Would I be welcome here.... IF?

[mjdonnelly]

First off, let me apologize for any spelling errors I commit.

I read Mortalium Animos of 1928 and I also read parts of Ut Unum Sint.

The Church has always made modifications to the way it does things. Establishing of holidays, hanging of urns filled with the ashes of priests and bishops from the ceiling are just 2 items. These were done to help make the conversion from a different religion easier and more familiar. We are not talking about changes to core beliefs and ideas here.

From what I understand JP2 want to bring those of other faiths into communion with the Church, not into communion in a new faith. It would be great if all of those under Lutheranism faith converted to Catholicism. It is our duty to help bring people back to the Catholic church.

 

[JLC]

Mjdonnelly, the point I made is the particular error of considering “ut unum sint” as a desire that is yet to be fulfilled. JP2 has fallen directly into this error. Ecumenism is based on it. The concept of “partial communion” for heretics and schismatics is part of this heresy. It didn’t exist before Vatican II. Gracias Grace naturally learned the error and stated the plain heresy that the Church is not one. Nobody sees the heresy, because Catholics have been inundated with it for a generation with a fixation. It is high time to recognize it and get out of it.

JLC

 

[MIDGIE]

JLC, you are obviously here to dialogue with us, not condemn us, because you “think” you are going to teach us the Truth. The Pope is also carrying on dialogue with those of others faiths to share the Truth of the Christian faith with them, not to condemn them.

Below is an example of the Holy Father speaking with the Muslim youth of Kazakhstan. Notice, as yourself, he is not condemning them or threatening them with hell if they don’t join the Catholic Church, but he is “gently” leading them to the Truth of Who Jesus Christ IS. Where is the heresy or indifferentism in what he is teaching them?

***"The Pope of Rome has come to say this to you: There is a God who has thought of you and given you life. He loves you, personally, and he entrusts the world to you. It is he who stirs in you the thirst for freedom and the desire for knowledge… ***

***Allow me to profess before you, with humility and pride, the faith of Christians: Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God made man 2,000 years ago, came to reveal this truth to us, through his person and his teaching," the Pope said… ***

***Only in the encounter with him, the Word made flesh, do we find the fullness of self and happiness," the Holy Father added. “Religion itself, without the experience of wondrous discovery of the Son of God and communion with him, who became our brother, becomes a mere set of principles that are increasingly difficult to understand, and rules that are increasingly hard to accept.” ***

If you came to this board telling us we’d better get out of the Church that submits to Pope John Paul II or we’ll burn in hell for eternity, you KNOW not one here would have listened to you and you probably would have been banned from this board, right??? Now why do you expect the Holy Father should dialogue any differently with those of other faiths than how you have come here to dialogue with us? Are you using one standard for yourself and one for the Holy Father. Why do you expect him to treat others differently than the way you are treating us here who don’t see as you do?

You are obviously well aware that you have to lay some ground work FIRST before you get into the meat of what you want to say to us. Do you not think the Holy Father is smarter than you and that he is more aware of this Truth than you are when he is dealing with non-Catholics?

I’ve been reading the Holy Father’s writings for years now and he does not teach indifferentism. He teaches the Gospel Truth of Jesus Christ…he’s obviously just not doing it to your liking. You obviously believe it’s OK for you to teach one way, but it’s not OK when the Holy Father is teaching no differently than you’re “trying” to do.

Be careful, JLC, because you are just as wrong about the Holy Father as the Jews who were well-versed in the teachings of Judaism were wrong about Jesus Christ.

God bless you

 

[Peggysue]

I’ve been reading the post here for several days and have viewed several of the sites linked by other posters. All very interesting, but I don’t see how Mryna and JLC’s religon is any different than other protestent teachings. It is apparent that the Holy Father is The true pope and I must follow his teachings. When I got to daily Mass today I too will pray for Myrna and JLC.

 

[Mandi]

Hi everyone, I have just found this web site and I must say I am finding it very interesting. This is not the only thread that talks about this “sede vacante” stuff here. I have never heard of it before - There is stuff in here about Mel Gibson - does he belong with these guys? I was just wondering where this all started it, seems to be something big. What am I missing?

 

[JLC]

Peggysue:

I’ve been reading the post here for several days and have viewed several of the sites linked by other posters. All very interesting, but I don’t see how Mryna and JLC’s religon is any different than other protestent teachings. It is apparent that the Holy Father is The true pope and I must follow his teachings. When I got to daily Mass today I too will pray for Myrna and JLC.

So, what you are saying is that it is impossible for a pope to become a heretic and automatically cease being a pope and Catholic? And, that it is Protestant to say so? Please make a statement.

