SSPX-MC, SSPV, CMRI and other Sede groups
#11
(05-22-2021, 01:55 AM)Justin Tertius Wrote: Thank you Memories for the links. I'll have to look into them when I can get the chance.

1. What are you talking about, saying that Pope Benedict said what you accuse him of? Where did he say this?
2. If the visible Church has failed in its mission, then why are you still Catholic?
Of course :)

1.
The Pontifical Bible Commission, in 2001, released a document called The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures, which was approved of by Ratzinger, and which Ratzinger actually wrote the Preface for. The whole document can be found here: 

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congr...ml#PREFACE

Section II, A, 5:

“Jewish messianic expectation is not in vain...”

Section II, A, 7:

“... to read the Bible as Judaism does necessarily involves an implicit acceptance of all its presuppositions, that is, the full acceptance of what Judaism is, in particular, the authority of its writings and rabbinic traditions, which exclude faith in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God... Christians can and ought to admit that the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one...”

Perhaps you will say that it was not Ratzinger himself who said it. Well here is what he stated in his book God and the World (page 209.):

[b]It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ.  And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts…  There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said.”
[/b]

This denies what Our Lord said when He stated that He was in the Old Testament, in the scriptures of the Prophets (John 5:39, 45-47). And after His resurrection, Our Lord showed the apostles where He was in the old scriptures. 

2. Notice that I did not say the “visible Church” had failed in her mission. No, I said that the “visible church” was doing the opposite of what the Church should do (that is, save souls). The capitalization matters. The “saintly popes” of Vatican 2 lead men to damnation by their actions, do they not? They are canonized along with their actions, as their actions are celebrated and repeated without any recourse on the part of the visible “church”. A man would lose his very soul if he did what John Paul 2 did at Assisi and die soon after, but JP2 was not only canonized, but his actions were repeated by Ratzinger (at Assisi) and Francis (at the Vatican itself!). Thus, the actions are “canonized” in a sense as well, they are deemed holy and valuable. It is not like St. Augustine, whose actions of his previous life are recognized by all as being sinful and to be avoided. Imagine if the Pope who canonized St. Augustine were to later celebrate the actions of his sinful life, and to engage in them himself, and then later Popes would do the same, implying to the dear faithful that they were acceptable and saintly? But here is the thing: the sins of St. Augustine have not come CLOSE to the sins of JP2, Ratzinger, and Francis in celebrating the raising and elevation of idols, of rejecting Almighty God by celebrating in Synagogues and Mosques. But these very actions are celebrated by the “visible church” and thus deemed to be saintly, thus deemed to be actions worth imitation by the faithful. Tell me then, is this church saving souls?
“Take my advice and live for a long, long time. Because the maddest thing a man can do in this life is to let himself die.” 

“When life itself seems lunatic, who knows where madness lies? Perhaps to be too practical is madness. To surrender dreams — this may be madness. Too much sanity may be madness — and maddest of all: to see life as it is, and not as it should be!” 

- Don Quixote
Reply
#12
(05-22-2021, 08:13 AM)Marmot Wrote:
(05-21-2021, 07:28 PM)Memories_in_Rain Wrote: To flee from heretics is no sin, and to flee from the damnation of souls is no sin either.
Of course not. But this is the same pretext that has ever been used by schismatics. This article (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm) was written in 1912...

It has justly been said that a sedevacantist is a person who loves his mental image of the Church as he would wish it were, rather that the Church of reality which "has its roots in Heaven, but its leaves in the tempest".
Again with the schism claims. 

I am not a person who does whatever you just said I do. I do not put upon the Church a vision which I have. No, I place upon the post-conciliar church a simple question: have you done what the Church is meant to do? And as I have stated above, I believe the answer is no. You can answer to my previous statement cause I’m not really gonna write it again lol. It’s answer 2 to Justin’s question.
“Take my advice and live for a long, long time. Because the maddest thing a man can do in this life is to let himself die.” 

“When life itself seems lunatic, who knows where madness lies? Perhaps to be too practical is madness. To surrender dreams — this may be madness. Too much sanity may be madness — and maddest of all: to see life as it is, and not as it should be!” 

