|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 16, 2023 7:21:02 GMT -5
Of course Pacelli, I am expressing my position in the most peaceful way possible. I do not want to condemn, judge, or attack the sedevacantist position. I completely understand and respect the desire to resolve the current crisis. Believe me, I entirely share this desire, although I do not agree with the solution. In fact, I think this is precisely what motivates me to continue incessantly searching for a justification for your position. It would be a terrible conclusion, but at least I would have peace of mind. You are presenting your position in a peaceful manner, and I am doing the same. It's the only way to discuss such intense matters to draw forth any fruit. Once emotion gets mixed in, any hope of civility discussing these types of matters falls apart, so I appreciate that you want to discuss this peacefully and civilly. The justification for the position comes from two things: 1. The fact that an individual Catholic can recognize heresy prior to the judgment of the Church. 2. That the universal teaching and laws of the popes are protected, and by that the pope cannot bind the universal Church to any heresy or serious doctrinal error against the Faith or morals or evil laws. I may also add that when one adopts the position of "sedevacantism," it does not mean that one must automatically adopt other positions which unfortunately have been linked with the position. This ambiguity of the term "sedevacantism" is one reason why I really no longer like to use the term and when I do, I like to make sure to anyone that I am communicating with that when I use the term, I am only referring to the private, non-juridical judgment made by individual Catholics that Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis are undeclared antipopes, and any judgment of their status does not automatically extend to the bishops, priests, and laypeople who still have not made any judgment about this. Any private, non-juridical judgment about the Faith of these other individuals must be made on a case by case basis and not presumed.
|
|
alyosha
Junior Member
Whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God
Posts: 60
|
Post by alyosha on Sept 16, 2023 8:39:25 GMT -5
I commend you for the prudence of your position. I agree that whatever the ultimate position an individual takes in this time of crisis, given the unprecedented confusion in the Church today, it is not prudent to state anything about the position of others categorically. So thank you for that. I understand your justifications, yes. I've tried my best since I entered the forum to explain why I think that it doesn't work. I don't want to get repetitive, so it's best we agree to disagree on this point. But I still insist that you can help me with the second justification. You are a much more knowledgeable person than me on this subject, so let me ask you again: Are there any binding teachings from the conciliar church that, once carried out, necessarily imply disobedience to the Traditional Magisterium? Because if the answer is yes, then I may be persuaded to agree with your position.
Edit: Allow me a second question Pacelli. You previously stated, and I apologize if I misrepresent you, that the Second Vatican Council promulgated in its official documents, not necessarily an unequivocally heretical doctrine, but used ambiguous language that allowed the Church to be directed towards heretical paths by post-conciliar popes. Would it be possible for you to tell me what are these heretical paths the Conciliar Church is being directed towards, and how this can be linked directly to the teachings of Vatican II? In other words, are there any heretical practices today, endorsed by the Church, which we can trace back to Vatican II? Thank you in advance.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Sept 16, 2023 19:05:22 GMT -5
Hi Alyosha,
You said in your post above :
For a recent example see Amoris Laetitia or for another example see allowance of Holy Communion to non-Catholics (see new code of Canon Law - 1983). I am sure others on this forum, who are more knowledgeable than I, would have other examples.
I respectfully urge you to listen to the following video for discussion of this same question between two very knowledgeable Catholics (of the sedevacantist perspective) i.e. Louie Verrecchio - akacatholic.com and John Lane. (Please excuse me about not answering you on the other thread. I think SDWright did an excellent job and I didn’t want to confuse people reading the thread).
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Sept 16, 2023 19:07:15 GMT -5
For your perusal, I have transcribed part of the above video between ~6:00 minutes to 21:00 minutes. JL = John Lane and LV = Louie Verrecchio.
|
|
alyosha
Junior Member
Whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God
Posts: 60
|
Post by alyosha on Sept 16, 2023 20:26:52 GMT -5
Hello wenceslav , thank you so much. I've listened to this fascinating conversation, thank you for showing me. Certainly, it has a lot of information to reflect on. But let me ask you about the examples you provided for my question, are these examples really binding the faithful to act in disobedience to the Traditional Magisterium? Leaving aside the question of whether there really is a theological contradiction, I grant that for free, but it seems to me that even so someone could easily obey both Magisteriums at the same time. For example, in the case of Amoris laetitia, an adulterer could simply not receive communion, since Amoris don't bind him to receive, but only permits it. The same with the 1983 CCN, it only permits the act, so it is easy to obey both Magisteriums. Am I correct in this assessment?
What I'm asking is a situation where there's no escape. You have to obey the conciliar Magisterium and that would mean disobedience to the Traditional Magisterium. Are there any examples of that?
