Would I be welcome here.... IF?

[choicenctr]

JLC, here is the problem. You came on this forum not to openly discuss this issue but to teach. Therefore, you do not respond to people’s questions but you just chastize them for not going with you in your line of thinking. If we do go with your line of thinking, which basically says that anyone or group can declare the Pope to be a heretic, then can you not see what chaos can arise from that. Do you realize that every Pope and Bishop has had people disagree with some of their actions. The major problem that people are having with your logic is that it smacks of fundalmentalism. You say you are loyal to the Church but you are not respecting the college of Cardinals or Bishops. They also must be corrupt according to your logic.

 

[JLC]

SocaliCatholic:

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)

There is nothing wrong with my logic. There have been over 200 popes in history. Each time they die (or resign, as one did) there becomes a “vacant see” (sede vacante) until the next is elected. The Church doesn’t go away, and no new church is formed by recognizing there is no pope. Someone administers things in the meantime. The ordinary prelates of the Church remain authorities in their positions, including parish priests. Listen to the ones who have kept the Faith intact. The answer to your PAST question has already been answered in my previous twin messages. Priests and laity can judge this based on their Faith and the facts. Pope Julius shows this by his legislation. You PRESENT question was answered in this message, above. Your FUTURE question needs an answer…whoever is the pope not only MUST be the “Bishop of Rome” but he must also have the true Faith. That can be discerned as in the answer to your PAST question.

There is no new Church created by those who recognize a man is not pope because of heresy. That is simply being Catholic to do that. What is effectively a “new Church” is the corporation of men who are pretending to be Catholic at the Vatican but are merely heretics to be ignored until their hijacking of the structure can be remedied. As St. Athanasius said about the Arian heretics of his day, ‘they have the churches, but we have the Faith’.

JLC

 

[JLC]

choicenctr:

JLC, here is the problem. You came on this forum not to openly discuss this issue but to teach. Therefore, you do not respond to people’s questions but you just chastize them for not going with you in your line of thinking. If we do go with your line of thinking, which basically says that anyone or group can declare the Pope to be a heretic, then can you not see what chaos can arise from that. Do you realize that every Pope and Bishop has had people disagree with some of their actions. The major problem that people are having with your logic is that it smacks of fundalmentalism. You say you are loyal to the Church but you are not respecting the college of Cardinals or Bishops. They also must be corrupt according to your logic.

I come here for BOTH reasons, to openly discuss and to teach people things. I have been doing both. I have answered all questions. I don’t really chastize them, the truth itself chastizes those who are in error. Yes, the majority of Cardinals and Bishops have, for the past generation, been corrupted. There are, however, a remnant of laity with priests and Bishops who recognize and say the same things as I do around the globe. The Mass Media doesn’t want to focus on them because they don’t want the issues to come to people’s minds. Everything I have said has been logically and reasonable. We must follow logic and reason in conscience.

Just think about it, there are some extreme, mistake and fearful Catholics who have gone overboard and actually elected their own Popes. Yes, several claim to be around the world. It is sad, but is the result of the even sadder situation at the Vatican. Now think of this, the Mass Media loves sensation, and to make fun of Catholics. But notice that they VERY carefully avoid the quite newsworthy items of these traditional popes? Yes, they love JP2 and they don’t want the conspiracy at the Vatican to be exposed. It is serving their purposes quite well.

It is not merely a matter of disagreement of actions of bishops. It is positively manifesting heresy, teaching against the Faith. St. Thomas Aquinas says that heresy is actually worse than physical murder. Souls are being slaughtered by the corruption of the Faith. I will give more details later on the heresies. There are SO many of them. You can compare them directly to past teachings and SEE that they contradict.

JLC

 

[Mandi]

Carrie Andrews:

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!

You’re right I definately see all those qualities in JP2 - But I’m beginning to think the Catholic Church is going to pot. What good is a leader if nobody listens to him? From what I see alot of Catholics don’t give a fig about what he says and I’m talking about the ones that recognize him as Pope. They’ll agree with this or that but on certain issuue they just say “no” I don’t agree. When I listen to Catholics talk about the Catholic Church sometimes I start wondering exactly what religion they’re talking about because Catholic does not come to mind. It’s like everyone is making up their own religion to suit themselves. Something is just not right!