- Don Quixote
Reply
#13
Quote:Insistence on discontinuity between both Testaments and going beyond former perspectives should not, however, lead to a one-sided spiritualisation. What has already been accomplished in Christ must yet be accomplished in us and in the world. The definitive fulfilment will be at the end with the resurrection of the dead, a new heaven and a new earth. Jewish messianic expectation is not in vain. It can become for us Christians a powerful stimulant to keep alive the eschatological dimension of our faith. Like them, we too live in expectation. The difference is that for us the One who is to come will have the traits of the Jesus who has already come and is already present and active among us.

In further context, it seems that Ratzinger was suggesting that Jewish messianism is not in vain, in the sense that the Messiah has come and that the accomplishment of the coming of Christ is being completed in us. That doesn't sound heretical, it just sounds like he was using this as a way to describe the process of Christian sanctification.

And the second quote, in further context
Quote:7. Contribution of Jewish reading of the Bible

22. The horror in the wake of the extermination of the Jews (the Shoah) during the Second World War has led all the Churches to rethink their relationship with Judaism and, as a result, to reconsider their interpretation of the Jewish Bible, the Old Testament. It may be asked whether Christians should be blamed for having monopolised the Jewish Bible and reading there what no Jew has found. Should not Christians henceforth read the Bible as Jews do, in order to show proper respect for its Jewish origins?
In answer to the last question, a negative response must be given for hermeneutical reasons. For to read the Bible as Judaism does necessarily involves an implicit acceptance of all its presuppositions, that is, the full acceptance of what Judaism is, in particular, the authority of its writings and rabbinic traditions, which exclude faith in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God.
As regards the first question, the situation is different, for Christians can and ought to admit that the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one, in continuity with the Jewish Sacred Scriptures from the Second Temple period, a reading analogous to the Christian reading which developed in parallel fashion. Both readings are bound up with the vision of their respective faiths, of which the readings are the result and expression. Consequently, both are irreducible.
On the practical level of exegesis, Christians can, nonetheless, learn much from Jewish exegesis practised for more than two thousand years, and, in fact, they have learned much in the course of history. For their part, it is to be hoped that Jews themselves can derive profit from Christian exegetical research.

Again, on further reading of the actual source, nothing here is really wrong. In fact, the quotes that you gave actually misrepresent Ratzinger completely and mangle the quote out of context terribly. 

Ratzinger is in fact denying that Christians can read the Old Testament exactly how Jews do because it denies Christ.

I then googled the quoted material as it was presented on the forum and found it pop up in three places, identical to what you posted here (so this material is obviously copied from another source, which is guilty of misrepresenting Ratzinger.) 

The third quote, which I didn't research, and therefore can't give the context, make more sense given some of the things Ratzinger says above. Essentially, he says that Jews are not necessarily of ill will if they can't see Christ prefigured in the OT Scriptures. Again, I don't see any heresy in that.

I invite you to cease using this material.
"Especially will I do this if the Lord make known to me that you come together man by man in common through grace, individually, in one faith, and in Jesus Christ... so that you obey the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but which causes that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ." St. Ignatius of Antioch

"But Polycarp... waving his hand towards them, while with groans he look up to heaven, said, 'Away with the Atheists.'" Martyrdom of Polycarp
[-] The following 1 user Likes Justin Tertius's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#14
Quote:2. Notice that I did not say the “visible Church” had failed in her mission. No, I said that the “visible church” was doing the opposite of what the Church should do (that is, save souls). The capitalization matters. The “saintly popes” of Vatican 2 lead men to damnation by their actions, do they not? They are canonized along with their actions, as their actions are celebrated and repeated without any recourse on the part of the visible “church”. A man would lose his very soul if he did what John Paul 2 did at Assisi and die soon after, but JP2 was not only canonized, but his actions were repeated by Ratzinger (at Assisi) and Francis (at the Vatican itself!). Thus, the actions are “canonized” in a sense as well, they are deemed holy and valuable. It is not like St. Augustine, whose actions of his previous life are recognized by all as being sinful and to be avoided. Imagine if the Pope who canonized St. Augustine were to later celebrate the actions of his sinful life, and to engage in them himself, and then later Popes would do the same, implying to the dear faithful that they were acceptable and saintly? But here is the thing: the sins of St. Augustine have not come CLOSE to the sins of JP2, Ratzinger, and Francis in celebrating the raising and elevation of idols, of rejecting Almighty God by celebrating in Synagogues and Mosques. But these very actions are celebrated by the “visible church” and thus deemed to be saintly, thus deemed to be actions worth imitation by the faithful. Tell me then, is this church saving souls?


