New Sungenis vs Dimond debate
#21
Good points Greg, Greg and Tim.

I am also barely clinging to allegiance to the visible Roman Church. I find that I just ignore the Popes of the past 50-60 years, their teachings and personal actions. Unlike the ultramonanists (for lack of a better word) who cling to every action and word of the pope as heaven sent, I cling to the frequently confirmed teachings of their predecessors. Even in the case of humanae vitae, all of the teachings therein have at some point and in some wise been affirmed long before in a less ambiguous language.

In all simplicity, ignoring teachings on Papal authority, supremacy, infallibility, etc, one can see that the Popes Paul VI and up have broken with tradition in many regards. By their actions they have not just committed sin but led their sheep out of the fold of Christ. Scripture does tell us that so small a minority (and I am not claiming to be part of that minority) shall cling to the true faith in this time of apostasy; "Many are called but few are chosen" "How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!" "When (I) return shall I find Faith"

Certainly the one billion who call themselves Catholics shall not all enter by that narrow gate. "Strive to enter by the narrow gate; for many, I say to you, shall seek to enter, and shall not be able." If few who search for the gate find it, how many more are lost who do not even bother to search for it.

Truly, when we contrast the individual and collective teachings of post VII with pre VII churches, a child can see the parallels in method and material. The Vatican II church uses ambiguity, human centered teaching, and novelty. The Catholic Church is authoritative, pure and God centered in teaching. How can I take a men who destroyed the Latin rite Mass, brought about sweeping changes in novelty, set forth a catechism of opinion, and promulgated a lax disciplinary code, to be true vicars of Christ?
Reply
#22
I cling to the historical Church.  After all, while those Great Popes and people and marvellous saints are dead in the temporal sense they are very much alive in the whole of reality sense.  They are only DEAD to utter wankers like Richard Dawkins.

Judged by our lifetimes and our human view of the whole world existing now, we are in a tiny minority and fighting a losing battle.  Judged by 2000 years of history the current batch of sodomites, heretics and apostates are the outsiders.

But obviously there is a line in the sand for everyone and I have great sympathy for SVs and their position.  If God condemns them for being a little overzealous I'll be very surprised.  And that is all most of them are.

Recently Pope B16 openly prayed with Muslims and Jews.  There is video of it on YouTube with him in a joint prayer meeting.  That almost did it for me, I must admit.  But JP2's Canonisation is my personal line in the sand.  At that point I cannot go on pretending that the visible Church is run by the legitimate successors of Peter.  I'll watch the skies and cling to my Rosary at that point and see what the shakeout of Tradom looks like.

I reckon we can get a chapel somewhere and 4 tonnes of beans and rice and wait for the comet of chatisement.  They'll be enough trads at that point to boost SV's numbers by 10 fold I would think.  If indeed it happens.
Reply
#23
Unam, and ggreg, I posted this on Cathinfo.com forums:

"If you want evidence from the Bible, just look at the kingdom of David.

God promised David that he would have perpetual successors on the throne. He made a covenant with him. Yet, only a couple hundred years later, and Northern Israel (The house of Israel) was Invaded by Assyria and the kingdom there was abolished. The Assyrians and their slave races intermingled with the Israelites, hence the Samaritans. There was no kingly successor of the line of David.

Take into consideration also the Babylonian Captivity. In Judah, the Israelites were taken into Babylon, and the king died. There was no successor.

It would be centuries before the Jews, even after their release from exile would ever have a King. Then, it would be due to the Maccabean revolt, led by Judas Maccabeus. This would establish the Hasmonean dynasty, from whence would arise the Herods.

Now I ask you:

In this case of Royal Sede Vacante: Did God fail to keep his promise? NO! He preserved Davidic lines, from which both the Blessed Virgin and St. Joseph are descended. At the Appropriate time, Christ was born who would "Sit on the throne of his father David." Which throne he still sits on to this day: We are part of a Davidic Kingdom.

So God DID keep his promise; but it was not in a way that man expected.

Now, the Church is the New Israel. And it follows that some events in her own time will mirror some of the events of ancient Israel.

The attack of Modernism and other heresies in the present day was like the siege of Jerusalem. Then, Babylonian Captivity is similar to the hostage situation most Catholics find the sacraments in today:

And only a remnant will rebuild.

THe influx into the Church of heresies and freemasonry that Prelates have decided to fornicate with is the Assyrians deflowering the virginal purity of the Catholic Faith:

And Vatican II is the monstrous offspring. Newchurch is the New Samaria. The Catholic Church is Judah: Small, weak and nearly defenseless, wondering if the promises of Christ have failed. BUT IN ALL THIS, we must remember that God preserved a WAY to bring about an heir for David. He will no less preserve a way to bring about for us a true and Holy Pope who will restore all things in Christ.

