|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 4, 2016 16:36:48 GMT -5
I think Pacelli above has answered your objection...but let me be clear...who the hell am I to look down my nose at the person who through no willful intent consider Francis a valid Pope? Is it not all over the Papers...the media...does he not dress the part...did he apparently not go through the proper procedure? You see we here cannot judge less informed Catholics...not everyone has the time or the intellectual curiosity to ferret the truth out...or maybe even the ability. (I speak of the laity of course) But they still may be outstanding beloved Catholics...even more likely, better than myself! I get sickened by elitism in Traditional Catholics...the blind need our help not condemnation. Pacelli is referring to an inapplicable distinction. It's not that we are binding people to our opinion, but that they are already bound by the Church's teachings to come to that conclusion. Perhaps someone is not culpable of mortal sin for thinking Francis is a pope due to their ignorance of Catholic doctrine, but the same is true for protestants ignorant of the Catholic Faith. Nope sorry not a fair or apt comparison...the CATHOLICS who are mistaken about Bergolio...through no fault of their own...even if the information seems perfectly clear to more informed Catholics does NOT make them protestants. Consider that very ignorant, unschooled, not very pious, ugly, lazy etc etc...can still be Catholics in generally good standing. This is the common state of humanity and one of the very points of Christ's whole mission. He came to save the sick not the healthy. The people going to hell are the hierarchy and the prelate's whose job it is to instruct and advise the laity and who are misleading and not doing the job they agreed to do. You cannot blame the soldier for being wounded and dying and losing the battle when the General is keeping the supplies needed away from the soldier.
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Aug 4, 2016 22:10:51 GMT -5
Love that post Vox. I think it loops right back around to what Semperfidelis said about membership in the Church.
|
|
|
Post by lukedashjr on Aug 5, 2016 0:18:25 GMT -5
Pacelli is referring to an inapplicable distinction. It's not that we are binding people to our opinion, but that they are already bound by the Church's teachings to come to that conclusion. Perhaps someone is not culpable of mortal sin for thinking Francis is a pope due to their ignorance of Catholic doctrine, but the same is true for protestants ignorant of the Catholic Faith. Nope sorry not a fair or apt comparison...the CATHOLICS who are mistaken about Bergolio...through no fault of their own...even if the information seems perfectly clear to more informed Catholics does NOT make them protestants. Consider that very ignorant, unschooled, not very pious, ugly, lazy etc etc...can still be Catholics in generally good standing. This is the common state of humanity and one of the very points of Christ's whole mission. He came to save the sick not the healthy. The people going to hell are the hierarchy and the prelate's whose job it is to instruct and advise the laity and who are misleading and not doing the job they agreed to do. You cannot blame the soldier for being wounded and dying and losing the battle when the General is keeping the supplies needed away from the soldier. And what of the "CATHOLICS" who are mistaken about the papacy, through no fault of their own (let's say because they see "Pope" Francis teaching clear heresy), even if the information seems perfectly clear to more informed Catholics, and therefore consider the Orthodox or Anglicans as the true Church? There is literally no distinction here.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 5, 2016 5:02:10 GMT -5
Nope sorry not a fair or apt comparison...the CATHOLICS who are mistaken about Bergolio...through no fault of their own...even if the information seems perfectly clear to more informed Catholics does NOT make them protestants. Consider that very ignorant, unschooled, not very pious, ugly, lazy etc etc...can still be Catholics in generally good standing. This is the common state of humanity and one of the very points of Christ's whole mission. He came to save the sick not the healthy. The people going to hell are the hierarchy and the prelate's whose job it is to instruct and advise the laity and who are misleading and not doing the job they agreed to do. You cannot blame the soldier for being wounded and dying and losing the battle when the General is keeping the supplies needed away from the soldier. And what of the "CATHOLICS" who are mistaken about the papacy, through no fault of their own (let's say because they see "Pope" Francis teaching clear heresy), even if the information seems perfectly clear to more informed Catholics, and therefore consider the Orthodox or Anglicans as the true Church? There is literally no distinction here. First off you assume the hypothetical Catholic is capable of recognizing a heresy. A big assumption I would be interested to have from you the definition of a Lay Catholic. Obviously a person who self Identifys as Catholic is not also an anglican or orthoduck..
