|
Post by Pacelli on May 5, 2017 12:58:10 GMT -5
I will start with Canon 2315, the Suspicion of Heresy: Michael wrote quoting Woywood: I am adding emphasis to this. The law requires the suspected person to be admonished. It is straight forward as you say, but what authority has admonished (warned) them? The effects of the law do not happen until this happens. I have also posted the much more detailed explanation of this canon HEREDo you still want to go through the canons that cause the suspicion of heresy?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 5, 2017 13:37:16 GMT -5
Michael wrote:
This is only a proof of what I have been saying. Pope Pius IX is naming the leader of a rebellious group, and by naming him, making the fact of this sect now clear. The Pope by doing this has made it even more clear, so that there can be no excuse for supporting the sectarian leader or supporting in any way the sect.
There is a difference between individual heretics or schismatics and a sect. They are dealt differently. Once the reality of a sect is known, if one retains membership in the group, or joins it, he is by that act outside of the Church. In the above case, due to the Pope's statement, there can be no excuse for being part of this sect. A man in this situation cannot say, "this is not a sect, we are Catholics," as the Pope has made this known.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 5, 2017 14:00:40 GMT -5
SOURCE 3: Decet Romanum Pontificem (Papal Bull on the Condemnation and Excommunication of Martin Luther, the Heretic, and his Followers, January 3, 1521.) linked: www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10decet.htm
"Our decrees which follow are passed against Martin and others who follow him in the obstinacy of his depraved and damnable purpose, as also against those who defend and protect him with a military bodyguard, and do not fear to support him with their own resources or in any other way, and have and do presume to offer and afford help, counsel and favour toward him. All their names, surnames and rank—however lofty and dazzling their dignity may be—we wish to be taken as included in these decrees with the same effect as if they were individually listed and could be so listed in their publication, which must be furthered with an energy to match their contents. [Again we have "and others who follow him" not named by name. Bergoglio, aka Francis celebrates Martin Luther as a "witness to the gospel" by the way. Adding fuel to the fire of his heresies and making him directly condemned by this very document! See below.] On all these we decree the sentences of excommunication, of anathema, of our perpetual condemnation and interdict; of privation of dignities, honours and property on them and their descendants, and of declared unfitness for such possessions; of the confiscation of their goods and of the crime of treason; and these and the other sentences, censures and punishments which are inflicted by canon law on heretics and are set out in our aforesaid missive, we decree to have fallen on all these men to their damnation. [This condemnation extends even to "their descendants".]IV We add to our present declaration, by our Apostolic authority, that states, territories, camps, towns and places in which these men have temporarily lived or chanced to visit, along with their possessions—cities which house cathedrals and metropolitans, monasteries and other religious and sacred places, privileged or unprivileged—one and all are placed under our ecclesiastical interdict, while this interdict lasts, no pretext of Apostolic Indulgence (except in cases the law allows, and even there, as it were, with the doors shut and those under excommunication and interdict excluded) shall avail to allow the celebration of mass and the other divine offices. We prescribe and enjoin that the men in question are everywhere to be denounced publicly as excommunicated, accursed, condemned, interdicted, deprived of possessions and incapable of owning them. They are to be strictly shunned by all faithful Christians. ["Strictly shunned by ALL FAITHFUL CHRISTIANS"]