 

[theMutant]

Peggysue:

I’ve been reading the post here for several days and have viewed several of the sites linked by other posters. All very interesting, but I don’t see how Mryna and JLC’s religon is any different than other protestent teachings.

Peggysue,

The reason that their views are not equivalent to protestant teachings is that they DO believe in the authority of the Church and of the pope in the truly Catholic sense. The problem that they tend to encounter (and I am not saying that this is universal among them or even particularly to Myrna) are the issues that have arisen in the Church since Vatican II. These issues have led them to come to the conclusion that the see of Peter is vacant and they wait in joyful hope for a successor. Protestants completely reject this view.

Their views are more akin to the Orthodox than to Protestantism; however, they are even closer to us than the Orthodox because they do accept the supremacy of the Pope over the entire Church. This is a VERY important point for anyone who wishes to have a discussion with them. Citing verses and early Church documents that demonstrate the authority of the Pope will not sway them because they already accept these views. I have not seen any posts from Myrna in this thread for a while so I hope that she has not abandoned it.

 

[theMutant]

jordan:

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?

While there may be actual teaching on this matter, I am not aware of it. However, the authoritative magisterium of the Church rests with the entire body of bishops. If I had to make an assumption on this, it would take the entire body of Catholic bishops (naturally, excluding the pope himself) to declare the pope a heretic and to thus deprive him of the papacy. Also remember, that this would only apply if the pope tried to declare a doctrine (or dogma) that contradicted existing teaching in an “infallible” manner. We can be thankful that this has never happened and we should pray for the pope so that it never does.

 

[theMutant]

JLC:

So, what you are saying is that it is impossible for a pope to become a heretic and automatically cease being a pope and Catholic? And, that it is Protestant to say so? Please make a statement.

It is not impossible for a pope to become a heretic; although I believe that it is impossible for a pope to declare a heretical teaching in an infallible matter. I realize that this contradicts my previous post; but this reflects my further thought on the matter. Infallible declarations are protected from error by the Holy Spirit. This infallibility of the Pope only applies when he is declaring a teaching on an issue of faith or morals to the entire Church invoking his authority as the successor of Peter to bind everyone to that teaching.

This means that the pope could simply teach as a bishop, or even as the bishop of Rome something which is heretical. As I said previously, the judgement in this matter would reside with the body of bishops and, I believe, would require unanimous agreement.

 

[Carrie_Andrews]

I’m glad to see and would like to join in the warm welcome you have received. I have one question, if JP2 isn’t the man God has in mind for the pope, who in the world could come even close to being the perfect leader of our Church in our times? I can’t imagine a more learned, more compassionate, more aggressive, more contemporary, more humble,more prayerful, more peaceful, more any of that which is good and helpful in a human being than John Paul 2! God Bless you!

 

[SocaliCatholic]

Hi JLC!

You made some really good points about novus ordo or modernist mass …!!!

** Im thinking about joining your church**, but before I do, can you help me

1.a. **What person has the authority ** to tell us that the pope has become invalid?

(If Scripture, Cannon Law, Saints or Church Fathers tell us, proceed to 1.b.)

1.b. **What person has the authority ** to interpret Scripture, Cannon Law, Saints or Church Fathers while we have an invalid pope?

1. **What person has the authority ** over the church while the pope is invalid?
2. **What person has the authority ** to tell us when the pope has become valid again?

Thank you JLC for helping me out with these questions!

 

[choicenctr]

To the Mutant, it was good the way that you reasoned out what everyone is talking about the Sedevacantist being more protestant than Catholic. The problem is that they are deciding that the Pope is herectical not the College of Bishops. JLC, I am sorry but your paradigm is not allowing you to look at this from reason. You are just defending a stance that you and other have made and are not really participating in apologetics. I also would like to hear your responses to “SocialCatholic’s” questions.

 

[jordan]

1.a. **What person has the authority **to tell us that the pope has become invalid?

(If Scripture, Cannon Law, Saints or Church Fathers tell us, proceed to 1.b.)

1.b. **What person has the authority **to interpret Scripture, Cannon Law, Saints or Church Fathers while we have an invalid pope?

1. **What person has the authority **over the church while the pope is invalid?
2. **What person has the authority **to tell us when the pope has become valid again?

It is, after all, a question of authority. My post at the top of this page (pg 3) got somehow buried in all the rhetoric. What I was trying to get at was that we do have the Episcopal College, the successors of the apostles. If the Pope was heretical in any way, we should expect his brother bishops to do something about it.