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 373
|
Post by John Lewis on Sept 17, 2023 1:05:14 GMT -5
Alyosha, adopting the sedevacantist position doesn't give one peace of mind. One already has that if one has supernatural confidence in God and in his will. The sedevacantist position doesn't give us the ability to resolve the crisis and it is not a solution to it, rather it is an explanation for it. It simply says that a public heretic cannot be Pope and because they have separated themselves from the Church by Divine Law such a man can be judged by the Church as not being Pope and a new Pope must be elected. If more Catholics were to recognise this, we would pray for a new one and our prayers would be answered by God one day, as promised by Our Lady at Fatima.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Sept 17, 2023 6:07:23 GMT -5
" when one adopts the position of "sedevacantism," it does not mean that one must automatically adopt other positions which unfortunately have been linked with the position. This ambiguity of the term "sedevacantism" is one reason why I really no longer like to use the term and when I do, I like to make sure to anyone that I am communicating with that when I use the term, I am only referring to the private, non-juridical judgment made by individual Catholics that Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis are undeclared antipopes, and any judgment of their status does not automatically extend to the bishops, priests, and laypeople who still have not made any judgment about this. Any private, non-juridical judgment about the Faith of these other individuals must be made on a case by case basis and not presumed...."perfectly said Brother
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Sept 17, 2023 10:46:46 GMT -5
" when one adopts the position of "sedevacantism," it does not mean that one must automatically adopt other positions which unfortunately have been linked with the position. This ambiguity of the term "sedevacantism" is one reason why I really no longer like to use the term and when I do, I like to make sure to anyone that I am communicating with that when I use the term, I am only referring to the private, non-juridical judgment made by individual Catholics that Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis are undeclared antipopes, and any judgment of their status does not automatically extend to the bishops, priests, and laypeople who still have not made any judgment about this. Any private, non-juridical judgment about the Faith of these other individuals must be made on a case by case basis and not presumed...."perfectly said Brother I agree Vox - on Pacelli’s description. It’s concise and wonderful. I still hope and believe that the majority of Catholics who call themselves “sedevacantist” agree with the above. Another but equally well defined description is given by a post on Crisisinthechurch.com.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 17, 2023 12:09:14 GMT -5
@alyoshawrote: I meant to address this previously, but our discussion kept focusing on other matters, so now I will answer this: I think the answer depends on who "you" are: 1. If you are a priest under Francis, you would be in a direct conflict between the Canon Law of 1983 and Divine Law along with all ecclesiastical law in Church history, as to whether you could give Holy Communion to a member of an Orthodox or even some Protestant sects at your mass. 2. Again, if you are a priest, following the clear teaching of Francis, quoted above by wenceslav , you would be in direct conflict with Divine law and all ecclesiastical law in Church history in that you must give Communion to public adulterers. 3. If you are a Catholic legislator or even a voter, you could not vote for any law that makes Catholicism the official religion of the government, and thereby making only Catholicism have legal rights under the law, and any false religions or sects only be tolerated under the law according to the judgment of the state. If you did vote for such a law, it would be in direct conflict with Dignitatis Humanae and explicit magisterial teaching of John Paul II that all have a natural right to follow their conscience and the state cannot interfere with that. 4. You as a Catholic would not be free to denounce the public evil practice of interfaith gatherings and prayer, as such practices were specifically authorized by John Paul II, (read the encyclical Ut Unum Sint, and the 1993 Vatican Directory on Ecumenism), and the example has been set in public practices of interfaith throughout the entire world and in Rome itself, with the "Pope" himself actively participating in these types of prayer events going back for decades. This puts one in direct conflict with the constant teaching of the Church, and such practices are condemned by Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Mortalium Animos. Since silence means consent, you as a Catholic are forced to remain silent, and if you do speak up, then it puts you in a direct conflict between what was taught and practiced verse what is now taught and practiced. You would be speaking out against practices directly authorized by, and being used by the "pope" himself, along with most of the bishops of the world. I could give you more examples, but is this sufficient to make the point?
|
|
alyosha
Junior Member
Whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God
Posts: 60
|
Post by alyosha on Sept 17, 2023 13:11:30 GMT -5
Pacelli , thank you. These are great examples. But let me ask some questions about them: 1- Can a priest, in examples 1 and 2, just refuse to give communion to those people? It's my understanding that such communion is permitted, but a priest is not bound to give, is he? 2- In example 3 I think that doesn't follow, because there is a way you can obey both Magisteriums, by not voting in this law. The traditional Magisterium certainly didn't bind you to vote in such a law. 3- Again, in example 4, there is a way to obey both Magisteriums I think, by simply not participating in such gatherings. Certainly, the conciliar church don't bind anyone to participate in these gatherings. Can you please elucidate to me where I made a mistake?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 18, 2023 10:07:22 GMT -5
Hello alyosha , These are good questions, and I will answer all of them. You wrote: No, canon law secures the right of a Catholic to receive Holy Communion, and it cannot be denied unless certain conditions are met. One of these conditions is that if one is an unrepentant public sinner, then he must be denied. The priest must give you Holy Communion or he sins by violating both Divine and Ecclesiastical law. Please refer to Augustine's commentary on canon 853: Then go a few pages ahead to canon 855, which explains who must not be admitted to Holy Communion: I realize that this commentary is on the 1917 Code, but if you look at the 1983 Code of a John Paul II or the Code for the eastern Catholic rites, you will see the same thing on this particular point. Since Francis has now taught that the category of public sin that has always been known as such is no longer to be regarded as such, there is a direct practical conflict that a priest must now choose to accept the constant teaching of the Church, and reject Francis's teaching, and therefore deny Holy Communion, or conversely accept Francis' teaching and reject the constant teaching of the Church, and thereby give Holy Communion to an unrepentant public sinner. There is no middle road for a priest in this situation, he will be forced to make a choice to act between two opposing teachings, if such a public sinner to which he is aware approaches him for Communion. I am out of time right now, but I'll come back to this later today or tomorrow on the other points.