Do NOT think that you can comprehend the way in which God keeps his promises. Even when they appear to fail, he has not failed.

Judah was without a Davidic King for centuries.

We have been without a Pope for 53 years.

Give it time. "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promises, as some understand slowness."

If you don't like the term Sede Vacantist, Fine.

We are in a prolonged Interregnum. It has been prolonged because of manifest heresy of the so-called Popes, and their tacit apostasy from the Faith. It has been this way for 53 years. Therefore, we suffer through this interregnum, waiting for a true and holy Pope to be granted to the church to put an end to this sad apostasy of the earth. For no heretic can be a Pope. "

A prolonged interregnum is not evidence that God failed. It is evidence that he keeps his promises in ways we do not understand.

Plus, the common consensus of theologians is that no schism can be incurred by rejceting allegiance to the POpe because you believe he is not validly elected:

"F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “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 rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicum, 7:398, 1943)

Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948)

De Lugo: “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 [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8)"
Reply
#24
I have to go and resurface my garage, but this looks promising Gregory. I can see where it is going in the first few lines.
Reply
#25
Here are a couple of talks by the late, great Michael Davies that I found helpful WRT sedevacantism:

The Church That Cannot Failhttp://www.keepthefaith.org/detail.aspx?ID=463

Indeffectibility of the Churchhttp://www.keepthefaith.org/detail.aspx?ID=504


While I have a preference for the EF Mass, I realized some key things:

1) The Pope (BXVI) has legitimate authority, and that office of authority has a right to obedience from lower clergy and laity.  No, not if he asks you to do something sinful, but you can't tell me that ignoring the Popes of the last 50 years is something God wants you to do.  You are, in essence, judging the Pope.  Yes, you can claim that your conscience and intellect tell you one thing, but how can your reconcile continual disregard for the Vicar of Christ and yet claim submission to him?  You are being obedient to an academic idea, but it is clearly not evident in your life.  I'm not talking about being ultramontane, I'm talking about the type of obedience a child gives to his parent.   

2) No one on earth can judge the Pope, least of all a layman like myself.  Yes, you can disagree with certain policies, but outright rebellion or condemnation is a serious thing to do.  Again, if the Pope is not imposing something sinful, then you have to ask yourself if you are helping your own soul by condemning a man who, by Church teaching, is above your personal judgement.  God will judge him.  Your goal is to get to heaven.  If the Pope is not leading people into Hell, then you need to give him a wide berth.

3) WRT the changes in the liturgy, while it is sad, nonetheless the changes the Church imposed are not sinful.  Therefore one should be careful about condemning them.  This was a biggee for me.  ButI have come to realize that the liturgy is a gift from God, through the Church, to us for our sanctification.  While the forms may change (drastically at times), they communicate the grace they are meant to communicate.  While some forms may better communicate the reality of that grace to us sinful men, that does not mean that the less appealing forms will drive souls to Hell.  So we should not treat the liturgical reforms as if our eternal destiny is being threatened.  To complain about the forms of Mass is like complaining about the present your parents gave you for Christmas.  You receive it with love because it comes from parents who love you.  If they choose to hand down changes, Deo Gratias.  If not, I accept that.  But I think many people out there try to undercut the simple layman's trust in the Church by insinuating that the Church is trying to lead him away from authentic Catholicism with the New Mass.  Once you poison the well of trust, he will never drink from it again, and you start him down the road towards Sedevacantism.


4) As a layman, it is not my place to change the liturgy.  Thankfully, now there is a choice (OF/EF), but this is not a democracy where lobbyists are the vehicle of policy.  If I want to encourage the EF, I take my feet and dollars to EF Masses.  If I want better music, I should encourage or start a Gregorian chant group (which I have done and it is enjoying its 6th year of growth and popularity in our town).  But actual changes in the rites are Rome's business.  To complain about them is pointless since we are not effecting change.  Prayer and fasting are needed for areas of abuse.  Charity is needed at all times.
Reply
#26
What do any of your positions have to do with sedevacantism? They all apply to a valid Pope.

THERE IS NONE. Everything you say applies to a valid Pope. HOWEVER...Read what Pope Paul IV Says...

"Finally, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, define and decree]: that any and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted or elevated if they had not previously deviated from the Faith...shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs (the same subject persons, nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future... Roman Pontiff canonically entering)."

This is from Cum Ex by Pope Pual IV. Yes, it was abrogated by the 1917 code of canon laws, but only in terms of ecclesiastical penalties.

