P
Paul_Danon
Guest
Sure, but *unitatis redintegratio *doesn’t say that protestants are saved by their ignorance but by their churches.
- Status
P
Paul_Danon
Guest
Not as far as I know, but I do know that it says they are means to salvation, which is kinda spooky.
Yes but to become a Catholic I had to reject that non-Catholic belief.
Presumably the protestant church to which you belong says that it is sufficient for salvation. To become a Catholic you will need to reject that, thus it will be the church drawing you to her despite the teaching and practice of the religious organisation to which you presently belong.
Bizarrely, I have heard of Anglicans who congratulate their members who become Catholics. I believe an Anglican minister said to a convert: “I am so pleased for you, dear chap. I hope myself to die in Rome [meaning the church rather than the city].” That, surely, isn’t the church of England acting as a means of conversion but, rather, people in the church of England who have Catholic faith but are dangerously dilatory in doing anything about. Let’s hope that vicar (now probably deceased) acted in time to die in Rome.
J
jordan
Guest
Paul Danon:
Vacants: Please read the link previously posted by “fulloftruth.”
geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3543/sede.htm
Here is a small excerpt from a very thorough discussion of this subject:
Imagine someone parks a huge truck outside your house. It is your house after all and you’ve walked past that NO PARKING sign a hundred times. Even though it’s the Lord’s Day, you don’t like the looks of this truck driver, who has shown himself to you to have no respect for the law. Now what you do is forcefully subdue this offender and take his keys. But it seems when you appear before the magistrate, you get charged with assault and battery, and grand theft. Why? Because in the fine print at the bottom of your NO PARKING sign, it says “except on Saturdays and Sundays.”
Vacants: Please read the link previously posted by “fulloftruth.”
geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3543/sede.htm
Here is a small excerpt from a very thorough discussion of this subject:
P
Paul_Danon
Guest
I hope so. People here are very sincere and charitable.
I, for one, have been bashing away about authority all along and, in particular, what provision the church makes for the laity if people in authority go off the rails.
The pope (or bishop or priest or layman) falls into heresy through his actions, not because anyone (clergy or lay) says they have.
Sure, and *cum ex apostolatus officio *is about that.
Don’t you think quotes from saints and doctors of the church count for something? What are doctors of the church for?
Haven’t people presented unitatis redintegratio? I thought they had. Indeed, I know they have. That document says that, for example, the church of England is a means of salvation. This is against church teaching. John Paul II accepts Vatican II.
Vatican I was never closed.
Using quotations doesn’t necessarily make a conspiracy-theory. It might just be a way of making a point. People in favour of Vatican II use quotations and suggest SVism is a conspiracy or worse!
If the SVs had a pope they’d stop being SVs. Some former SVs have gone with Mr Michael Bawden, who says he is Pope Michael. Others have gone with Rev Lucian Pulvermacher, who says he is Pius XIII.
We believe in the papacy but not in John Paul II’s claim to it.
Happily the church has taught on what the faithful are to do if senior churchmen lose their faith. That is the authority and there’s none better.
I quite agree. Anyone who calls himself pope (and there are a good few people around doing that just now!) yet who doesn’t teach the Catholic faith works against the unity of the church and the faith of the people. He can’t be the pope and (at the risk of going on) *cum ex apostolatus officio *tells us what to do if that sorry situation arises.
Best regards and thanks for discussing with me.
P
Paul_Danon
Guest
This is about whether there’s salvation outside the church.
Elizabeth:
Forgive the wanton URLing but here’s geocities.com/orthopapism/eens_papal.html. I’m not sure I like the format of the list (which gives me a headache) but I reckon the content’s OK.
Can anyone interpret those teachings as meaning anything else?
Loads of popes have taught loads of times that there’s actually no salvation outside the church.
Forgive the wanton URLing but here’s geocities.com/orthopapism/eens_papal.html. I’m not sure I like the format of the list (which gives me a headache) but I reckon the content’s OK.
Can anyone interpret those teachings as meaning anything else?
S
Schmuck
Guest
Wow things move fast on here! Thanks Queen of Sheeba for that interesting info about Mario Derksen now being a “sede”!!!
Did you all know that Mel Gibson is also a sedevacantist??? And that whilst making “The Passion of the Christ” he had a Traditional Catholic priest offering the Tridentine Mass (in Latin) daily on the set?
