Would I be welcome here.... IF?

[agname]

For those who seek the Truth…

**Syllabus of 60 “Traditionalist” Errors, Fallacies, and False Principles **
web.archive.org/web/20021201230257/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ408.HTM

Dialogue: The “Traditionalist” Disdain for the Second Vatican Council
Is it Consistent With Catholic Tradition? Is it Binding on All Catholics?
web.archive.org/web/20030604150816/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ382.HTM

Dialogue With a Schismatic, "Traditionalist Catholic"
web.archive.org/web/20011224044947/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ221.HTM

Dialogue on Vatican II, Conciliar Infallibility, and the SSPX
web.archive.org/web/20020208193224/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ304.HTM

**Dialogue on the Legitimacy of Catholic Development of Doctrine, With Reference to Vatican I, Vatican II, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church **
web.archive.org/web/20011006025825/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ372.HTM

 

[JLC]

agname:

For those who seek the Truth…

**Syllabus of 60 “Traditionalist” Errors, Fallacies, and False Principles **
web.archive.org…

Agname, it is apparent you want to take a side in this and that is why you are referring people to external links for the side you wish to be on. However, this is an apologetics forum. It really is not appropriate to only refer people to external links as though they were answers to specific points here. Do you really understand the material that you are referring people to? If you did, you should be able to use what you understand to participate in apologetics here and give specific reasons why a point is wrong, and refute it.

I am confident that the points I am raising cannot be refuted…because they are the truth.

People also must be careful not to call Catholics, who believe there is a vacant Roman See, “schismatics” or “heretics” or “Martin Luthers”. That is really libel, and very serious. Here are three quotes from approved Catholic books (pre-Vatican II) that show this error:

*“Finally they cannot be numbered among the 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 vii, n. 398

“Nor is there any schism if…one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or…” - Szal, Rev Ignatius: Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA, 1948, p.2

“Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded ‘probabiliter’] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refs to Sanchez and Palao].” - de Lugo: Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8*

To falsely call other groups of Catholics “schismatics” is to, ironically, be schismatic oneself as one would unjustly be causing separation…

JLC

 

[agname]

JLC:

Agname, it is apparent you want to take a side in this and that is why you are referring people to external links for the side you wish to be on. However, this is an apologetics forum. It really is not appropriate to only refer people to external links as though they were answers to specific points here. Do you really understand the material that you are referring people to? If you did, you should be able to use what you understand to participate in apologetics here and give specific reasons why a point is wrong, and refute it. JLC

Absolutely…that’s why I posted the links. Why would I want to retype what Dave has already organized very beautifully? There is no need for me to copy and paste large portions of text…like you are doing…into the thread. That would be hebetudinous and inefficient. I suppose I should have warned you…that you would feel the sting of Truth…after reading his articles.

To everyone else…feel free to delve into the reading.

 

[JLC]

agname:

Absolutely…that’s why I posted the links. Why would I want to retype what Dave has already organized very beautifully? There is no need for me to copy and paste large portions of text…like you are doing…into the thread. That would be hebetudinous and inefficient. I suppose I should have warned you…that you would feel the sting of Truth…after reading his articles.

To everyone else…feel free to delve into the reading.

I have seen that web site before. It doesn’t refute what I have posted here. And, I have obviously not pasted large portions of text. Most of it is my writing with a few base quotes. That is apologetics. You miss the point of apologetics. Yes, please, someone delve into the reading and SHOW where it refutes anything I have said so far.

JLC

 

[agname]

Karl makes a great point…

“You say you do not want to debate whether John Paul II is a legitimate pope. Fine. But I wonder why you even mentioned that you are a sedevacantist. It seems that you would want to keep that to yourself if you did not want to discuss sedevacantism.”

It’s quite obvious why they’re here…to “set us straight.”

But, the truth is in those links that I put up…so anyone who has questions…delve right into those links. Good day everyone! God Bless!

 

[agname]

JLC:

I have seen that web site before. It doesn’t refute what I have posted here. And, I have obviously not pasted large portions of text. Most of it is my writing with a few base quotes. That is apologetics. You miss the point of apologetics. Yes, please, someone delve into the reading and SHOW where it refutes anything I have said so far.

JLC

It’s all here:

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ389.HTM

And posting links to other articles…is apologetics too. Deals with as much as apologetics…as someone who’s pasting outside articles (portions or in full) in here…oh I mean pasting quotes.

 

[Gratias_Grace]

Of course it is interesteing to read the discussion between you, JCL, and agname, but I still miss answeres (form you JCL) to the simple questions of when JPII lost his keys and (as mentioned earlier) on wich protestant church the post Vatican II Church has copied?

And I want to add some extra: The Roman Catholic Church made ONE for years after years because the Church managed to keep the heretics out.

