"Pope" Francis endorses Fr. Martin's LGBT ministry
#11
The church that Francis is the pope of is simply not the Catholic church. It is a substantially different church than Catholicism.
Reply
#12
(06-29-2021, 11:37 PM)LionHippo Wrote: Absolute denial of Francis as pope and adamantly refusing to accept him as the Holy Father ends in only one place - outside the Church, detached from the sacraments and on the road to being an isolated, spiritually empty former member of the Church.  I'm not sure what can be a more tragic existence for someone professing to be Catholic. What is the sustenance for a Sede?  It is living in a state of perpetual denial of the indefectibility of the Church, and waiting for some magical conclave to form and somehow elect the "real" pope?  This is nothing more than Protestant rapture theology wrapped in Catholic dressing, but instead of waiting to be snatched up to heaven it's waiting for a pope acceptable to sedes.

I agree, but I think Vatican 2 does not. The church apparently includes the orthodox who adamantly refuse to accept the papacy, thus refuse to accept him as pope. He is the spokesperson of the church to them, but since the papacy is rejected, then everything it means, its power, its purpose, all of that, is rejected. He is just another bishop to them, not pope.

Thus, if a person, even a full religion can reject the papacy and still have the church of Christ in them, would that not mean that a person who rejects the pope (a smaller offense as they still accept the papacy) not also be a-ok then? The ortho are just like the sedes, just taken to a higher lvl. If they are ok, then why not sedes?

This is the conundrum ive had since reading more of v2 and talking with people on here, contradictions in practice like this pop up. We have always held exactly what you stated, and yet now we dont for millions of people.
[-] The following 2 users Like Sword of St. Michael's post:
  • Bushum, jack89
Reply
#13
The Church has survived for 2,000 years through good popes and absolutely awful ones too.
The difference is that until relatively recently most Catholics lived their entire lives never having seen more than a photo or two of their pope and possibly reading accounts of Vatican happenings weeks, months or even years after the fact. Even that is only true in the last 150 years.
Now we can and do expect to be able to hear his every utterance in real time.
I wonder if we had had this ability all along if our perception of even the church of our grandparents, let alone the church of antiquity would be entirely different.
"Civilization is always in danger when those who have never learned to obey are given the right to command."
Bishop Fulton J Sheen 

“Tradition is so strong, that future generations will dream of what they never saw.” — G.K. Chesterton
[-] The following 2 users Like Water1965's post:
  • Anon777, LionHippo
Reply
#14
(06-30-2021, 11:53 AM)Sword of St. Michael Wrote: I agree, but I think Vatican 2 does not. The church apparently includes the orthodox who adamantly refuse to accept the papacy, thus refuse to accept him as pope. He is the spokesperson of the church to them, but since the papacy is rejected, then everything it means, its power, its purpose, all of that, is rejected. He is just another bishop to them, not pope.

Thus, if a person, even a full religion can reject the papacy and still have the church of Christ in them, would that not mean that a person who rejects the pope (a smaller offense as they still accept the papacy) not also be a-ok then? The ortho are just like the sedes, just taken to a higher lvl. If they are ok, then why not sedes?

This is the conundrum ive had since reading more of v2 and talking with people on here, contradictions in practice like this pop up. We have always held exactly what you stated, and yet now we dont for millions of people.

A Sede is a baptized Catholic who consciously and willfully leaves the Church by refusing to accept and submit to the Holy Father. Someone brought up Orthodox never left the Catholic Church.
[-] The following 1 user Likes LionHippo's post:
  • Clare Brigid
Reply
#15
(06-30-2021, 11:53 AM)Sword of St. Michael Wrote: I agree, but I think Vatican 2 does not. The church apparently includes the orthodox who adamantly refuse to accept the papacy, thus refuse to accept him as pope. He is the spokesperson of the church to them, but since the papacy is rejected, then everything it means, its power, its purpose, all of that, is rejected. He is just another bishop to them, not pope.

But we are assured that Vatican II neither changed Catholic doctrine nor introduced any new doctrine. This is what the Church has always taught, despite the modernists trying to pretend differently. (emphasis supplied in both.)

From the Bull Unam Sanctam of Pope Boniface VIII:

Quote:Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,‘ and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.


We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: ‘Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.’ [Ps 21:20] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19:23- 24]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: ‘Feed my sheep‘ [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John ‘there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.’ 