1. Actions can't be canonized, this is a ridiculous argument. Peter was already following Christ when he betrayed him, and he's a saint. Am I going to abandon Christ to imitate Peter? No, because Peter repented...

2. St. Augustine was a dreadful sinner before he was baptized. His life before baptism would be recognized as being a sinful life. Plenty of saints led sinful lives, repented and were baptized or confessed. We don't imitate their lives pre-conversion.

3. Several popes have engaged in the actions which St. Augustine did before he converted! The Pornocracy and Alexander VI anyone? Also, St. Augustine's sins prior to conversion where heresy and debauchery. He was a Manichean. Manicheans were insane heretics who believe in two gods and rejected the true God. Which again, is totally unrelated since Augustine converted.

4. Of course it is. The Church will succeed in her mission. Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Catholic Church and that this Church was founded on Peter. Christ is with us until the end of the age. If the Roman See were to defect from the Faith then the Catholic Church is falsified.
"Especially will I do this if the Lord make known to me that you come together man by man in common through grace, individually, in one faith, and in Jesus Christ... so that you obey the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but which causes that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ." St. Ignatius of Antioch

"But Polycarp... waving his hand towards them, while with groans he look up to heaven, said, 'Away with the Atheists.'" Martyrdom of Polycarp
[-] The following 1 user Likes Justin Tertius's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#15
(05-23-2021, 02:32 AM)Justin Tertius Wrote: 1. Actions can't be canonized, this is a ridiculous argument. Peter was already following Christ when he betrayed him, and he's a saint. Am I going to abandon Christ to imitate Peter? No, because Peter repented...

2. St. Augustine was a dreadful sinner before he was baptized. His life before baptism would be recognized as being a sinful life. Plenty of saints led sinful lives, repented and were baptized or confessed. We don't imitate their lives pre-conversion.

3. Several popes have engaged in the actions which St. Augustine did before he converted! The Pornocracy and Alexander VI anyone? Also, St. Augustine's sins prior to conversion where heresy and debauchery. He was a Manichean. Manicheans were insane heretics who believe in two gods and rejected the true God. Which again, is totally unrelated since Augustine converted.

4. Of course it is. The Church will succeed in her mission. Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Catholic Church and that this Church was founded on Peter. Christ is with us until the end of the age. If the Roman See were to defect from the Faith then the Catholic Church is falsified.
0. Regarding your comments to my objections to the Jewish-Catholic relations, I will take your invitation and I will cease using that argument. I was wrong, and I apologize for the misrepresentation, it will not be used again. (Yes, I know, an evil sede admitting he was wrong is as rare as a triple rainbow - https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46434720)

1. Notice that I said “canonized”. Of course I am aware that actions themselves are not canonized in the same way that Saints themselves are canonized. You have missed my entire point in your 4 objections. You are correct, St. Peter did repent and his actions have been RECOGNIZED by every single Pope and faithful Catholic since as sinful, and not to be repeated. This is the same point I brought up with St. Augustine, you have not refuted my point. The sinful actions of the post-conciliar Pope “Saints” and other “Saints” are celebrated by the post-conciliar church as worthy of repeating, as can be seen by the constant repeating of these actions and constant celebration of these repeatings by later individuals of high accord in the post-conciliar church. Let me use your example. Imagine if a man like St. Peter were to exist today. He betrays Christ and denies Him thrice, and he does not visibly repent. Then, he is canonized. Then, his actions are lauded as worthy and to be repeated, and later Popes repeat his sin by denying Our Lord three times. This is what has occurred in the post-conciliar church.