 

[CD4]

Of course you are welcome! I will be interested in hearing your views.

 

[Gratias_Grace]

JLC:

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.
…
This is just for starters.

JLC

Hi JLC!

Thank you for at last have tried to say something adressed to me!

The meaning of the term “Church” = gr. ecclesia = a gathering of people. The meaning of the term “catholic” = gr. katholon = for everybody.

The Catholic Church is still for every christian person. The problem, however, is that every christian person don’t want to be catholic.

We believe that Jesus Christ instituted ONE Church, not many. We also believe that the ONE Church Jesus instituted is the catholic Church (Mark 3:14-15, Mat 10:40, Mat 16:18-19, Mat 16-19, Acts 1:26, Luk 10:16, Mat 18:17).

Catholics also believe that John Paul II is sitting in Peters Chair!

It is not John Paul II’s fault that the ortodox and the protestant left the ONE Church Jesus Christ instituted and it obvisiously don’t make him a heretic.

As I have pointed out before I don’t understand why you and your friend Myrna have chosen to debate in this forum. It seems to mee that you think we are not well educated in our catholic faith since we don’t understand that the pope, the way you see it, is a heretic.

It seems I am right. Your last sentense in the message I have quotet from was: “This is just for starters”.

I am curious about how you are going to be our teacher in your selfchosen topic “Pope John Paul II is heretic”!

(If there are spellinmistakes in my posts, I excuse. English is not my first language).

G.G.

 

[theMutant]

JLC:

Finally, what I really think people need to focus on first is the following related quotes, and build up from there:

St. James (2:10): “whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all.”

St. Thomas Aquinas: “To reject but one article of faith taught by the Church is enough to destroy faith as one mortal sin is enough to destroy charity…”

Baltimore Catechism: “A person who denies even one article of our faith could not be a Catholic; for truth is one and we must accept it whole and entire or not at all.”

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.”

JLC,

I am still trying to catch up on all of these posts so that I try to find some coherent thread to focus on. I have reached this point and would like to ask a question regarding what you have quoted above. What articles of faith has John Paul II has denied?

 

[MIDGIE]

JLC, let me cut right to the chase. Do you believe, as do some sedevacantists, that Pope John Paul II is antichrist?

Just a yes or no will suffice.

God bless you

 

[shannin]

I’m confused as to (1.) How you can profess to be a Catholic when you do not accept the Holy Father and (2) Why you are even here in the first place.

Shannon from PA

 

[tcaseyrochester]

shannin:

I’m confused as to (1.) How you can profess to be a Catholic when you do not accept the Holy Father and (2) Why you are even here in the first place.

Shannon from PA

They are trying to spread their heresy, 'nuff said. Notice they still, after three pages of posts, made any attempt to discuss why JPII is heretical. They are just using this board as a place to recruit.

 

[choicenctr]

Yes, the majority of Cardinals and Bishops have, for the past generation, been corrupted. There are, however, a remnant of laity with priests and Bishops who recognize and say the same things as I do around the globe.

Just think about it, there are some extreme, mistake and fearful Catholics who have gone overboard and actually elected their own Popes. Yes, several claim to be around the world.

…But notice that they VERY carefully avoid the quite newsworthy items of these traditional popes? Yes, they love JP2 and they don’t want the conspiracy at the Vatican to be exposed. It is serving their purposes quite well.

I have extracted some of your comments to reply. The first extraction, again who decides that the Cardinals and Bishops are corrupt? you? or the remnant of laity, Priests, or Bishops?

The second extraction, “…some extreme mistaken, fearful Catholics who have gone overboard and actually elected their own Popes.” Question: how is this different from the path that you and your group is headed?

Third extraction, I do not know what mass media that you are looking at but most that I have seen do not “love” John Paul II. Do you not see that he espouses counter-cultural ideas. I think you would agree that the mass media generally leans towards the liberal ideaology. He espouses what the Church teaches on moral issues such as Homosexuality, abortion, marriage, etc.