I noticed someone brought up the need for great care being used when addressing an issue of a pope suspect of heresy. The need for “pertinacity” was noted. This is very true. In the case of the Vicar of Christ on earth, is ignorance of what the Church teaches (and has always taught) possible? Given his religious education (read his history, see what teachers he had) how is it possible that he would not know that (false) “ecumenism” and “modernism” are contrary to the Faith? His repeated “modernist” acts and teachings over decades (and I am aware that numerous bishops, priests and laity have brought these to his personal attention) indicate that pertinacity is almost unavoidable. Yet, we have no authority to make any formal declaration, so we don’t.
What we do, is acknowledge that undoubtedly “heresy” is being promulgated officially by this “authority,” and that the dogma of “Indefectibilty” clearly teaches that it is not possible for the authority of Rome to promulgate heresy, as the Church cannot err in her official teachings. So when you join the dots you find that the only logical solution is that this is not the “authority” it claims to be and he is not the Pope.
So the “suspect of heresy and apostasy thesis” is extremely convincing but technically if you are desperate and splitting hairs over the question of pertinacity there is an escape clause. HOWEVER, the Indefectibilty argument is absolutely foolproof. We can have moral certainty based on Indefectibilty that that man is not the Vicar of Christ on earth.
Mel Gibson, go on, come out of your forum-lurking and support us on this one here!..LOL
Did you all know that Mel Gibson is also a sedevacantist??? And that whilst making “The Passion of the Christ” he had a Traditional Catholic priest offering the Tridentine Mass (in Latin) daily on the set?
I noticed someone brought up the need for great care being used when addressing an issue of a pope suspect of heresy. The need for “pertinacity” was noted. This is very true. In the case of the Vicar of Christ on earth, is ignorance of what the Church teaches (and has always taught) possible? Given his religious education (read his history, see what teachers he had) how is it possible that he would not know that (false) “ecumenism” and “modernism” are contrary to the Faith? His repeated “modernist” acts and teachings over decades (and I am aware that numerous bishops, priests and laity have brought these to his personal attention) indicate that pertinacity is almost unavoidable. Yet, we have no authority to make any formal declaration, so we don’t.
What we do, is acknowledge that undoubtedly “heresy” is being promulgated officially by this “authority,” and that the dogma of “Indefectibilty” clearly teaches that it is not possible for the authority of Rome to promulgate heresy, as the Church cannot err in her official teachings. So when you join the dots you find that the only logical solution is that this is not the “authority” it claims to be and he is not the Pope.
So the “suspect of heresy and apostasy thesis” is extremely convincing but technically if you are desperate and splitting hairs over the question of pertinacity there is an escape clause. HOWEVER, the Indefectibilty argument is absolutely foolproof. We can have moral certainty based on Indefectibilty that that man is not the Vicar of Christ on earth.
Mel Gibson, go on, come out of your forum-lurking and support us on this one here!..LOL
T
theMutant
Guest
I cannot believe the amount of deflection and selective argument sedevacantists are using in your responses. They have asserted that we cannot challenge them or accuse them of being in schism because of their own interpretation of the papal documents they quote. But none of those papal documents truly support their position because they have yet to present any evidence that would support their claim that any heresy has been taught.
They say that they have quoted verbatim from Unitatis Redintegratio and then act as though we have not. Our, more complete, quotation from that document clearly showed that no heresy was taught. Yet they continue to proclaim (on their own authority) that it teaches heresy and cite Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio as if it is some sort of trump card in their favor. However their use of this latter document doesn’t work because they are using it in a way that excludes all other documents that go into greater detail on what kind of evidence is required to call a papal election into question; documents posted by them. Their interpretation of these documents makes the pope subject to us; it establishes each and every one of us as a judge over the pope. Since when do the sheep judge the shepherd? Not one shred of evidence has been presented that Vatican II or any of the popes after Pius XII has taught heresy. Every attempt has already been shown to be wrong.
They say that they are consistent for simply repeating the claims made by other sedevacantists. True, but that doesn’t help because we are just as consistent. They are consistently presenting claims that have already been refuted and we are consistently asking if you can produce any evidence that heresy has been taught.
What heresy was taught by Vatican II or John Paul II?
Sedevacantists have repeatedly asserted that Unitatis Redintegratio teaches heresy but we have already addressed their claim about this and proven that it is not the case.
Sedevacantists have repeatedly asserted that Ut Unum Sint teaches heresy but we have already addressed their claim about this and proven that it is not the case.