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 5, 2016 13:30:19 GMT -5
I think Pacelli above has answered your objection...but let me be clear...who the hell am I to look down my nose at the person who through no willful intent consider Francis a valid Pope? Is it not all over the Papers...the media...does he not dress the part...did he apparently not go through the proper procedure? You see we here cannot judge less informed Catholics...not everyone has the time or the intellectual curiosity to ferret the truth out...or maybe even the ability. (I speak of the laity of course) But they still may be outstanding beloved Catholics...even more likely, better than myself! I get sickened by elitism in Traditional Catholics...the blind need our help not condemnation. Pacelli is referring to an inapplicable distinction. It's not that we are binding people to our opinion, but that they are already bound by the Church's teachings to come to that conclusion. Perhaps someone is not culpable of mortal sin for thinking Francis is a pope due to their ignorance of Catholic doctrine, but the same is true for protestants ignorant of the Catholic Faith. First off, who bound them? The last I checked, the Church has not bound Catholics to believe anything regarding the status of the Vatican II claimants. Secondly, so long as a Catholic is not denying the principles involved and is through a lack of logic inconsistently applying the correct Catholic principles to the facts of the case, the Catholic is not guilty of heresy or schism. There is no penalty for failing in logic. If Catholics, for whatever reason, think that they can balance the belief of Francis' (and the others) claim to the Papacy with the belief in the Faith, then they are neither heretics, schismatics or apostates. Their principles are obviously wrong, but that does not affect their membership in the Church, and as far as whether they are sinning, that is between them and God as to whether they are knowingly violating their conscience. If you wish to make a charge against them, you cannot just assume it against them. You act as though the Church is a non-governed society of believers, that we as the sheep can assume the role and power of the Shepherds, that Canon Law is just a guidebook and that the real power resides with the laity to make authoritative judgements in the absence of the hierarchy.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 5, 2016 13:40:59 GMT -5
Nope sorry not a fair or apt comparison...the CATHOLICS who are mistaken about Bergolio...through no fault of their own...even if the information seems perfectly clear to more informed Catholics does NOT make them protestants. Consider that very ignorant, unschooled, not very pious, ugly, lazy etc etc...can still be Catholics in generally good standing. This is the common state of humanity and one of the very points of Christ's whole mission. He came to save the sick not the healthy. The people going to hell are the hierarchy and the prelate's whose job it is to instruct and advise the laity and who are misleading and not doing the job they agreed to do. You cannot blame the soldier for being wounded and dying and losing the battle when the General is keeping the supplies needed away from the soldier. And what of the "CATHOLICS" who are mistaken about the papacy, through no fault of their own (let's say because they see "Pope" Francis teaching clear heresy), even if the information seems perfectly clear to more informed Catholics, and therefore consider the Orthodox or Anglicans as the true Church? There is literally no distinction here. There is a world of difference between a declared or known sect and an undeclared sect. Secondly, the schismatics know that they are separated from the Roman Church and the See of Peter, the Catholics who incorrectly think Francis is Pope are not separating themselves from the Roman See or denying the primacy. Third, the schismatics exist in a known sect, a body that lacks apostolic succession and the other identifying marks of the Church. Its seems to me that you are unaware of what the Church teaches on membership in the Church. These principles are not non-existent since we are in a crisis.