I guess the bottom line is: NO person has the authority. And since the whole proposition requires that somehow the Episcopal College has also gone off the deep end, I’m afraid the argument boils down to whether you can accept that the “gates of hell” have prevailed.

 

[theMutant]

choicenctr:

To the Mutant, it was good the way that you reasoned out what everyone is talking about the Sedevacantist being more protestant than Catholic. The problem is that they are deciding that the Pope is herectical not the College of Bishops. JLC, I am sorry but your paradigm is not allowing you to look at this from reason. You are just defending a stance that you and other have made and are not really participating in apologetics. I also would like to hear your responses to “SocialCatholic’s” questions.

I am sorry if my last post was not apologetic enough for you. My point was not to present my entire opinion on the matter but to address what I viewed as a trend being followed by many of the posts I had read; that of equating the Sedevacantist with Protestantism. Such comparrisons are inaccurate and will in no way sway them.

I completely agree that it is wrong for them to seek to declare the pope as heretical rather than the college of bishops. I have made this very argument in another thread on the subect of whether the pope can even be a heretic. I simply have not had the time today to address all of the questions and other issues posted on this thread. I will endeavor to do so in the near future.

 

[JohnDeP]

Regarding the removal of a sitting Pope:

We ask: by whose authority?

Sedevacantists answer: by my (own) authority. (See JLC’s post of June 5 at 4:47pm):
“2. People must realize that we can make that moral judgment that it has occurred.”

The WE is personal interpretation, just like Luther. The (personal) judgement is the supposed heresy of the Pope. As I said in a very early post - they can’t show that an infallible authority has declared what they are saying. Thus, it is entirely appropriate to compare them with Protestantism. They are declaring that they can make moral judgements, yet at the same time try to claim they are being “true” to the Magesterium - which, guess what, is the only authority on faith and morals!

The only thing that can preserve their argument would be a “surprise”, authentic document showing that the Bishops, in a Magisterial role, had secretly (because it sure isn’t public now) removed the sitting Pope because of heresy. I challenge them to produce that document.

-JohnDeP.

 

[JLC]

I can only efficiently handle one thing at a time. Some people want me to answer questions, some want me to talk about having the authority to judge, and others want me to list some heresies that JP2 is involved with. Which is it? I will have to choose as best I can, and I ask people not to complain that I have done such-and-such yet. Please be patient. I recommend clicking on JLC and choosing to view all my posts to see where I have intended to go.

So far, nobody has actually taken something I have written, quoted it, and shown just why it is wrong. The only thing I see are statements that say I am wrong, but nothing to show for it.

I have clearly shown that the Catholic Church believes that a pope can fall into heresy and immediately cease being pope and Catholic. The bishops cannot make it happen, it happens automatically. Anyone who says this is Protestant and wrong is saying that St. Francis de Sales, St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus Ligouri, etc, are wrong and Protestant! These are Saints and Doctors of the Church whose writings have been long ago scrutinized and approved by the Church.

Since I have dabbled slightly in showing a hersy of JP2, I will get into the fact that such an occurrence can be judged by clergy and laity. Anyone who has thus far denied it, has shown nothing to prove their contention.

Note well that St. Athanasius is historically accepted as saying that, ‘if Catholics are reduced to a handful, they are the true Church of Christ’. In fact, this corresponds to Scripture where Our Lord prophesied that when He comes in the end, he will hardly find anyone with the true Faith. So, my point is, that arguments based on majority are useless arguments. There is supposed to be a great apostasy, and it was alluded to by Our Lady of the Rosary at Fatima. This means that the majority of bishops and priests can also lose the Faith.

Speaking of St. Athanasius, he watched as it seemed the whole Eastern Church were turning into Arian heretics. Before even Rome could speak on such, he judged and condemned them as heretics. The judgment was in lieu of higher judgment, it didn’t replace higher judgment, yet it has always been acceptable in Catholic history for everyone to judge that which is a fact that is dangerous to their Faith before higher judgments are made. It has always been done. It is Catholic. It is part of the ‘immune system’, so to speak, of the Mystical Body of Christ. The Holy Ghost works through all the faithful in protecting the Church from disease.

Has anyone read the excellent book “Liberalism is a Sin”. In fact, it is rather a booklet, and easy reading packed with valuable principles and teaching. It was writtin in 1887, but the text of it can be found around the Internet. One such place it in the EWTN library at ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/LIBSIN.HTM. (It fits all on one HTML page).This booklet was scrutinized by the Holy Office and highly praised. Read the very short chapter 32, *Liberalism and Authority in Particular Cases. *You will see that this claim that ‘we cannot judge’ is actually a bit of Liberalism that has seeped into Catholic minds today. Shake it off!

