L
Lance
Guest
- Status
T
theMutant
Guest
You should read up a bit more before making such remarks. Not only do they potentially violate the rules of this forum but they contradict the message to Myrna by Karl Keating, who welcomed her. This is an apologetics forum. I think it would be better to post your own reasons for rejecting their views instead of making such an attack. After all, you may present something in a way that the rest of us has not and that may help sway someone who would otherwise turn to their views.
M
Mandi
Guest
This is what bothers me most, the celebrating differently thing. NOTHING Christ did was done by accident. Every breathing breath was an example for us to follow. Christ said I want it done this way, period. We do not have the right to celebrate a little differently. What is with this do your own thing, thing. One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic - What happened???
T
theMutant
Guest
To be fair to Lance, I believe that he is referring to the differences between the Latin and the various Eastern Catholic Rites. There are differences in these liturgies and each patriarchate traces its liturgy back to the Apostle who founded it. Over the 2000 years of the Church, various popes have affirmed these rites. This is not a case of "do your own thing.
I have already stated my disagreement with equating Sedevacantists with Protestants. They are in schism (although they don’t think so), they are NOT Protestants.
L
Lance
Guest
Exactly!
M
Mandi
Guest
Sorry to misinterpret, This “do your own thing Mass” bothers me so I get hot before I think
G
Gratias_Grace
Guest
Hi Stirlingk!
“…He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man. 38 And the field is the world. And the good seed are the children of the kingdom. And the cockle are the children of the wicked one. 39 And the enemy that sowed them, is the devil” (Mat 13:37-39)
I am glad you stepped into the forum! You have a good point when referring to satan. Satans big joy is to hurt God by making people doubt the belief in God and the Catholc Church instituted by Jesus himself, the Church that “… the gates of hell shall not prevail against …” (Mat 16:18).
This is an apologetic thread, but this far in the debate I think we nead to remember something very important; our heritage. I will leave a prayer:
God our Father,
if I could trace back
through the last two thousand years,
marking out routes
from Jesus himself
and then through people
whose faith has touched others
and so reached me,
I would be astounded
by the individuals I would encounter.
I give thanks, Father,
for all those people
over two thousand years
who have inspired others
and played their part
in passing on
to generation after generation
the living heritage of their faith.
Especially I give thanks
for those who lived their faith
through difficulties
and hardship and persecution.
I pray, Father, that I may grow
in your faith and love
through good times and bad. Amen.
About the great apostacy that JLC has reminded us will come in the last of the last days before Christs second coming, I think JLC and his friend Myrna is good contributers to that. Yes, there will be persons falling away from Church, but Jesus himself will arrange it so that the true belivers will reach Heaven: “Suffer both to grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn” (Mat 13:30).
(Please excuse any spellingmistakes. English is not my first language).
God Bless!
G.G.
S
stirlingk
Guest
You are right of course. I guess I didn’t read that she was welcomed. I take pope bashing personally and am just too sensitive for my own good! His life and works are truly wonderful and he is my own personal role model for how to live in the Catholic faith. I will do better!
S
Stylteralmaldo
Guest
This is a facinating topic.
The Holy Catholic Church (the one that follows JPII) will lose followers no matter what it does. If it isn’t Luther’s call for reform when reform isn’t happening fast enough, it’s the schismatics that say too much reform is occurring. There are separatists from the cry against Vatican I:
bartleby.com/65/ol/OldCatho.html
The Holy Catholic Church (the one that follows JPII) will lose followers no matter what it does. If it isn’t Luther’s call for reform when reform isn’t happening fast enough, it’s the schismatics that say too much reform is occurring. There are separatists from the cry against Vatican I:
bartleby.com/65/ol/OldCatho.html
G
Gratias_Grace
Guest
I aggree with Lance and the Mutant on the following:
"Quote:
Originally Posted by theMutant
To be fair to Lance, I believe that he is referring to the differences between the Latin and the various Eastern Catholic Rites. There are differences in these liturgies and each patriarchate traces its liturgy back to the Apostle who founded it. Over the 2000 years of the Church, various popes have affirmed these rites. This is not a case of "do your own thing.
I have already stated my disagreement with equating Sedevacantists with Protestants. They are in schism (although they don’t think so), they are NOT Protestants. (Quote ended)
Exactly!" (said Lance).
Blessings!
G.G.
"Quote:
Originally Posted by theMutant
To be fair to Lance, I believe that he is referring to the differences between the Latin and the various Eastern Catholic Rites. There are differences in these liturgies and each patriarchate traces its liturgy back to the Apostle who founded it. Over the 2000 years of the Church, various popes have affirmed these rites. This is not a case of "do your own thing.