As I have said before, I respect you guys for your determination but I think that your paradigm will not let you see your own error. Most people on this forum has stated that the Pope is not perfect and has possibly made some mistakes but not from the Chair of Peter. You on the other hand will not even acknowledge some possible errors in your logic. This tells me you do not want to debate this, you just want to teach us the error of our ways and your truths!

 

[theMutant]

JLC:

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.

To begin with, I too think that the “ecuminical effort” presently underway in the Church is misguided and that the methods need serious reconsideration. However, I feel that your position regarding the heresy of JPII in relation to the declarations of Mortalium Animos is in error. To begin with, you only quote a small section of the document and seem to focus on the phrase “Ut Unum Sint” as if this is some kind of PROOF of your position.

Mortalium Animos
5.Admonished, therefore, by the consciousness of Our Apostolic office that We should not permit the flock of the Lord to be cheated by dangerous fallacies, We invoke, Venerable Brethren, your zeal in avoiding this evil; for We are confident that by the writings and words of each one of you the people will more easily get to know and understand those principles and arguments which We are about to set forth, and from which Catholics will learn how they are to think and act when there is question of those undertakings which have for their end the union in one body, whatsoever be the manner, of all who call themselves Christians.

7.And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false opinion, on which this whole question, as well as that complex movement by which non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of the Christian churches depends. For authors who favor this view are accustomed, times almost without number, to bring forward these words of Christ: “That they all may be one… And there shall be one fold and one shepherd,”[14] with this signification however: that Christ Jesus merely expressed a desire and prayer, which still lacks its fulfillment. For they are of the opinion that the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ, has hardly up to the present time existed, and does not to-day exist. They consider that this unity may indeed be desired and that it may even be one day attained through the instrumentality of wills directed to a common end, but that meanwhile it can only be regarded as mere ideal. They add that the Church in itself, or of its nature, is divided into sections; that is to say, that it is made up of several churches or distinct communities, which still remain separate, and although having certain articles of doctrine in common, nevertheless disagree concerning the remainder; that these all enjoy the same rights; and that the Church was one and unique from, at the most, the apostolic age until the first Ecumenical Councils. Controversies therefore, they say, and longstanding differences of opinion which keep asunder till the present day the members of the Christian family, must be entirely put aside, and from the remaining doctrines a common form of faith drawn up and proposed for belief, and in the profession of which all may not only know but feel that they are brothers.

1. Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is “the root and womb whence the Church of God springs,”[27] not with the intention and the hope that “the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth”[28] will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government.

It is clear from these quotations that the error that is being condemned is not ecumenical efforts, but efforts to reduce the truth to only those doctrines that are currently held in common among all of the various Christian Churches. Ut Unum Sint does not advocate this view so you accusation that it promotes the error condemned by Mortalium Animos is incorrect.

 

[theMutant]

JLC:

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.

Ut Unum Sint
10 The Council states that the Church of Christ “subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”, and at the same time acknowledges that “many elements of sanctification and of truth can be found outside her visible structure. These elements, however, as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, possess an inner dynamism towards Catholic unity”

36.Dialogue is also a natural instrument for comparing differing points of view and, above all, for examining those disagreements which hinder full communion between Christians. The Decree on Ecumenism dwells in the first place on a description of the attitudes under which doctrinal discussions should take place: “Catholic theologians engaged in ecumenical dialogue, while standing fast by the teaching of the Church and searching together with separated brothers and sisters into the divine mysteries, should act with love for truth, with charity, and with humility”…
With regard to the study of areas of disagreement, the Council requires that the whole body of doctrine be clearly presented. At the same time, it asks that the manner and method of expounding the Catholic faith should not be a hindrance to dialogue with our brothers and sisters. Certainly it is possible to profess one’s faith and to explain its teaching in a way that is correct, fair and understandable, and which at the same time takes into account both the way of thinking and the actual historical experiences of the other party.
Full communion of course will have to come about through the acceptance of the whole truth into which the Holy Spirit guides Christ’s disciples. Hence all forms of reductionism or facile “agreement” must be absolutely avoided. Serious questions must be resolved, for if not, they will reappear at another time, either in the same terms or in a different guise.
97.The Catholic Church, both in her praxis and in her solemn documents, holds that the communion of the particular Churches with the Church of Rome, and of their Bishops with the Bishop of Rome, is—in God’s plan—an essential requisite of full and visible communion.