[continued in next message]

 

[JLC]

[continued from previous message]

Lastly, after you read the above, I want to call your attention to legislation by Pope Julius II at the 5th Lateran Council. It involved the crime of “simony”. Simony is the sin named after the early Church heretic “Simon Magus” (Acts 8:18). It is defined in A Catholic Dictionary (TAN) as “the deliberate intention of buying and selling or otherwise trafficking in sacred things”. To prevent corruption involving a man trying to become a pope by gaining votes through simony, Pope Julius II ruled on it by saying that such an act invalidates the election, and that such a person is to be regarded as a heretic. Simony is an act much more difficult to discern than manifest heresy, yet Pope Julius ruled that lesser clergy and laity can judge such a man not to be a true pope even if he is unanimously elected by the cardinals! The judgment is in lieu of higher judgment but nevertheless a real and necessary judgment that can FULLY be acted upon. Here are portions of that legislation:

*"…even if the election resulted in a majority of two-thirds or in the unanimous choice of all the cardinals, or even in a spontaneous agreement on the part of all, without a scrutiny being made, then not only is this election or choice itself null, and does not bestow on the person elected or chosen in this fashion any right of either spiritual or temporal administration, but also there can be alleged and presented, against the person elected or chosen in this manner, by any one of the cardinals who has taken part in the election, the charge of simony, as a true and unquestionable heresy, so that the one elected is not regarded by anyone as the Roman pontiff."

“A further consequence is that the person elected in this manner is automatically deprived, without the need of any other declaration, of his cardinal’s rank and of all other honors whatsoever…”

“…the elected person is to be regarded as, and is in fact, not a follower of the apostles but an apostate and,…and a heresiarch…”

“It shall be lawful for… all the clergy and the Roman people, …to withdraw without penalty and at any time from obedience and loyalty to the person so elected even if he has been enthroned (while they themselves, notwithstanding this, remain fully committed to the faith of the Roman church and to obedience towards a future Roman pontiff entering office in accordance with the canons) and to avoid him as…a heresiarch.”

“Those who break off obedience to him are not to be subject to any penalties and censures for the said separation…”*

JLC

 

[SocaliCatholic]

JLC:

So far, nobody has actually taken something I have written, quoted it, and shown just why it is wrong. The only thing I see are statements that say I am wrong, but nothing to show for it.

You are obviously very well educated and there is nothing that you said that I need to quote to “prove” you are wrong becuase your history is not where I have a problem…There is a **logical ** issue I need you to explain to me before I can join your church!

Lets say I want to join your church…

WHAT PERSON in your church has the **AUTHORITY ** from God to tell its memebers

**PAST **
That the pope has gone bad or the seat of Peter has become vacant

**PRESENT **
Who runs the show while the pope is bad

**FUTURE **
Who lets us know that a legit pope has been chosen

***If not one person, but by by multiple people…who is in charge if they are in disagreement?

Do you have a straightforward answer for these legitimate questions just in case you are right and I am in the wrong church? (post VaticanII)

 

[soldonsacramnts]

like the sacraments and all the other blessed gifts we enjoy as catholics, if some one rejects the holy father they are missing out on a great blessing. The eastern orthodox have 7 valid sacrements, but mis out on the on the active dynamic leadership offered by the seat of peter. the baptist have one valid sacrament even if they dont know it. But they mis out on the freedom from sin and the empowerment of virture that is offered by the sacraments. myrna and her friends are similiar to the orthodox. They miss out on the blessed leadership of the holy father. The only difference between myrna and the orthodox is she knows its missing. Thats gotta be hard for her and her group. I read about how difficult it is for her she expressed herself. Her focus is on what isnot insead of what is. She has missed out on the holy fathers teaching dynamic teaching on the thelogy of the body as protestants and orthodox have.

 

[choicenctr]

theMutant:

I am sorry if my last post was not apologetic enough for you. My point was not to present my entire opinion on the matter but to address what I viewed as a trend being followed by many of the posts I had read; that of equating the Sedevacantist with Protestantism. Such comparrisons are inaccurate and will in no way sway them.

I completely agree that it is wrong for them to seek to declare the pope as heretical rather than the college of bishops. I have made this very argument in another thread on the subect of whether the pope can even be a heretic. I simply have not had the time today to address all of the questions and other issues posted on this thread. I will endeavor to do so in the near future.

The Mutant, I was not criticizing you, I was complementing you. I think you hit the nail on the head.