I have already stated my disagreement with equating Sedevacantists with Protestants. They are in schism (although they don’t think so), they are NOT Protestants. (Quote ended)
Exactly!" (said Lance).
Blessings!
G.G.
S
SocaliCatholic
Guest
If anyone is converted from the **TRUE ** church… it is ultimately **OUR FAULT ** for lack of faith or knowledge…NOT THEIRS!!!
S
SocaliCatholic
Guest
JLC,
I enjoy all dialouge with you greatly, as you are very educated in your beliefs and I take the time to meditate on what you write to me in response.
I believe all discussion with your church, my church, and any other church can always be reduced to the question of AUTHORITY
Let us examine how you responded with precise detail…
WHAT PERSON/PEOPLE have KEPT the **AUTHORITY ** to elect a new VALID pope?
WHO has the **AUTHORITY ** to administer things in the meantime? If a GROUP OF PEOPLE, WHICH GROUP OF PEOPLE retained the **AUTHORITY ** since the last VALID POPE held office?
Great Point!!! Here is the MEAT and POTATOES of the problem!
DO I GET TO CHOOSE THE CHRUCH or do the people IN THE CHRUCH with AUTHORITY FROM GOD GET TO CHOOSE?
The problem lies ONLY in the fact that we DO NOT AGREE who has **AUTHORITY ** in the TRUE church
W
whit
Guest
To Mutant and all-
First of all I want to state that Myrna and JLC are Protestants regardless of the fact that Mutant wants to argue differently. The word itself denotes “protesting”, being against something vocally and in action. That is what makes a Protestant;someone who is protesting against the Church itself and/or it’s actions.
Myrna and JLC are protesting agians many things of the Church regardless of their vocal statments to the contrary. JLC has been trying to say that we have no Pope in JPII because of heresy. Well, actually if you go back through the entirety of this thread you will find that he and Myrna are protesting a number of things.
First they say JPII, but do not mention in that statement that they also include Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI in this list. In other words we have according to them had an empty seat for the last three Popes.
Why do I say that? Because they state that Vatican II was not a legitimately convened Council. That they say it promulgate heresy in many ways but just as examples: the Novus Ordo Mass and the push for Ecumenism.
Now, before I go any further, let’s count up the ways. Three illegitimate Popes, and an illegitimately convened and attended ecumenical Council (Vatican II), illegitimate findings and conclusions of that same Council, eg. the new Mass and a new push for ecumenism I’m sure among other things. Now how many things the Church has done does a person have to protest against, disbelieve, call heresy before one can be called a Protestant in your eyes? You seem to believe that a Protestant has to belong to some mainline church or something. I have a friend who reads the Bible (KJV) “religiously” but has not stepped foot inside any church except to go to Mass with his parents (converts) once a year, if he visits them, for his entire life. He is a Protestant but does not belong to any church at all unless you wanted to call it the “Church of What’s Happening Now.”
Now what we have here is a group of people who want ot call themselves Catholics, and I’m sure they beileve that they are, but who want the Church to be a democratic communion of worshippers instead of the monarchy that it was set up to be by Christ Himself. How many times do we read and say “Christ the King”? What is he a King of? His Church. He is our King. And he wants all people on earth to be members of His Church. And of course since He is and of the Trinity, He has set up His Vicar, Peter and his successors to be his representative here on earth and carry out His wishes and to teach and to try to keep His people together, if possibe. That would include the ecumenism which was only restated as one of our duties by Vatican II, NOT invented by it.
Anyway, we need to remember that the Church has gone thru any number of iterations of the Mass to what it is today, adding to and removing from , since the beginning of the Church. We need to know our history and understand that the history of the Church started 2,000+ years ago, not the day we were born. And there were a lot of lies much disinformation put out about Vatican II as it was going on and after it and unfortunately many people have believed what was said. This was because certain people had agendas and unfortunately, the truth was not a part of them.
To cap this off all three Popes are and were legitimate. Vatican II was a legitimately convened and attended Council and the new mass is legitimate and so is the ecumenical attempts of JPII. Christ called for them when he said for the Apostles to go out and tell the world about Him. He didn’t tell them to forget the Protestants. ;=>
God bless.
Whit
First of all I want to state that Myrna and JLC are Protestants regardless of the fact that Mutant wants to argue differently. The word itself denotes “protesting”, being against something vocally and in action. That is what makes a Protestant;someone who is protesting against the Church itself and/or it’s actions.