It is clear from this that Ut Unum Sint, while opening the way for methods of ecumenical effort previously closed, maintains the SAME requirement for achieving unity as Mortalium Animos; FULL UNITY WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND ALL OF ITS DOCTRINES. I agree that the methods of the ecumenical movement need to be reconsidered, but it is not true that this movement is indicative of JPII falling into heresy.

 

[choicenctr]

theMutant:

Ut Unum Sint
10 The Council states that the Church of Christ “subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”, and at the same time acknowledges that “many elements of sanctification and of truth can be found outside her visible structure. These elements, however, as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, possess an inner dynamism towards Catholic unity”

36.Dialogue is also a natural instrument for comparing differing points of view and, above all, for examining those disagreements which hinder full communion between Christians. The Decree on Ecumenism dwells in the first place on a description of the attitudes under which doctrinal discussions should take place: “Catholic theologians engaged in ecumenical dialogue, while standing fast by the teaching of the Church and searching together with separated brothers and sisters into the divine mysteries, should act with love for truth, with charity, and with humility”…
With regard to the study of areas of disagreement, the Council requires that the whole body of doctrine be clearly presented. At the same time, it asks that the manner and method of expounding the Catholic faith should not be a hindrance to dialogue with our brothers and sisters. Certainly it is possible to profess one’s faith and to explain its teaching in a way that is correct, fair and understandable, and which at the same time takes into account both the way of thinking and the actual historical experiences of the other party.
Full communion of course will have to come about through the acceptance of the whole truth into which the Holy Spirit guides Christ’s disciples. Hence all forms of reductionism or facile “agreement” must be absolutely avoided. Serious questions must be resolved, for if not, they will reappear at another time, either in the same terms or in a different guise.
97.The Catholic Church, both in her praxis and in her solemn documents, holds that the communion of the particular Churches with the Church of Rome, and of their Bishops with the Bishop of Rome, is—in God’s plan—an essential requisite of full and visible communion.

It is clear from this that Ut Unum Sint, while opening the way for methods of ecumenical effort previously closed, maintains the SAME requirement for achieving unity as Mortalium Animos; FULL UNITY WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND ALL OF ITS DOCTRINES. I agree that the methods of the ecumenical movement need to be reconsidered, but it is not true that this movement is indicative of JPII falling into heresy.

Excellent point Mutant!!

 

[tcaseyrochester]

**Matthew 16, 15:**15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

So Jesus promises us that the Holy Father can never be a heretic. END OF DICSUSSION!

 

[theMutant]

**Matthew 16, 15:**15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

So Jesus promises us that the Holy Father can never be a heretic. END OF DICSUSSION!

I cannot agree with you, for the Church herself has legislation about in what ways a pope can lose the papacy and there are three. One is death, the second is by abdicating, and the third is by falling into heresy. The teaching of the Church regarding the Scripture you quote concerns actual doctrinal and dogmatic definitions. The pope can NEVER declare a heretical teaching as the supreme head of the Church because the Holy Spirit will not allow it. However, not all of the pope’s teachings are infallible declarations. Unless he binds all the faithful to accept a teaching by his authority as the successor of Peter as head of the Universal Church, his teaching is not infallible. The vast majority of papal encyclicals do not fall into the category of infallible teaching.

 

[theMutant]

JLC:

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.

JLC, I will study further the writings of Athanasius on this subject. But, in the mean time, I need to point out that he was not addressing the issue of a pope falling into heresy. I know that you are still trying to convince some here that this is possible (come on, folks, the Church herself doesn’t seem to deny this one) but beyond that point, the example fails to support your position.

It was not uncommon for bishops in those days to hurl accusations of heresy upon one another. However, it was always for the bishop of Rome to make the decision of whether or not any particular bishop had fallen into heresy. The writings of the Early Church clearly show this for there were times that some bishops tried to punish others due to heresy and the Pope reminded them that such matters were always up to him as the successor of Peter.