|
|
alyosha
Junior Member
Whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God
Posts: 60
|
Post by alyosha on Sept 18, 2023 11:44:53 GMT -5
Thank you Pacelli. That's certainly interesting. I'll take a closer look at this particular case. Of course, this question depends entirely on the level of magisterial authority present in Amoris Laetitia, but if the document unequivocally binds priests to give communion to adulterers, I believe there really might be something here.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 19, 2023 6:45:40 GMT -5
Hello alyosha , You wrote: Yesterday, I ran out of time before I could answer the rest of the points. In regards to administering Holy Communion to sects in which the persons are validly baptized, the law of John Paul II compels priests to do so: And The law of John Paul II is clear, that members of eastern schismatic sects and other similar sects, are by law allowed to receive Holy Communion by Catholic priests, and priests must give them Holy Communion. Therefore, if a known "orthodox" person shows up at the priest's mass and presents himself for reception of Communion, the priest is in a direct conflict between the law as written in the 1983 Code verse the Traditional practice of the Catholic Church to never give Holy Communion to those outside of the Church.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 19, 2023 8:00:44 GMT -5
alyosha wrote: There is a lot of misunderstanding of one's obligation to vote, but the obligation of voting when one's vote serves the common good is certainly there, and a failure to vote when the circumstances of the election are on grave matters between issues or candidates that are clearly good verse those issues or candidates that are clearly evil may be a mortal sin. One is not morally free to just sit it out. One can easily see the evil effects of the teaching from Dignitatis Humanae (hereafter DH) in countries that were once Catholic strongholds, such as Brazil, Argentina, and for the most part all of South and Central America, as the countries are now flooded with Assembly of God, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, etc., and according to DH, the state may not suppress them or in any way protect its citizens from these toxic and aggressive sects. Now, let's look at papal teaching on the moral obligation of voting. Pope Pius XII taught the following in reference to a specific election in which the circumstances were dire, but the principles of this teaching are clear as far as they may apply to other elections in which the gravity of what is being voted on is similar: Fr. Cranny commenting on the entire text above to which I gave just one small segment (please read the entire sections on the teaching of popes, bishops and theologians to fully grasp this) stated: In his dissertation, he gives many other quotes from popes, and also from bishops, and then provides many explanations of the theologians. To distill it down, if an election may have grave consequences, such as a man of evil principles is running on one ticket and on the other a man of good principles, the obligation would be grave and a failure to vote without a good reason would be a serious sin, but in lesser elections, negligence may be a venial sin. To get back to the case at hand, if a Catholic is confronted with an election in which the consequence of the results were that the state could be able to exercise its power to protect the rights of the Church, and be authorized by law to be able to suppress sects, verse being unable to do anything in the face of sectarians spreading error and deceiving Catholics throughout their land, one would have to make a choice, adhere to the teaching of DH and John Paul II, and stand by the new teaching that each person has a right to follow their own conscience, and the state cannot interfere, or follow the magisterial teaching of many Popes which expressly taught that error has no rights and states could interfere to protect the rights of the true religion and stop the spread of error and falsehood in their territory. As such an election would be a grave matter, sitting it out so one doesn't have to deal with this conflict, based on the teaching of the popes and bishops, along with statements from numerous moral theologians, does not seem to be a moral act. This scenario would put one in a position to choose which magisterial teaching is the true one, that which was taught for centuries until DH, or that which was taught by DH and continued by John Paul II and to some extent the other post-Conciliar "popes." The two teachings are in conflict with each other, and only one can be true.
|
|
alyosha
Junior Member
Whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God
Posts: 60
|
Post by alyosha on Sept 19, 2023 9:11:51 GMT -5
Ok, I disagree with your interpretation present in the last post. Let me try to be as briefly and as I can:
1 - The juxtaposition of teachings would only be valid in a scenario of “serious moral obligation” to vote. In a complex political scenario, with multiple positions, I believe it is impossible for this to be factually obvious, unless it is something egregious like a nazi running.
2- DH would only unequivocally bind someone to not vote in a particular candidate if the opposition doesn’t violate any Catholic Teaching. Otherwise, one is easily permitted to use his own reasoning to access the lesser of two evils.
In the purest example: 2 100% Catholic candidates, where the only difference between them is the use or lack of use of the law to suppress other religions, I don’t think there’s any obligation involved.
|
|