Myrna and JLC are protesting agians many things of the Church regardless of their vocal statments to the contrary. JLC has been trying to say that we have no Pope in JPII because of heresy. Well, actually if you go back through the entirety of this thread you will find that he and Myrna are protesting a number of things.
First they say JPII, but do not mention in that statement that they also include Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI in this list. In other words we have according to them had an empty seat for the last three Popes.
Why do I say that? Because they state that Vatican II was not a legitimately convened Council. That they say it promulgate heresy in many ways but just as examples: the Novus Ordo Mass and the push for Ecumenism.
Now, before I go any further, let’s count up the ways. Three illegitimate Popes, and an illegitimately convened and attended ecumenical Council (Vatican II), illegitimate findings and conclusions of that same Council, eg. the new Mass and a new push for ecumenism I’m sure among other things. Now how many things the Church has done does a person have to protest against, disbelieve, call heresy before one can be called a Protestant in your eyes? You seem to believe that a Protestant has to belong to some mainline church or something. I have a friend who reads the Bible (KJV) “religiously” but has not stepped foot inside any church except to go to Mass with his parents (converts) once a year, if he visits them, for his entire life. He is a Protestant but does not belong to any church at all unless you wanted to call it the “Church of What’s Happening Now.”
Now what we have here is a group of people who want ot call themselves Catholics, and I’m sure they beileve that they are, but who want the Church to be a democratic communion of worshippers instead of the monarchy that it was set up to be by Christ Himself. How many times do we read and say “Christ the King”? What is he a King of? His Church. He is our King. And he wants all people on earth to be members of His Church. And of course since He is and of the Trinity, He has set up His Vicar, Peter and his successors to be his representative here on earth and carry out His wishes and to teach and to try to keep His people together, if possibe. That would include the ecumenism which was only restated as one of our duties by Vatican II, NOT invented by it.
Anyway, we need to remember that the Church has gone thru any number of iterations of the Mass to what it is today, adding to and removing from , since the beginning of the Church. We need to know our history and understand that the history of the Church started 2,000+ years ago, not the day we were born. And there were a lot of lies much disinformation put out about Vatican II as it was going on and after it and unfortunately many people have believed what was said. This was because certain people had agendas and unfortunately, the truth was not a part of them.
To cap this off all three Popes are and were legitimate. Vatican II was a legitimately convened and attended Council and the new mass is legitimate and so is the ecumenical attempts of JPII. Christ called for them when he said for the Apostles to go out and tell the world about Him. He didn’t tell them to forget the Protestants. ;=>
God bless.
Whit
J
JLC
Guest
Being in a rush right at the moment, I have one direct question for Whit…
Do you believe it is possible for a pope to cease to be pope by going into at least one heresy?
JLC
Do you believe it is possible for a pope to cease to be pope by going into at least one heresy?
JLC
J
jordan
Guest
Regardless of whether you, or I, or anyone else might believe such a thing is possible, a faithful Catholic cannot believe that the Holy Father, the Magisterium, the Episcopal College have all fallen into heresy, accepted heresy, and departed from the true teachings of the historic church with the promise of our Lord that this will not happen. It is this same governing body which has always, and still does, define and illuminate the Truths of the Faith; not individual members of the body. To believe that you know better is to fall into the error of protestantism, regardless of what you may believe.
C
College_Dropout
Guest
**JLC **
With no pope, who is the final authority to settle disputes at your Church?
With no pope, who is the final authority to settle disputes at your Church?
W
whit
Guest
JLC, What has your question to me got to do with anything? What is this great heresy thing you are talking about? In the first place I am not the determiner of fact in this regard. That is up to the Church as Jordan says. My duty as a Catholic is to follow the Church’s teachings as the Holy Spirit has given them to the Pope.
By your questioning, are you telling me that the Holy Spirit has gotten to you and Myrna and told you that the Pope, JPII and the prior popes, John XXIII and Paul VI are all heretics. When did you receive the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven by Christ? I must have missed that. When did Christ tell you that what is bound on earth by you is bound in Heaven and what is loosed on earth is loosed in Heaven, by you, oh yes and by Myrna too? You two had better get together on all this binding and loosing stuff that you intimate that you are able to do or you are going to be driving Heaven nuts trying to find out what to do at certain times. I guess we will have to have a new church with copopes JLC and Myrna since it seems that they are now the new determiners of fact for the church. Whoops. I forgot. What about all your fellow SEDS+TRADS+SSPX’rs. What if each of you have differeent ideas. Big trouble. Heaven in a tizzy with all the new popes out there. But really not really all that bad. After all there are some estimated 30,000 Christian denominations out there today each with it’s own pope/pastor/worshipper/congregation. In all actuallity there are as many denominations out there as there are non-Catholics and cafeteria Catholics because each of them have taken what Christ has said(the Bible and or the Catechism) and either taken from or added to and come up with their own churches, denominations, etc.; in effect becoming their own popes. All I can say is y’all have fun and I am praying for you.