THis is DEFINED as the RIGHT of the faithful to withdraw obedience with IMPUNITY from a heretic "pope."

I withdraw my allegiance to JPII and Benedict XVI on account of their overt, and tacit manifest heresy, and on account of their support of a Robber Council (Vatican II) THat EXPLICITLY contradicted the Catholic Faith on at LEAST 10 Distinct points.

Such a thing is not of Christ, therefore, those who hold to it cannot be. And, according to the 1917 code of Canon law, Canon 188, Par. 4 states that any cleric who publicly defects from the faith resigns his office and all the rights associated with it.

I do not judge the POpe. I judge that the man who claims to be pope cannot possibly be so because of tacit and manifest heresy given in his writings and his actions. THerefore, on that basis, I refuse to be in communion with him. And I am ENTITLED to such a course of action:

"“By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth (for example Mary’s Divine Maternity), or several truths of divine and Catholic faith, regardless of whether one denying does so ignorantly or innocently (a merely material heretic), or willfully and guiltily (a formal heretic). It is certain that public, formal heretics are severed from the Church membership. It is the more common opinion that public, material heretics are likewise exclude from membership. Theological reasoning for this opinion is quite strong: if public material heretics remained members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ’s Church would perish.

If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the “Catholic Church”? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity? For these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics, in good faith, remaining members of the Church.”

Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology volume II., Christ’s Church, The Members of the Church, 1957, p. 242.

[size=10pt][size=20pt]F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “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 rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicum, 7:398, 1943)

Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948)

De Lugo: “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 [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8)
[/size][/size]
Reply
#27
Not to dismiss your arguments but you are relying on theology text books.  You cannot point to a council or a dogmatic statement from a point to justify your position.  The only thing in tradition that we could look at is at times where there were multiple popes and how we would handle allegiances then.

As far as JP2 being canonized goes
"We hold that the Church does not err in the canonization of her saints. Proofs for this are not difficult to find. If we were ever granted the privilege of doubting whether a canonized saint is really a saint or not; we should also have the liberty of doubting whether he has to be worshipped or not. But this, to borrow a phrase from Augustine, would be dogmatic suicide because then we should be allowed to call into question whether we have to do anything that the whole Church of Christ is doing." St Robert Bellarmine

I bolded the last part to try to encourage my friends to have peace that we do not need to second guess or concern ourselves with everything the church is doing.  The commandments of God are hard and the pursuit of perfection takes a life time. A story that I found very beneficial in my own life when I struggled with these things was Saint Hippolytus and his rebellion (as an Anti Pope) against Pope Saint Callixtus I. Now I am not saying that the situation is comparable in all ways but I think it might be helpful in dark moments.

Reply
#28
If JP2 is a saint then I don't want to go to Heaven. God would need to be a nutter for that to happen. He has done nothing to merit being canonised and a whole lot of stuff to justify getting himself excommunicated.
Reply
#29
No offense Greg but if you are actively willing that God damned someone your not going to heaven already. That is if you take your statement to the extreme that you did not hope that he repented or his sins. Your statement is just as silly as a JP2 worshipper saying "If JP2 is not canonized then I am going to leave the church" or "If JP2 is in hell than that is where I want to go"  Cant you just trust that God is actually guiding the Church  (as he guided the Jews around in the desert for 40 years to punish them for their infidelity)  and that he is in charge.

Life is over to soon let us not lose our souls over hatred for JP2 by being scandalized.
Reply
#30
(08-22-2011, 12:18 AM)nmoerbeek Wrote: Not to dismiss your arguments but you are relying on theology text books.  You cannot point to a council or a dogmatic statement from a point to justify your position.  The only thing in tradition that we could look at is at times where there were multiple popes and how we would handle allegiances then.

Relying on theology textbooks is not much different than citing the Church Fathers in support of a given doctrine, because both Fathers and Theologians are witnesses of Divine Tradition (cf. Wilhelm & Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology, vol. I, part I, ch. IV, sec. 26-27).  You should read Pope Pius VI's Auctorem Fidei (1794) and Pope Pius IX's Tuas Libenter (1863) regarding the authority of theologians;  Pope Pius IX taught that we are bound to believe as de fide those currently-undefined doctrines which are held as de fide by the common and constant consent of theologians.  Nor can we refuse assent to their forms of doctrine which are theological truths and conclusions, even if opposition to them is not strictly heretical, but which is still deserving of some censure.

Regarding the possible canonization of Pope John Paul II, is it not true that he did away with the Devil's Advocate (in 1983)?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)