V We would make known to all the small store that Martin, his followers and the other rebels have set on God and his Church by their obstinate and shameless temerity. We would protect the herd from one infectious animal, lest its infection spread to the healthy ones. Hence we lay the following injunction on each and every patriarch, archbishop, bishop, on the prelates of patriarchal, metropolitan, cathedral and collegiate churches, and on the religious of every Order—even the mendicants—privileged or unprivileged, wherever they may be stationed: that in the strength of their vow of obedience and on pain of the sentence of excommunication, they shall, if so required in the execution of these presents, publicly announce and cause to be announced by others in their churches, that this same Martin and the rest are excommunicate, accursed, condemned, heretics, [Excommunication is even commanded against those who don't publicly denounce these heretics!] hardened, interdicted, deprived of possessions and incapable of owning them, and so listed in the enforcement of these presents. Three days will be given: we pronounce canonical warning and allow one day's notice on the first, another on the second, but on the third peremptory and final execution of our order. This shall take place on a Sunday or some other festival, when a large congregation assembles for worship. The banner of the cross shall be raised, the bells rung, the candles lit and after a time extinguished, cast on the ground and trampled under foot, and the stones shall be cast forth three times, and the other ceremonies observed which are usual in such cases. The faithful Christians, one and all, shall be enjoined strictly to shun these men.We would occasion still greater confounding on the said Martin and the other heretics we have mentioned, and on their adherents, followers and partisans: hence, on the strength of their vow of obedience we enjoin each and every patriarch, archbishop and all other prelates, that even as they were appointed on the authority of Jerome to allay schisms, so now in the present crisis, as their office obliges them, they shall make themselves a wall of defence for their Christian people. They shall not keep silence like dumb dogs that cannot bark, but incessantly cry and lift up their voice, preaching and causing to be preached the word of God and the truth of the Catholic faith against the damnable articles and heretics aforesaid." Hence further proof that excommunication for heresy does NOT require a name of any individual. There are more examples, but this should suffice. QED. on this point. Can we agree on this bit for now?
Peace in Christ, M.
The same comments above apply here. I may add that when the Church declares one a vitandi, Catholics are duty bound to avoid such a person, to not give him support. In this case, Luther was a sectarian leader of a group which was in open defiance to the authority of the Church. Once Pope Leo X named Luther and his supporters, there could no longer be any excuse. Prior to this, there could be an excuse, as the sect was not clearly known, its boundaries were not clearly established, as with the Conciliar sect. Another way of saying this is: prior to the public intervention of the authority (i.e. the Pope) Catholics may not in a all cases recognize a heretic, a schismatic, an apostate, or the sect itself. The undeclared sectarians and Catholics might mix, as Catholics are unaware of the reality of the situation, or they may not yet have yet have made a judgment against persons, or have identified the reality of a sect. Since this is the reality of our situation, a broad brush cannot be used against a group which may, and in fact does contain Catholics. If one does this, they rashly judge Catholics by unjustly assuming they are part of the sect. The boundaries of the sect are not clearly established as they (the undeclared sectarians) associate and worship with Catholics and pretend that they are Catholics.
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 5, 2017 19:27:01 GMT -5
For clarity sake, I'm going to address these individually. The law requires the suspected person to be admonished. It is straight forward as you say, but what authority has admonished (warned) them? It doesn't say who must warn them... nor does it list an authorized procedure. A general warning from anyone may work here for all we know. Considering the fact that all the supposed "authorities" are themselves heretics this lack of distinction is very convenient. You don't agree on this "fact" but I'll get to that, I can only address one topic at a time. I have also posted the much more detailed explanation of this canon HEREYou're source cuts off right when it starts to directly pertain to our situation. Can you post the next page with it? This is important. Do you still want to go through the canons that cause the suspicion of heresy? Yes... it still applies. Also, do we now agree on the fact that there is a distinction between one who is excommunicated, and one who is in heresy?
