pope is infallible and can not err in matters of Faith and Morals, since JPII has made some serious errors he can not be a true pope.

Amen, sister.

myrna:

… I thought the new thinking of Vatican II is now the word “schismatics” were no longer part of the new [religious] vocabulary …

The situation is bizarre. The V2 organisation recognises good and grace and sanctity and, even, the holy Ghost at work in all sorts of religious organisations. Catholics say “oi, that’s not what the church teaches” thus putting themselves outside the V2 organisation.

However, because the V2 organisation recognises good and grace and sanctity and, even, the holy Ghost at work in all sorts of religious organisations, that must include the Catholic church which itself dissents from V2.

Why don’t the followers of JP2 embrace us as separated brethren?

 

[SocaliCatholic]

Paul Danon:

Right on and that is, surely, the point here. I can see a truck driver is breaking the law without a high court judge sitting on my shoulder (God forbid).
In English law there is a citizen’s arrest, though I might not try it with our virtual 6’ 6" truck-driver. I can call the police.

Agreed.

More seriously, cum ex apostolatus officio doesn’t authorise me to arrest a heretic bishop but it does require me to stop going him for sacraments.

Now that would be serious. If a bishop was known to be a heretic, would you ONLY stop going to him for sacraments, or would you tell someone in the church with authority to do something about it? (remove him from position)

… and you, sir or madam, are most gravely mistaken!

Maybe. I simply took and educated guess that you are in fact more educated than me.

If my parish-priest persistently preaches heresy from the pulpit I not only can do something about it. I must, for my sake, my fellow-parishioners’ and for his.

Correct. Do you:

A. Give yourself authority to remove the bishop from office?

B. Go to offical Church authority to remove the bishop from office?

But by what authority do you say that? By what authority are people saying that a pope cannot lose his faith?

It doesnt matter.

A. If we assume I, a layman, have authority… you, a layman, would also have authority.
Who is our authority if we are in disagreement?

B. If we assume I, a layman, have no authority… you, a layman, would also have no authority.
Who is our authority if we are in disagreement?

 

[Pax]

Sadly, schismatics are separated brothers and sisters, just as are our protestant brothers and sisters in Christ are separated. When I say this, I do not mean to be uncharitable. I just believe that your position is not much different from theirs, and just as untenable.

 

[SocaliCatholic]

Paul Danon:

Parody [edited to save bandwidth]

Serious subject, but I still like your parody.

 

[Paul_Danon]

SocaliCatholic:

If all the laity has equal authority to judge the validity of popes from reading church documents, [w]hat person has the ultimate authority over the validity of the pope when there is disagreement?

Phew. Good point. Might some of my fellow-Catholics kindly chip in here, please? Is it down to conscience? That sounds worryingly protestant to me, which is the last thing we want to be.

Is such an authority necessary? After all, if a person dressed as the pope says that, for example, protestant churches are means of salvation, does one need a kind of papal regulator (in British parlance Ofpope) to say that he’s acted ultra vires? After all, such actions (and kissing the koran and praying with Jews for a messiah) should be plain to the faithful as wrong.

There are several people dressed as pope these days. At least one talks V2 heresy so he can’t be real. Some talk Catholic truth but I, for one, have doubts about the validity of their election.

I suppose there will always be religious disagreement, yet there will always also be Catholic truth. How one’s heart aches for a pope.

 

[Paul_Danon]

Pax:

Sadly, schismatics are separated brothers and sisters, just as are our protestant brothers and sisters in Christ are separated. When I say this, I do not mean to be uncharitable. I just believe that your position is not much different from theirs, and just as untenable.

I am sure you do not mean to be uncharitable and I am so grateful for your courtesy.

However, separated brethren appear not to need to worry. Their churches are means of salvation and the holy Ghost works through their services, according to Vatican II. Why, then, do people who accept Vatican II object to our dissent from it?

 

[SocaliCatholic]

JLC:

This needs clarification. Any Catholic is allowed to interpret scripture. What you are not allowed to do is be the **final **interpreter of scripture. The Church allows Her children to read scripture, comprehend it, and interpret it, all the while trying to do so in conformity with all other truths…all the while recognizing there is a final interpreting authority, which is the Church.

Amen.

The problem with the Protestants is not that they intepret scripture, it is that they recognize no final interpreter but themselves. They don’t recognize Church authority above themselves.

Amen.

I would like to have you around when I debate with my protestant friends.

Likewise, as an analogy...the **final **judge for our sins is the priest in the confessional. He is a true judge with jurisdiction to do so. Yet, we are required to "judge" our own sins and accuse ourselves and act upon our own judgment before going to confession. Ours is a moral judgment of reason, and it obliges us to act upon our conclusions....all the while recognizing the authority of the later **final **judge of our sins.

You are so close to the answer.

**Who ** is the final authority in the church?

Now, you will have to read a short chapter from a booklet titled, “Liberalism is a Sin”. You can read chapter 32, “Liberalism and Authority in Particular Cases” here:

[ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/LIBSIN.HTM#32](http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/LIBSIN.HTM#32)

Ok.

The question above about judging a pope is incorrectly asked. Firstly, when a pope ceases being pope, he is NOT a pope, so the judging pertains only to a man, not a pope. Nobody can judge a pope. Secondly, the judgment is not juridical. It is a moral judgment in lieu of a higher judgment, yet one we can act upon and publicly pronounce our judgment of conscience beforehand…as it says in the link above.

You are assuming it is objectively valid he is not a pope!

If 3 people claim to be a pope at the same time, the layman can read all the church documents he wants, but he must leave it to the authority in the church who is the valid pope

This would imply that **before ** the schism…who has the **final authority ** from Christ?

 

[Paul_Danon]

SocaliCatholic:

If a bishop was known to be a heretic, would you ONLY stop going to him for sacraments, or would you tell someone in the church with authority to do something about it? (remove him from position)

Both.

SocaliCatholic:

Do you … [g]ive yourself authority to remove the bishop from office?

I can’t give myself that.

SocaliCatholic:

Do you … [g]o to offical (sic) Church authority to remove the bishop from office?

Yes.

 

[SocaliCatholic]

Paul Danon:

Phew. Good point. Might some of my fellow-Catholics kindly chip in here, please? Is it down to conscience?

Yes. It always has been. Our concious tells us to follow the Truth.

That sounds worryingly protestant to me, which is the last thing we want to be.

Following concious is not protestant.

Following concious is human.

Not following a final authority is schismatic.

Following a final authority(pope) is not schismatic.

Is such an authority necessary?

Yes!
(apology in advance for any wasted bandwidth but we have arrived at major Truth!)

Jesus gave us a final, visible authority, on earth for a reason!

Do you disagree with Jesus giving us a final authority?

After all, if a person dressed as the pope says that, for example, protestant churches are means of salvation, does one need a kind of papal regulator (in British parlance Ofpope) to say that he’s acted ultra vires? After all, such actions (and kissing the koran and praying with Jews for a messiah) should be plain to the faithful as wrong.

See above explanation.

There are several people dressed as pope these days. At least one talks V2 heresy so he can’t be real. Some talk Catholic truth but I, for one, have doubts about the validity of their election.

If you have doubts who is pope, **who was your final authority in the chruch before the schism? ** (the one we at a minimum, both agreed on)

I suppose there will always be religious disagreement, yet there will always also be Catholic truth.

Amen.

How one’s heart aches for a pope.

Jesus gave us one. John Paul II. Thank you Lord!