From the Catechism of St Pius X:

Quote:12 Q. The many societies of persons who are baptised but who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not, then, belong to the Church of Jesus Christ?


A. No, those who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not belong to the Church of Jesus Christ.
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
#16
(06-30-2021, 10:04 PM)LionHippo Wrote: A Sede is a baptized Catholic who consciously and willfully leaves the Church by refusing to accept and submit to the Holy Father.  Someone brought up Orthodox never left the Catholic Church.

You seem to be trying to describe "schism". The problem is that "schism" is not refusing to obey the Pope, nor refusing submission to a particular Pope. In fact even moral theology books clearly say that the sin of schism is not committed by refusal to obey the Pope, even for a long time.

Schism is committed by refusing the authority of the Papal office: refusing the Papacy, and instead setting up a contrary authority.

I am no Sedevacantist, not even close, but it is not useful to accuse Sedevacantists of schism or "leaving the Church".

What is gained by this label except to try to marginalize them, and not actually point out the real flaws in their position?
[-] The following 3 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Bushum, jovan66102, LionHippo
Reply
#17
(07-01-2021, 12:23 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(06-30-2021, 10:04 PM)LionHippo Wrote: A Sede is a baptized Catholic who consciously and willfully leaves the Church by refusing to accept and submit to the Holy Father.  Someone brought up Orthodox never left the Catholic Church.

You seem to be trying to describe "schism". The problem is that "schism" is not refusing to obey the Pope, nor refusing submission to a particular Pope. In fact even moral theology books clearly say that the sin of schism is not committed by refusal to obey the Pope, even for a long time.

Schism is committed by refusing the authority of the Papal office: refusing the Papacy, and instead setting up a contrary authority.

I am no Sedevacantist, not even close, but it is not useful to accuse Sedevacantists of schism or "leaving the Church".

What is gained by this label except to try to marginalize them, and not actually point out the real flaws in their position?
Thanks for the clarification. I was trying to find a quick reply but was off on the terminology, not necessarily trying to marginalize them.
Reply
#18
Also just trying to spice things up around here because the forum has been kind of "blah" lately. At least from my perspective.
[-] The following 1 user Likes LionHippo's post:
  • Sword of St. Michael
Reply
#19
(06-30-2021, 10:04 PM)LionHippo Wrote:
(06-30-2021, 11:53 AM)Sword of St. Michael Wrote: I agree, but I think Vatican 2 does not. The church apparently includes the orthodox who adamantly refuse to accept the papacy, thus refuse to accept him as pope. He is the spokesperson of the church to them, but since the papacy is rejected, then everything it means, its power, its purpose, all of that, is rejected. He is just another bishop to them, not pope.

Thus, if a person, even a full religion can reject the papacy and still have the church of Christ in them, would that not mean that a person who rejects the pope (a smaller offense as they still accept the papacy) not also be a-ok then? The ortho are just like the sedes, just taken to a higher lvl. If they are ok, then why not sedes?

This is the conundrum ive had since reading more of v2 and talking with people on here, contradictions in practice like this pop up. We have always held exactly what you stated, and yet now we dont for millions of people.

A Sede is a baptized Catholic who consciously and willfully leaves the Church by refusing to accept and submit to the Holy Father.  Someone brought up Orthodox never left the Catholic Church.

So on that note, I would argue they would be. Every legit baptism is accepted as a catholic baptism, and thus making them catholic. Thus, every protestant, ortho etc child that is baptised is baptised catholic and is catholic. Thus, when they are adults, and persist in their heresy/schism, then they leave the church. This is why we dont re-baptise christians when they return to the church (unless there is grave doubt that they were baptised correctly).

Thus every orthodox person has left the church willfully by choosing to reject the papacy after the age of reason, and remaining in their schism. A sede on the other hand is baptised catholic (like all christians), and unlike the ortho, they accept the papacy. They reject the person, not the dogma. Thus, why is the ortho, who flat out rejects dogma from the church about the papcy, is in schism from willfully rejecting the church after being baptised into it, why do they have the church of Christ in them and sede's are outside from this church, when they accept more then the ortho?
Reply
#20
(07-01-2021, 06:23 AM)LionHippo Wrote: Also just trying to spice things up around here because the forum has been kind of "blah" lately. At least from my perspective.

I hear you there, why im going down rabbit holes more of late, add some life back in
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)