BTW, for those who want to read a little about what JLC and Myrna are going through, at least on the SSPX side because they seem to agree with the SSPX’rs(see JLC’s tagline), read this article by Pete Vere in Envoy magazine. He is now a canon lawyer who had spent some 8 years in the SSPX movement and then realized his errors in thinking and put them on paper in this article.
envoymagazine.com/backissues/4.6/lefebvre.htm
God bless.
Whit
By your questioning, are you telling me that the Holy Spirit has gotten to you and Myrna and told you that the Pope, JPII and the prior popes, John XXIII and Paul VI are all heretics. When did you receive the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven by Christ? I must have missed that. When did Christ tell you that what is bound on earth by you is bound in Heaven and what is loosed on earth is loosed in Heaven, by you, oh yes and by Myrna too? You two had better get together on all this binding and loosing stuff that you intimate that you are able to do or you are going to be driving Heaven nuts trying to find out what to do at certain times. I guess we will have to have a new church with copopes JLC and Myrna since it seems that they are now the new determiners of fact for the church. Whoops. I forgot. What about all your fellow SEDS+TRADS+SSPX’rs. What if each of you have differeent ideas. Big trouble. Heaven in a tizzy with all the new popes out there. But really not really all that bad. After all there are some estimated 30,000 Christian denominations out there today each with it’s own pope/pastor/worshipper/congregation. In all actuallity there are as many denominations out there as there are non-Catholics and cafeteria Catholics because each of them have taken what Christ has said(the Bible and or the Catechism) and either taken from or added to and come up with their own churches, denominations, etc.; in effect becoming their own popes. All I can say is y’all have fun and I am praying for you.
BTW, for those who want to read a little about what JLC and Myrna are going through, at least on the SSPX side because they seem to agree with the SSPX’rs(see JLC’s tagline), read this article by Pete Vere in Envoy magazine. He is now a canon lawyer who had spent some 8 years in the SSPX movement and then realized his errors in thinking and put them on paper in this article.
envoymagazine.com/backissues/4.6/lefebvre.htm
God bless.
Whit
T
theMutant
Guest
MEA CULPA
I am not one to try and hide when I have made a mistake. I have been maintaining that there are three ways that a pope can lose his office: death, abdication, and heresy. I also promised yesterday that I would find and post the sources from which I held this view. I looked and looked and I think that those books must be packed away for the moment. However, I did find a paper I had written to a Protestant friend of mine several years ago (when I last dealt with this topic) and find that heresy is NOT one of the ways that a pope can lose his office. The third way is actually apostacy; the total abandonment of the Christian faith.
I also spent some time researching the Church’s teaching of heresy and found that both before and after Vatican II, no one has the authority to declare a pope to be in heresy. While we are free to make judgments based on our own ability to reason we must remember that we are just asserting our own opinion on the matter until the competent authority has made an authoritative judgment. In cases of anyone subject to a bishop, the bishop is the competent authority. In the case of bishops falling into heresy, ONLY the pope is the competent authority. There is no one, not even the entire remaining body of bishops, who has the authority to pass judgment on the pope. This is maintained by pre-Vatican II teaching which asserts many times over the centuries that once he is validly elected, the pope’s authority (and legitimacy) is not dependent on anyone’s approval.
This much, I actually already knew but my belief that my previous studies had revealed that heresy was one of the ways that a pope can lose his office blinded me to my own fallacy of reason in this matter. I make it a point to say this because one of the arguments I frequently employ is when one’s argument is self-contradictory. The pope is the Supreme Pontiff of the Church and thereby holds supreme authority, second only to Christ whose vicar he is. Therefore it is a logical inconsistency to claim that anyone, even the entire body of bishops, could pass judgment against him and remove him from his office. This is the consistent teaching of the Church. There was even an ecumenical council (I cannot remember which one at the moment) that tried to assert that the body of bishops could pass judgment on the pope and that assertion was rejected. An individual bishop’s authority is dependent on the pope, but the pope’s authority is not dependent on the approval of bishops.