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 5, 2017 19:58:52 GMT -5
There is a difference between individual heretics or schismatics and a sect. This is the VERY point I've been trying to make. Sects are different and supporting one, or being in union with one is a crime with very serious consequences. Pope Pius IX is naming the leader of a rebellious group, and by naming him, making the fact of this sect now clear. This is a personal interpretation of this document purpose. Once Pope Leo X named Luther and his supporters, there could no longer be any excuse. So what is the excuse of Francis? JP2? Bennedict 16?, John 23?, Paul VI? (on a personal level) Take it to the "new sect" level and what is the excuse for the novelty of Vatican II? This false council teaches that Lutherans are a part of the Catholic Church now. "subsists in" The condemnation of Luther is a blanket condemnation that is still in effect. Vatican II supports Luther and is hereby anathema as a false council. This is not the ONLY reason, but it only takes one now doesn't it? Prior to this, there could be an excuse, as the sect was not clearly known, its boundaries were not clearly established This is an interesting personal interpretation. What authority do you base this blanket statement upon? Where is it written that its ok to be a heretic who defies Church authority as long as the Church has not condemned your sect leader by name? According to this theology, I can legally start a sect today, and perpetrate all kinds of novel heresy (as long as its new) and all who follow me are free from guilt until a condemnation is written formally against me. This is just shy of anarchy and it is not true. Catholics may not in a all cases recognize a heretic, a schismatic, an apostate, or the sect itself. More personal interpretation. Rebelling against Church authority is schism without needing to be a part of a sect. Denying doctrines is heresy without needing to be part of a sect. These people were heretics and schismatics before the condemnation of Luther... the difference is before the condemnation it was personal and after it became global i.e. the sect is named. Once the sect is named it doesn't matter if you "accidentally" became a member. Although the accidental membership explanation is thin and speculatory at best. Since this is the reality of our situation, a broad brush cannot be used against a group which may, and in fact does contain Catholics. Yes it can, and this very document does so. This document condemns even "their descendants", not even listing a number of generations. Perpetual condemnation for all members of the sect... all those who support said sect, all who spread any of their doctrines, all their children and children's children to perpetuity and even those who fail to condemn this sect. You don't get a more clear blanket condemnation. If one does this, they rashly judge Rash judgement goes both ways here. I judge according to ecclesiastical condemnations of those who support the Lutheran sect (in this example, there are others) which would be "just" judgement. You, on the other hand, judge based on personal interpretation of what an individual may or may not believe while being part of a sect that supports and claims to actually be a part of the Lutheran heresy, via Vatican II teachings. That appears to be "rash" judgement to me as it goes against this very documents direct instructions to the faithful. The major problem we seem to be running into here is that you fail to recognize the apostate council of Vatican II, as the beginning of a new PUBLIC sect, that is in union with not only Lutheranism (a condemned heresy), but built upon Modernism (condemned as the synthesis of all heresies under Pope Saint Pius X). What then would it take to create a new sect according to you? You don't believe the circus and clown show of the Novus Ordo sect meets the criteria for being a sect... what does? If I want to start a new sect TODAY... what must I do? Pax, M
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 5, 2017 19:59:39 GMT -5
Thanks michael...but in the future dont use over size texts for highlighters. Got it!
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on May 5, 2017 21:10:21 GMT -5
Thanks michael...but in the future dont use over size texts for highlighters. Got it! I will be fixing it
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 5, 2017 23:13:55 GMT -5
Michael wrote: This is incorrect. The Code most certainly specifies who is authorized to give the warning. Since you are quoting Woywood, you should be aware that his commentary is very short on each canon, and it is clear that he is taking for granted in the reader a certain background knowledge. Augustine's commentary is a much more detailed commentary that gets into in depth explanations. I would recommend to you to read his commentary, even a few times, it will help you to avoid making these kinds of mistakes. I posted for you the section on suspicion of heresy, HERE If you scroll down to page 286, then begin at subsection A, it explains that a warning must be issued according to the procedure of canon 2307. I would then urge you to read Augustines commentary on Canon 2307 which explains in detail who is authorized to give such warnings. This section is found HERE. If you scroll down to page 267 #1, it states that the person who is to give the warning is the ordinary or one he designates. If you then go to page 268 it gets into even more detail on who is authorized to give either a public or private warning. I am out of time, and will answer more tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on May 6, 2017 5:18:18 GMT -5
In my simple peasent catholic knowledge I know it is not the laitys authority or responsability...I know THAT.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 6, 2017 13:42:15 GMT -5
In my simple peasent catholic knowledge I know it is not the laitys authority or responsability...I know THAT. It's not peasant knowledge, it's the Catholic instinct. You have the healthy spirit of a Roman, looking to the commissioned representatives of Christ to authoritatively rule over you. This spirit is not common in our days, 50 years of crisis have warped it in many. For some, matters such as this are easy to grasp, others need rigorous proofs to recover this spirit.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 6, 2017 13:44:25 GMT -5
Michael wrote: Sure, I will have it up later.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 6, 2017 14:00:37 GMT -5
Michael wrote:
I agree that the canons still apply. The trouble is that absent the authoritative warning, the effects of the law do not apply in the cases of suspicion of heresy.