The Church tried to stay as one Church like Jesus recomanded: "20 And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me. 21 That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them: that, they may be one, as we also are one. 23 I in them, and thou in me: that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me. (John 17:20-23, Douay-Rheims Bible).

The Church is no longer one. The Eastern ortodox left. The protestants left …

The ecumenical movement (after Vatican II) are trying to gather together what sin has spread, the different parts of the once ONE CHURCH. Of course that is difficult to do after all those separatet years, and perhaps the UNITY can only come back to all of Gods children when Jesus returns to earth (the second coming). But it can’t be called heretical to TRY to put together what in arrogance and sin (think of Luthers anger) has been splitted apart.

John Paul II is the Pope wich remains in top of what is back of the Catholic Church after the heretics left Church. When the one in Peters chair is called heretic, someone must have broken their glasses or became deaf. Or what do you think, JCL?

Must God Bless all who want to be friends with Jesus!

G.G.

 

[choicenctr]

Welcome to the forum JLC. I have been following and responding to this discussion for a few days now. I definitely have been enlightened with the viewpoints of Myrna and you about the sedevacantist’s movement. It seems that both you and Mryna are very set in your beliefs and do not seem to want to hear any other side on this issue. I truly have tried to remain open in looking at your position. I just see too many holes in your stance. One thing I think we all agree upon is that there is only one Holy Spirit and that He espouses unity not division. Either you are inline with the Holy Spirit or we (the majority of members on this forum) are in line with the Holy Spirit. JLC, you say that you seek the truth. I believe by reading your comments that you have made your mind up and really do not wish to contemplate some of the questions or comments that have been made. I think that possibly, some other people on this forum may have done the same thing. This will probably be my last (name removed by moderator)ut into this because I see no reason to pursue this anymore. I believe, not necessarily by your intent but by your group’s intent, that you are causing confusion and division and that is not the work of the Holy Spirit. I agree with some of the others on here that the articles have been very enligtening and would just like to close with an exerpt from one of them:

1. That Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II, in their “astonishing novelty of teachings and practices,” are essentially distinguishable from all previous popes.

How is such a bleak (and false) view not defectibility? Three straight heretic popes?!! Why even have a pope at all if such a radical departure could occur? Why be a Catholic at all, if this is what one believes? What becomes of the faith in God’s guidance of His Church? If I thought like this, I would revert to Protestantism in a second, where at least I wouldn’t have to torture logic and the received understanding of the Catholic Faith, in order to maintain the pretense that I remain “obedient” in my own wanton disobedience. A high price to pay for one’s own prejudices, limited understandings, and private judgment . . . Rather than simply obey the pope and Council, and trust that God understands and controls things which may be beyond us, “traditionalists” would rather throw out the Council and disobey the pope, considering him a heretic. How is this at all distinguishable from Martin Luther’s stance at the Diet of Worms in 1521, as I have often argued? In fact, it is worse, as papal and conciliar infallibility are both far more defined now than in his day.

1. That if it weren’t for the noble “traditionalist” warriors, who act as “salt” and offset “reckless modernist innovations,” the Church would quickly succumb to the forces of modernism and heresy. Ah, but they neglect to see that it is not for them to determine orthodoxy. That is for the Magisterium, which includes Vatican II and the papacy. “Traditionalists” saw off the very limb they sit on - cutting off their noses to spite their faces! Why can’t they see the internal contradiction of all this? I find it truly astonishing. Maybe it takes a jolt such as this paper to cause an examination of very fallible and weak presuppositions, and the ever-expanding falsehoods which inexorably flow from them. I do sincerely feel for people who have put themselves in such a despairing, almost hopeless position, because it is so unnecessary. By all means, we should fight modernism and heresy (as I do, very vigorously and zealously), but we mustn’t ever despair of the very means which God has provided for us in that task.

I believe that your group is in error and in danger of itself being excomunicated just by your own development and practices. I believe that you will not come back into the Church with your current beliefs because VAT. II will not be revoked because, like it or not, its infallible. If you don’t believe that, why do you still say you are Catholic. I will pray for you and your group as I know, you will for me.

 

[JLC]

My mind is “made up”, yes…for what is reasonable and true as I see it currently. My mind is open to the truth. I welcome and invite anyone to look at what I have written so far, and show how it is unreasonable, and be specific. The conscience is based on reason. Please show the reasons. I say those links don’t cut it, but if I am mistaken, please use those links to show specifically how it refutes any of the quotes or arguments I have given so far here.

To those who are eager to get answers on how this applies to JP2, I am only delaying the answers in order to lay the groundwork of teaching and principles involved. You will have to be patient.