Sedevacantist have asserted that the Joint Declaration document between the Catholic Church and Lutherans is heretical but we have already addressed their claim about this and proven that it is not the case.
Sedevacantists have repeatedly asserted that the heresy they claim has been taught by Vatican II and the last popes justifies their assertion that the see of Peter is vacant and they quote pre-Vatican II documents in an attempt to prove that the Church herself has given them the right to make such a judgment. However, their interpretation of these documents is questionable at best because it contradicts the fact that Christ established the Church, headed by the pope, as the authority in such matters. “If he refuses to listed to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a Tax Collector.”
They claim that they can make such a judgment because we have no pope, but their only support for such a claim is if the pope has fallen into heresy. They have not been able to show that John Paul II is a heretic.
Yes, this is about authority. But it is not about the authority to determine who is pope, it is about who has the authority to authentically interpret Church teaching and who has the authority to declare what is and is not heresy. Christ says it is the Church headed by the pope. Christ gave us the papacy as a gift to avoid all occasion of schism but the sedevacantists claim that he has not given us a pope in this particular instance of schism (from their view we are the schismatics following false leaders). They say that this is a period when the overwhelming majority of the Church has fallen into heresy but that Christ has not provided us with that one supreme shepherd He established in Peter and his successors, to whom we are to turn to avoid falling into heresy ourselves.
Lastly, I find the fact that the sedevacantist movement has splintered in much the same way the Protestant movement did, the fact that some sedevacantists have elected their own popes that are not accepted by others, and the fact that they are very much their own independent Churches without any common unifying authority as enough evidence to show that they are wrong. I have very strong disagreements with other Catholics about the changes that have occurred in the Church but we all agree that Vatican II was valid and that John Paul II is the true successor to Peter.
Sedevacantists are fond of quoting, “they have the churches but we have the faith.” That quote rings hollow in light of their consistent failure to produce any charge of heresy that will actually withstand closer examination.
They say that they have quoted verbatim from Unitatis Redintegratio and then act as though we have not. Our, more complete, quotation from that document clearly showed that no heresy was taught. Yet they continue to proclaim (on their own authority) that it teaches heresy and cite Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio as if it is some sort of trump card in their favor. However their use of this latter document doesn’t work because they are using it in a way that excludes all other documents that go into greater detail on what kind of evidence is required to call a papal election into question; documents posted by them. Their interpretation of these documents makes the pope subject to us; it establishes each and every one of us as a judge over the pope. Since when do the sheep judge the shepherd? Not one shred of evidence has been presented that Vatican II or any of the popes after Pius XII has taught heresy. Every attempt has already been shown to be wrong.
They say that they are consistent for simply repeating the claims made by other sedevacantists. True, but that doesn’t help because we are just as consistent. They are consistently presenting claims that have already been refuted and we are consistently asking if you can produce any evidence that heresy has been taught.
What heresy was taught by Vatican II or John Paul II?
Sedevacantists have repeatedly asserted that Unitatis Redintegratio teaches heresy but we have already addressed their claim about this and proven that it is not the case.
Sedevacantists have repeatedly asserted that Ut Unum Sint teaches heresy but we have already addressed their claim about this and proven that it is not the case.
Sedevacantist have asserted that the Joint Declaration document between the Catholic Church and Lutherans is heretical but we have already addressed their claim about this and proven that it is not the case.
Sedevacantists have repeatedly asserted that the heresy they claim has been taught by Vatican II and the last popes justifies their assertion that the see of Peter is vacant and they quote pre-Vatican II documents in an attempt to prove that the Church herself has given them the right to make such a judgment. However, their interpretation of these documents is questionable at best because it contradicts the fact that Christ established the Church, headed by the pope, as the authority in such matters. “If he refuses to listed to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a Tax Collector.”
They claim that they can make such a judgment because we have no pope, but their only support for such a claim is if the pope has fallen into heresy. They have not been able to show that John Paul II is a heretic.
Yes, this is about authority. But it is not about the authority to determine who is pope, it is about who has the authority to authentically interpret Church teaching and who has the authority to declare what is and is not heresy. Christ says it is the Church headed by the pope. Christ gave us the papacy as a gift to avoid all occasion of schism but the sedevacantists claim that he has not given us a pope in this particular instance of schism (from their view we are the schismatics following false leaders). They say that this is a period when the overwhelming majority of the Church has fallen into heresy but that Christ has not provided us with that one supreme shepherd He established in Peter and his successors, to whom we are to turn to avoid falling into heresy ourselves.