Therefore, it doesn’t in any way show that a minority of bishops and the faithful can authorititatively declare a pope to be a heretic. If you can find pre-Vatican II legislation outlining such a process, I think we would all welcome it as it would work toward settling the issue. Until then, I see no foundation to support the idea that it would not take AT LEAST a majority of bishops to make such a declaration with any authority.

 

[tcaseyrochester]

theMutant:

I cannot agree with you, for the Church herself has legislation about in what ways a pope can lose the papacy and there are three. One is death, the second is by abdicating, and the third is by falling into heresy. The teaching of the Church regarding the Scripture you quote concerns actual doctrinal and dogmatic definitions. The pope can NEVER declare a heretical teaching as the supreme head of the Church because the Holy Spirit will not allow it. However, not all of the pope’s teachings are infallible declarations. Unless he binds all the faithful to accept a teaching by his authority as the successor of Peter as head of the Universal Church, his teaching is not infallible. The vast majority of papal encyclicals do not fall into the category of infallible teaching.

Hi Mutant…

WADR, I am not seeking agreement or disagreement, I merely quoted sacred scripture. We agree that Christ teaches us that the Pope is protected by the Holy Spirit, however I infer that he can never fall into heresy be it by infallible declaration or otherwise, I am having trouble seeing where this passage of Scripture supports your distinction .

It (the fall of a Pope into heresy) has never happened in 2000 years and my faith assures me that it never will. Perhaps this is intended as a “gut-check” for the depth of one’s Faith.

 

[theMutant]

tcaseyrochester:

We agree that Christ teaches us that the Pope is protected by the Holy Spirit, however I infer that he can never fall into heresy be it by infallible declaration or otherwise

Thank you for your question and please allow me to clarify my point. The evidence that the protection of the Holy Spirit only applies to infallible declarations can be seen in those non-universal declarations made by popes in the past. One favorite of Protestants is Pope Xozimus (spelling?) who first declared that someone was teaching heresy, then that he wasn’t, and then that he was. Here you have a pope making contradictory delcarations, at least one of which could be interpreted as heretical because it supported a heretical teaching. The reason that this argument doesn’t work for the Protestants is that the teaching was not universal, it was about one particular person.

However, if the protection of the Holy Spirit extended even to non universal declarations, we would expect that there would NEVER be such an error in ANY declarations by a pope. More to the point, the Church herself does not make this claim regarding either the Scripture you quoted or the idea of a pope falling into heresy. I will try to find the relavent authoritative teachings on this matter and will post them when I do, but I have already read them in several sources. We can be thankful that no pope has ever fallen into heresy but we cannot deny the possibility.

 

[stirlingk]

myrna:

Thank you for your kindness from most here and your frankness, I realize how hard this is for some of you, but I am not asking anyone to accept my position. I only answered the questions put to me.

This is why I started here with this thread, wanting to see how this would go and I wanted to share the Faith because believe me when you lose the Faith you will lose your soul.

One poster here accused me of losing my Faith, but God will be the judge of that not the poster. Just as I have not judged anyone here it would be nice to know that those who claim to believe in JPII would take his advise of love and tolerance with his ecumenism, and the “charity” that is suppose to come with it; for some I suppose this tolerance stops at the door of a Traditionalist.

I normally just lurk and read up on issues but your being here offends me. You seem very eager to spread your views and debate with us! and I have to say that while everyone is being nice to you we are just trying to get you to see the truth but you seem to be determined to get us to see your truth or convert. We are taught tolerance of christ and to try to return people to the fold, but we also must never forget that satan is always lurking and trying to get us to doubt the church and cross examine it and read up on other interpretations so as to leave the church. I urge others not to doubt our wonderful pope or read any more of your views. People who are curious will then read and may begin to doubt and the path to hell will quickly follow. Try to convert others on another message board but not here! Since you have recieved so many replies that we love our pope it should tell you that you have failed in your goal. I will continue to pray that you return to the one church that Jesus began through Peter.