JLC

 

[Gratias_Grace]

Well than I was right in my suggesting that what you, JLC, want to do in this forum is NOT to respect our faith, but to educate us in your own belief that the pope is heretical:
Gratias Grace:

When I read your post, I feel like you want us to be your pupils. First we shall understand that a pope can loose his keys. Then you slowly are going to reviel to us why he lost his keys.

I saw some pictures of confirmed youth and children from a C.M.R.I. church:

cmri.org/wayne-photo3.html

My heart became full of sorrow: “These youth are educated to argue against the Roman Catholic Church.” I thougt. I also rememberd Jesu words: “But Jesus said to them: Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such.”(Mat.19:14 Douay-Rheims Bible).

These children/young ones don’t understand what it means to be confirmed against the pope. (It is to be confirmed in disobediance).

I agree with Choicenctr in that it would have been better for you to become protestants than to stay in Church and declare yourself catholic. To be a catholic IS to be inside Church, to become ONE BODY through Christ (The Holy Eucarist) and to remain obediant to the pope and the Magisterum.

Must God help us heal!

G.G.

 

[JLC]

Gratias Grace:

Well than I was right in my suggesting that what you, JLC, want to do in this forum is NOT to respect our faith, but to educate us in your own belief that the pope is heretical:

I saw some pictures of confirmed youth and children from a C.M.R.I. church:

cmri.org/wayne-photo3.html

My heart became full of sorrow:

That is not the point Gracias Grace. I say, show me by what I have written where and why I am mistaken. Until then, your opinions mean nothing in apologetics. I am waiting.

JLC

 

[jordan]

JLC:

I do not believe JP2 is a true pope because of his heresy.

St. Francis de Sales: “Now when [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.”

Catholic Encyclopedia: “a heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head.”

I love suspense. Now who, on the off chance the Pope were a heretic, would declare him deprived of his Apostolic See? Since the teaching authority of the church resides with the Pope and the Magisterium, do we now need to deprive the Pope ***and ***the Magisterium of their authority, since the Magisterium has not declared the Pope deprived of the Apostolic See for being a heretic?

“And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matt 16:18

" He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me." Lk 10:16

I’m not betting my everlasting soul that the rock and the Episcopal College has either vaporized into the ether, or been somehow misplaced for the last 40 years or so. Come on back. We love you guys!

 

[Gratias_Grace]

Well first of all you present yourself as one who is in forum because Myrna is going away for a while. It will then be OK to adress questions or thougts about the sedevanist, not oly as replies to your (name removed by moderator)ut, but also to Myrnas earlier (name removed by moderator)ut.

If I have misunderstood you, I am sorry for that.

JLC:

Hello! I was referred here by Myrna since she is going away for a while. I have looked over all of the messages and have decided what answer needs to be given first, to build upon.

But first, to start off, I do not believe JP2 is a true pope because of his heresy.

I have asked you more than one time about JP II’s heresy. The answere is still missing. I have suggested the following:“Well than I was right in my suggesting that what you, JLC, want to do in this forum is NOT to respect our faith, but to educate us in your own belief that the pope is heretical”

I have also pointed at some consequenses of the religious plattform you stand on , namely that the youth educated in your churches will think that ordinary catholics do not belong to Church, while these youngsters believe that they are among the few with the right faith! You can’t split faith and Church!

Your answere was:

JLC:

That is not the point Gracias Grace. I say, show me by what I have written where and why I am mistaken. Until then, your opinions mean nothing in apologetics. I am waiting.

JLC

Why shouldn’t my opinion count as much as yours? Because that is what your missing pope in Peters chair IS, your oppinion, nothing more.

You have to prove when JPII started to be a heretic if you want to be taken seriously!

God bless you!

G.G.

 

[Nana_Rose]

Welcome Myrna! I for one am glad to have your participation. I had never heard of Sedevacantists. I will check the link to learn more. In the meantime, I think some of the posts are almost cruel, like smack daddy. To say you have ‘lost your faith’ is a judgement call, and we are not called to judge. I have many friends who are Protestant, and while I would love to see them ‘Come Home’ to the Catholic Church, I see by the lives they lead they love our Lord deeply and serve Him daily. Have they lost the faith? I don’t think so. I love the Holy Father, but can agree to disagree with you. Why don’t we start with things we share in common?! Like a love for Our Lady or how God is working in our lives? Good place to start, welcome

 

[Smack_Daddy]

Nana Rose:

I think some of the posts are almost cruel, like smack daddy. To say you have ‘lost your faith’ is a judgement call, and we are not called to judge.