Having said all of this, however, I feel that I must reassert the other half of the claim that I have been arguing; that of whether or not the pope can teach heresy in non ex cathedra pronouncements. I do not do this to “salvage” myself from the above admission. I do it because this is a separate matter. The divine protection of infallibility is only in effect when the pope teaches ex cathedra. This was very clearly defined at Vatican I and was always the teaching of the Church. When not exercising his authority as the Supreme Pontiff presenting a teaching that binds all of the faithful, the pope is merely the bishop of Rome and holds no special grace that any other bishop does not also hold. This is de fide teaching of the Catholic Church.
Therefore, JLC and Myrna, the burden rests on you to show where in the historical teaching of the Church a teaching is present that says anyone, including other bishops, can pass judgment on the pope in matters of faith. I have read several examples in the Church Fathers and in various councils where the idea was presented but ultimately rejected by the Church. If you cannot show this from an authoritative source, your argument has no ground on which to stand. For even if JPII has committed heresy, a point which I deny, that does not cause him to lose his office because no one has the authority to pass judgment on the pope.
I am not one to try and hide when I have made a mistake. I have been maintaining that there are three ways that a pope can lose his office: death, abdication, and heresy. I also promised yesterday that I would find and post the sources from which I held this view. I looked and looked and I think that those books must be packed away for the moment. However, I did find a paper I had written to a Protestant friend of mine several years ago (when I last dealt with this topic) and find that heresy is NOT one of the ways that a pope can lose his office. The third way is actually apostacy; the total abandonment of the Christian faith.
I also spent some time researching the Church’s teaching of heresy and found that both before and after Vatican II, no one has the authority to declare a pope to be in heresy. While we are free to make judgments based on our own ability to reason we must remember that we are just asserting our own opinion on the matter until the competent authority has made an authoritative judgment. In cases of anyone subject to a bishop, the bishop is the competent authority. In the case of bishops falling into heresy, ONLY the pope is the competent authority. There is no one, not even the entire remaining body of bishops, who has the authority to pass judgment on the pope. This is maintained by pre-Vatican II teaching which asserts many times over the centuries that once he is validly elected, the pope’s authority (and legitimacy) is not dependent on anyone’s approval.
This much, I actually already knew but my belief that my previous studies had revealed that heresy was one of the ways that a pope can lose his office blinded me to my own fallacy of reason in this matter. I make it a point to say this because one of the arguments I frequently employ is when one’s argument is self-contradictory. The pope is the Supreme Pontiff of the Church and thereby holds supreme authority, second only to Christ whose vicar he is. Therefore it is a logical inconsistency to claim that anyone, even the entire body of bishops, could pass judgment against him and remove him from his office. This is the consistent teaching of the Church. There was even an ecumenical council (I cannot remember which one at the moment) that tried to assert that the body of bishops could pass judgment on the pope and that assertion was rejected. An individual bishop’s authority is dependent on the pope, but the pope’s authority is not dependent on the approval of bishops.
Having said all of this, however, I feel that I must reassert the other half of the claim that I have been arguing; that of whether or not the pope can teach heresy in non ex cathedra pronouncements. I do not do this to “salvage” myself from the above admission. I do it because this is a separate matter. The divine protection of infallibility is only in effect when the pope teaches ex cathedra. This was very clearly defined at Vatican I and was always the teaching of the Church. When not exercising his authority as the Supreme Pontiff presenting a teaching that binds all of the faithful, the pope is merely the bishop of Rome and holds no special grace that any other bishop does not also hold. This is de fide teaching of the Catholic Church.
Therefore, JLC and Myrna, the burden rests on you to show where in the historical teaching of the Church a teaching is present that says anyone, including other bishops, can pass judgment on the pope in matters of faith. I have read several examples in the Church Fathers and in various councils where the idea was presented but ultimately rejected by the Church. If you cannot show this from an authoritative source, your argument has no ground on which to stand. For even if JPII has committed heresy, a point which I deny, that does not cause him to lose his office because no one has the authority to pass judgment on the pope.
T
theMutant
Guest
Your argument based on your definition of Protestant is fallacious. Protestants adhere to particular religious doctrines; sola scriptura and sola fide. The sedevacantists reject these doctrines. In the same way that the Orthodox are NOT Protestants (they separated long before the Protestants came around), the current groups of sedevacantists are NOT protestants. They are in schism. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE!!!
M
Mandi
Guest
Yes, yes, yes this is a very big problem, don’t forget to add that not one Catholic Church is consistent with the next. Where has all the unity gone! Yes big problems, who is going to fix it.
- Status