I do believe these canons are still relevant in that they present factual evidence from the Church of actions that cause a legitimate suspicion of heresy. They can be used as part of the case we make to establish a moral certitude that another is a heretic.
I have never denied such a distinction between heresy and excommunication. Heresy is a crime, excommunication is a censure, which is incurred either automatically or by direct naming of the criminal with a sentence.
The crux of the discussion, however, is how this fact is determined in particular cases prior to the judgment of the Church, and secondly, the discussion is focusing on the fact that such a judgment cannot be made against those who are either not guilty of heresy, or in cases in which there is a lack of data to make such a judgment. The discussuon also is dealing with how Catholics are to treat uncondemned heretics, once they are known.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 6, 2017 14:04:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on May 6, 2017 14:30:37 GMT -5
It seems to me (and this is not meant as any kind of insult) if you hold the dogmatic una cum sedevacantist position there arent many choices in the East. I personally even as a cradle byzantine dont go to my Parish for anything but the Sacraments period full stop . Their schools ,seminars,retreats etc etc...mostly all infected by modernism or ecumanism with the orthoducks I simply avoid. Greetings Vox... The problem with this theology is it places you in union with...(heretics). This from an earlier post...M...please clearly define HOW I am in in union with a heretic when I nether subscribe to nor support said heretic. When in fact I openly reject the heresys publically and actively (as the forum I host shows) attempt as best a layperson can, oppose said heresys...
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 6, 2017 17:06:42 GMT -5
Since you are quoting Woywood, you should be aware that his commentary is very short on each canon, and it is clear that he is taking for granted in the reader a certain background knowledge. Augustine's commentary is a much more detailed commentary that gets into in depth explanations. I would recommend to you to read his commentary, even a few times, it will help you to avoid making these kinds of mistakes. Your source is more detailed... agreed. I'll be using it from now on. However the mistake is insubstantial seeing as there are no authority figures left not in union with the new sect, or that have any jurisdiction (that I know of). And you seem to agree with the principle of using this to measure moral certitude on who is or is not a heretic here... I do believe these canons are still relevant in that they present factual evidence from the Church of actions that cause a legitimate suspicion of heresy. They can be used as part of the case we make to establish a moral certitude that another is a heretic. I have never denied such a distinction between heresy and excommunication. But you do make the assumption that when the canons say it is lawful to approach an excommunicated priest for sacraments in danger of death, that it applies to those in heretical and schismatic sects. I don't know that it does. And I'd like further evidence that clarifies this, as there is a clear difference between an excommunicated priest and an apostate / heretic / schismatic sect member. The crux of the discussion, however, is how this fact is determined in particular cases prior to the judgment of the Church, and secondly, the discussion is focusing on the fact that such a judgment cannot be made against those who are either not guilty of heresy, or in cases in which there is a lack of data to make such a judgment. The discussuon also is dealing with how Catholics are to treat uncondemned heretics, once they are known. All these are side issues that are relevant, and should be addressed... however the real crux is this... Novus Ordo is a new heretical sect and without this distinction you are fumbling around in the dark, scrambling over who is and who is not a heretic and looking for authority where there is none. If you don't agree that the Novus Ordo is a sect, I ask you then "what is"? If I want to start a new heretical sect today... what must I do? Perhaps the following steps would work? 1. Call a false council and promulgate novel heresies? 2. Create a new, novel, invalid form of worship and forbid the traditional form. 3. Create a new "ordination" rite that is invalid and begin a whole new kind of "priesthood". 4. Publicly perform all these new heresies for the world to see and unite myself with formerly condemned heretics like Lutherans and Anglicans, in common "worship". 5. Praise all enemies of the Catholic Church and assist them in destroying said Church's infrastructures and traditions. If this wouldn't work to make a new sect... I ask again... what else must I do to start a new sect? Peace in Christ, M.
|
|