2. Again you have missed my entire point. I am completely aware of what you have stated, that is why I brought it up. We do not imitate the lives of Saints pre-conversion, but the post-conciliar church lauds the imitation of these “Saints” when the actions are incredibly sinful!

3. Same. Exact. Point.

4. Correct. Thankfully the Roman See has not defected :)
“Take my advice and live for a long, long time. Because the maddest thing a man can do in this life is to let himself die.” 

“When life itself seems lunatic, who knows where madness lies? Perhaps to be too practical is madness. To surrender dreams — this may be madness. Too much sanity may be madness — and maddest of all: to see life as it is, and not as it should be!” 

- Don Quixote
Reply
#16
1. In response to your claims, I could just easily answer that these men repented interiorly. God would know that the sinner has repented, and could reveal that by the process of canonization. 

Saints in their earthly lives were not necessarily impeccable. They are capable of sin and need to repent. Paul VI, John Paul II, or anyone else who may have sinned could have repented and be saved. We wouldn't know their interior dispositions at death, and couldn't judge them as damned.

That others use their actions to justify sinful behaviour is irrelevant to themselves. They're dead now.

2. What do you mean by Roman See? If they visible claimant to the Roman See has been a heretic for 60+ years now and has been forcing an endless stream of heresy and apostasy onto the Church, then why are we still Catholic?
"Especially will I do this if the Lord make known to me that you come together man by man in common through grace, individually, in one faith, and in Jesus Christ... so that you obey the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but which causes that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ." St. Ignatius of Antioch

"But Polycarp... waving his hand towards them, while with groans he look up to heaven, said, 'Away with the Atheists.'" Martyrdom of Polycarp
Reply
#17
(05-23-2021, 08:28 PM)Justin Tertius Wrote: 1. In response to your claims, I could just easily answer that these men repented interiorly. God would know that the sinner has repented, and could reveal that by the process of canonization. 

Saints in their earthly lives were not necessarily impeccable. They are capable of sin and need to repent. Paul VI, John Paul II, or anyone else who may have sinned could have repented and be saved. We wouldn't know their interior dispositions at death, and couldn't judge them as damned.

That others use their actions to justify sinful behaviour is irrelevant to themselves. They're dead now.

2. What do you mean by Roman See? If they visible claimant to the Roman See has been a heretic for 60+ years now and has been forcing an endless stream of heresy and apostasy onto the Church, then why are we still Catholic?
1. Yes, perhaps these men, by a long shot, all repented interiorly. I don’t deny the rare possibility.

To the bold statement, you miss my point. It is not that “others”, just random people, are repeating their actions and lauding sinful behavior as saintly behavior, but that the visible church is doing so. 

2. The visible claimant to the Holy See is only a claimant materially and not formally. He has visibly forced heresy and apostasy onto the Church, but in actuality, he has not, for the True Church is indefectible.

If I may ask Justin, what position do you take concerning the present crisis in the Church today?
“Take my advice and live for a long, long time. Because the maddest thing a man can do in this life is to let himself die.” 

“When life itself seems lunatic, who knows where madness lies? Perhaps to be too practical is madness. To surrender dreams — this may be madness. Too much sanity may be madness — and maddest of all: to see life as it is, and not as it should be!” 

- Don Quixote
Reply
#18
(05-23-2021, 09:23 PM)Memories_in_Rain Wrote: 1. Yes, perhaps these men, by a long shot, all repented interiorly. I don’t deny the rare possibility.

To the bold statement, you miss my point. It is not that “others”, just random people, are repeating their actions and lauding sinful behavior as saintly behavior, but that the visible church is doing so. 

Has the Catholic Church, which is going to remain a visible Church, dogmatically or doctrinally defined that worshipping false gods is a great thing to do? What is this visible church you continue to refer to? Is this the group commonly called the Catholic Church?