I’ve been cruel? myrna says she loves the faith, the Church. But the Church she loves is not the one we go to. She (Sedevacantist)believes our pope is a heretic, that the novus ordo mass is an invalid mass with invalid sacraments. And on and on it goes. So objectively speaking, (I know not what’s in her heart nor have I claimed to) she has lost the faith. Jesus did say that he would protect the Church from the gates of hell, but if what she says is true, then the words of Jesus have been proven false.

 

[Nana_Rose]

Just another quick post…I didn’t read all three pages before posting to Myrna. I do have a question for JLC though, with all due respect why don’t you answer the question regarding why you don’t feel JPII is a valid Pope? Between you and Myrna it does sound as though you came here to educate, not mingle. It seems people have asked a pretty straight question, why not give a simple answer. I don’t know about anyone else…but I don’t understand some complicated apologetics…give me the kindergarten version please!

You’re still welcome though, God Bless.

 

[choicenctr]

I agree with Gratias Grace that JLC should respond to her question. Another question that has been avoided by JLC and Myrna is the question about what their church service is like. They both stated that their service is more like a protestant service. Could you please respond to that JLC?

P.S. Smack Daddy, I don’t think that you were being too cruel, I think you are just trying to get answers.

 

[MIDGIE]

choicenctr:

Another question that has been avoided by JLC and Myrna is the question about what their church service is like. They both stated that their service is more like a protestant service.

I’ve been involved in debates with Myrna for many years and you are very mistaken that she thinks their service is Protestant. It’s the other way around. She thinks the Mass of Paul VI is Protestant.

God bless you

 

[Nana_Rose]

Ok, I did go on some of the sites, thank you to those who provided them, some were very difficult to understand , but Karl Keatings letter was good, as well as the one article on Catholic Answers. I went to Myrna’s Church web site and under one of the headings, I found this statement on Pope John Paul II. I read several of the sections, and I am pretty surprised by some of the writing. Maybe Karl would care to write more on this topic. But maybe this quote will help answer what we’ve all been hoping JLC and Myrna would explain. Why they reject the Pope. I for one am glad I read through all this, I am more confident now that we are in the One, Holy and Apostolic Church. I’m glad they came on, it made me learn something, and I will be more informed should anyone broach the subject with me. Here’s the quote…"John Paul II completely adheres to the Conciliar Church. He enforces the Novus Ordo Mass and false teachings of Vatican II. He promulgated the New Code of Canon Law (1983). He has boldly practiced false ecumenism and heretical religious indifferentism in Assisi, Italy, on October 27, 1986, by the atrocious convocation of all the false religions of the world to pray to their false gods for world peace! "

I am going to move off this thread, but it was interesting… I will be praying for Myrna and JLC. May the Holy Spirit truly guide you.

 

[JLC]

Smack Daddy:

Jesus did say that he would protect the Church from the gates of hell, but if what she says is true, then the words of Jesus have been proven false.

Notice here that Smack Daddy continues to claim that a pope falling into heresy and out of the Church is against what Our Lord promised? Why say this when the Saints and Doctors of the Church explicitly say that a pope CAN do so? Smack Daddy is obviously wrong because he will have to say that the Saints and Doctors were going against what Our Lord said. It is not, and I explained previously why. Please read things more carefully.

Some people say that I am avoiding answering a question. I have explained from the start that first things come first. You see, I have experienced it before, if I start right in on how things apply to JP2 I will inevitably hear from people that it CAN’T be, and then I wind up right back where I started showing how it CAN be. You just don’t start teaching a child to run when he can’t stand on his own two feet yet.

But I have already well proven that a pope CAN fall into heresy and cease to be Catholic. If you didn’t see that, then do a search for my messages. I wanted to proceed to #2 and show how we can judge such a thing to occur, but I guess I will just have to leave that for later since some people are itching to hear what the heresies are.

Firstly, take note of a statement made by Gratias Grace recently:

“The Church is no longer one. The Eastern ortodox left. The protestants left …”

This is just one of the major heresies of the ecumenical movement. Nobody here even recognizes the heresy! The statement is a blatant heresy against the Four Marks of the Church. It is a denial of one of the four marks. If you go to www.papalencyclicals.net you can read Mortalium Animos of 1928. In that encyclical are the condemnation of all the errors that become “ecumenism” in the 1960’s. Notice particularly that this encyclical mentions an error:

"here it will be opportune to expound and to reject a certain false opinion which lies at the root of this question and of that complex movement by which non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of Christian Churches. Those who favor this view constantly quote the words of Christ, “That they may be one (Ut unum sint)… And there shall be one fold and one shepherd” (John xvii. 21, x. 16), in the sense that Christ thereby merely expressed a desire or a prayer which as yet has not been granted.

Take note of “ut unum sint”. This is the very title of an encyclical by John Paul II and he directly promotes this previously condemned error.

This is just for starters.

JLC