Lastly, I find the fact that the sedevacantist movement has splintered in much the same way the Protestant movement did, the fact that some sedevacantists have elected their own popes that are not accepted by others, and the fact that they are very much their own independent Churches without any common unifying authority as enough evidence to show that they are wrong. I have very strong disagreements with other Catholics about the changes that have occurred in the Church but we all agree that Vatican II was valid and that John Paul II is the true successor to Peter.
Sedevacantists are fond of quoting, “they have the churches but we have the faith.” That quote rings hollow in light of their consistent failure to produce any charge of heresy that will actually withstand closer examination.
T
the_geezer
Guest
Not true. This charge was denied by Gibson himself. His father is a bit off the edge, but Gibson is not a sedevacantist.
I also Believe Jimmy Akin weighed in on Gibson’s Catholic authenticity on Catholic Answers. I need to verify that.
Regards.
P
Paul_Danon
Guest
This is about Mr Mel Gibson’s alleged sedevacantism.
the_geezer:
Mr Hutton Gibson has written a book which, as far as I can recall, puts the sedevacantist case.
F
ferdie
Guest
Amen to that! I think it’s sedevacatist pride and problem with autrhority that’s causing all this problems. It hurts me to read all the slanders that are attributed to our beloved JP2, who’s just fallowing our Lord Jesus Christ’s commandment to love not only our friends, but also our enmies. We cannot open the door to our brothers and sisters if we are not willing to make them feel welcome.
J
Joe_Omlor
Guest
True love would be shown by urging them at every opportunity to convert to the one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
Kissing the blasphemous Koran and telling Muslims a lie: that they worship the same God as Christians, is not charity, nor are they the actions of a true Catholic, let alone a true pontiff.
P
Paul_Danon
Guest
I don’t think you have. Have you? You’ve denied it but that’s not proof. Is there a numbered post you might kindly point me to? Thanks.
N
newcrusader92
Guest
However, I can share this with you about heresy and pertinacity, from a debate between Fr. Cekada and Fr. Harrison:
T
theMutant
Guest
Paul Danon:
Post 247 was a direct response to you but you never bothered to address it.
Posts 184, 232, 247 and 421.
Post 247 was a direct response to you but you never bothered to address it.
P
Paul_Danon
Guest
Does it help, I wonder to identify some possible positions?
- A pope cannot fall into heresy so we’re 100% safe with John Paul II on the throne.
- A pope can fall into heresy but, if he does, he cannot be judged to have done so because he’s the pope.
- If a pope falls into heresy, he cannot function as pope.
- Anyone in ecclesiastical office who has embraced heresy does not cease to perform his office until he is publicly judged to be so, when he falls from office.
- A person in ecclesiastical office who embraces heresy falls from that office as soon as he does so.
- If a pope falls into heresy, he can function as pope and, even though he’s a heretic, he won’t teach anything false because his office protects him from doing so.
- An heretical pope can function as pope and even believe heretical things, and he keeps his office unless he teaches heresy and binds the faithful to believe it.
- Cum ex apostolatus officio’s reference to the pope is un-necessary because the church guarantees that a heretic can’t be elected pope.
- The church’s teaching on her being the only way to salvation is harsh, in need of reform and has, indeed, been reformed in recent years.
P
Paul_Danon
Guest
Thank you very much. Please don’t be harsh with me. I am not harsh with you. One can fail to respond to something by mistake. It need not be that one can’t be bothered.
T
theMutant
Guest
Paul Danon:
You are quite right, please accept my apology for the accusation. Another post I missed in my previous message was 251.
T
theMutant
Guest
Paul Danon:
I cannot agree with this because Cum ex apostoaltus officio specifically does reference the pope in other sections; like section 6. Therefore, we don’t have a merely passive exclusion in section 3, but rather, a deliberate one.
J
jordan
Guest
Joe Omlor said:
Despite authoritative Church teachings which allow exceptions for “invincible ignorance” of the Faith, teachings which predate you and I by centuries, are you now going to judge just who fits into the exception category?
Do you think the Holy Father showing disrespect to Muslims will help the cause of Christians in Muslim countries? Do you think that perhaps cutting off dialogue with these countries will enhance efforts to promote religious freedoms and open the door for conversions?
M
Mandi
Guest
A Catholic (especially a Pope) should never be disrespectful. They should also not worship false gods!
- Status