Quote:2. The visible claimant to the Holy See is only a claimant materially and not formally. He has visibly forced heresy and apostasy onto the Church, but in actuality, he has not, for the True Church is indefectible.


That the Bishop of Rome is not in truth the Successor of Peter is a claim that needs to be substantiated. The Catholic Church throughout the world has accepted that the popes from John XXIII to Francis have been the Bishops of Rome. Like it or nor, they are the valid claimants to the apostolic See. 

Also, how has the Pope forced heresy and apostasy on the Catholic Church? And where can I find this True Church? Who are its Bishops? Who is their successor to Peter?
"Especially will I do this if the Lord make known to me that you come together man by man in common through grace, individually, in one faith, and in Jesus Christ... so that you obey the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but which causes that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ." St. Ignatius of Antioch

"But Polycarp... waving his hand towards them, while with groans he look up to heaven, said, 'Away with the Atheists.'" Martyrdom of Polycarp
[-] The following 1 user Likes Justin Tertius's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#19
(05-24-2021, 12:42 AM)Justin Tertius Wrote:  Who is their successor to Peter?

Good question. Pastor aeternus infallibly decreed in Chapter II, Paragraph 5 that,

  1. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.
It's sort of hard to have 'perpetual successors' if the Seat has been empty for 63 years.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply
#20
(05-24-2021, 12:42 AM)Justin Tertius Wrote: Has the Catholic Church, which is going to remain a visible Church, dogmatically or doctrinally defined that worshipping false gods is a great thing to do? What is this visible church you continue to refer to? Is this the group commonly called the Catholic Church?

That the Bishop of Rome is not in truth the Successor of Peter is a claim that needs to be substantiated. The Catholic Church throughout the world has accepted that the popes from John XXIII to Francis have been the Bishops of Rome. Like it or nor, they are the valid claimants to the apostolic See. 

Also, how has the Pope forced heresy and apostasy on the Catholic Church? And where can I find this True Church? Who are its Bishops? Who is their successor to Peter?
1. You are correct, it has not dogmatically or doctrinally defined it as such, but I think it’s clear by the almost unanimous appraisal of JP2’s, Ratzinger’s, and Bergoglio’s doing so by the Bishops that we can see the perspective this church has on the sins of the hierarchy. 

2. The visible church I am referring to is what is commonly called the Catholic Church, yes.

3. By this bolded statement, I assume you are saying “the Bishops throughout the world have....”, not the Catholic Church. Or else you are just begging the question and we are not moving anywhere. So, now that you are probably using the universal acceptance theory, let me refute that. The universal acceptance theory is exactly like the... universal acceptance theory that the Orthodox use in order to twist around the obvious implications of the Council of Florence. The theory states that by itself, on its own authority, the Councils have no true authority but that the Council must be accepted by the Church’s faithful in order to be binding. Yes that’s a simplification but the theory still relates. It doesn’t matter what the Bishops of the world think about the Pope, their recognition of him as the Pope doesn’t validate his authority. The Pope is either Pope or he is not, simple as that, at the election. Now, the Thesis that Sedeprivationist hold to agrees with this and understands that Paul VI (to name an example) only became Pope materially at his election.

4. The “Pope” has forced heresy and apostasy onto the post-conciliar church through a change in doctrine (Vatican II and later teachings), worship (the New Mass), and discipline (an overall decrease in the usual disciplines and spiritual habits of Catholics).

5. The True Church? It is the Catholic Church. We have no formal successor to Peter at the moment, but there was never some promise that there would always be a Pope at every single moment. We are waiting for a true Pope, whether it be because of the recantation of heresy by the present “Pope” or by a new Pope (elected by the college of Cardinals) who will throw the Church out of this crisis.

6. Jovan to answer your objection, I would suggest reading this short article: 

http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/ar...cessor.pdf
“Take my advice and live for a long, long time. Because the maddest thing a man can do in this life is to let himself die.” 

“When life itself seems lunatic, who knows where madness lies? Perhaps to be too practical is madness. To surrender dreams — this may be madness. Too much sanity may be madness — and maddest of all: to see life as it is, and not as it should be!” 

- Don Quixote
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)