|
|
|
Post by lukedashjr on Aug 5, 2016 18:41:44 GMT -5
And what of the "CATHOLICS" who are mistaken about the papacy, through no fault of their own (let's say because they see "Pope" Francis teaching clear heresy), even if the information seems perfectly clear to more informed Catholics, and therefore consider the Orthodox or Anglicans as the true Church? There is literally no distinction here. First off you assume the hypothetical Catholic is capable of recognizing a heresy. A big assumption I would be interested to have from you the definition of a Lay Catholic. Obviously a person who self Identifys as Catholic is not also an anglican or orthoduck.. Not a big assumption anymore. Maybe it was less clear during John XXIII and Paul VI, but Francis is obvious to anyone with even a basic idea of the Faith. And yes, Anglicans indeed do regularly identify as "Catholic". Pacelli is referring to an inapplicable distinction. It's not that we are binding people to our opinion, but that they are already bound by the Church's teachings to come to that conclusion. Perhaps someone is not culpable of mortal sin for thinking Francis is a pope due to their ignorance of Catholic doctrine, but the same is true for protestants ignorant of the Catholic Faith. First off, who bound them? The last I checked, the Church has not bound Catholics to believe anything regarding the status of the Vatican II claimants. Secondly, so long as a Catholic is not denying the principles involved and is through a lack of logic inconsistently applying the correct Catholic principles to the facts of the case, the Catholic is not guilty of heresy or schism. There is no penalty for failing in logic. The Church, acting through Pope Paul IV and his magisterium, bound Catholics to believe that heretics cannot be popes even with unanimous agreement from the caridnals. The Church also has bound Catholics to believe many things Francis publicly denies on a regular basis. While you are correct there is no penalty for failing in logic, most people are logical, and therefore hold Francis to be pope through denying the principle doctrines.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 5, 2016 19:27:20 GMT -5
Really...so the ability to spot heresy in the Pope is a requirement of the Faith? I'm sorry I can't seem to find that in my Catechism...could you please point it for me? And consider these children....let us assume they are all validly baptised Catholics Or this Family-(I cannot be sure they are but for the sake of our discussion you must allow its quite possible) Or this Group who self Identify as Mongolian Catholics- Shall they be condemned or looked down upon because they are not up to speed on their heresies? Shall they be called protestants because they have not been able to see the nuances of sedevacantism or even Respect but Resist? You see my good friend in your zeal you have forgotten the Law of Love...the command of Charity...the state of Christian humility. Catholicism encompasses the entire Universal Mystical Body of Christ that even Father Cekada on his best day could not completely measure the length and depth of. Be careful by what way ye meet out justice and judgments because they will surely be applied to yourself by and by. "Be ye as little Children..."
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 5, 2016 22:41:37 GMT -5
First off you assume the hypothetical Catholic is capable of recognizing a heresy. A big assumption I would be interested to have from you the definition of a Lay Catholic. Obviously a person who self Identifys as Catholic is not also an anglican or orthoduck.. Not a big assumption anymore. Maybe it was less clear during John XXIII and Paul VI, but Francis is obvious to anyone with even a basic idea of the Faith. And yes, Anglicans indeed do regularly identify as "Catholic". First off, who bound them? The last I checked, the Church has not bound Catholics to believe anything regarding the status of the Vatican II claimants. Secondly, so long as a Catholic is not denying the principles involved and is through a lack of logic inconsistently applying the correct Catholic principles to the facts of the case, the Catholic is not guilty of heresy or schism. There is no penalty for failing in logic. The Church, acting through Pope Paul IV and his magisterium, bound Catholics to believe that heretics cannot be popes even with unanimous agreement from the caridnals. The Church also has bound Catholics to believe many things Francis publicly denies on a regular basis. While you are correct there is no penalty for failing in logic, most people are logical, and therefore hold Francis to be pope through denying the principle doctrines. Pope Paul IV taught the general principle, he did not settle particular cases regarding undeclared heretics. He obviously did not see into the future. Prior to the judgment of the Church, individuals may recognize a heretic, and by that must withdraw from the heretic, but other Catholics not yet convinced are not yet under that obligation. The Catholics I know that maintain Francis is Pope, that consider themselves "traditional" or "conservative" do not deny any teaching of the Church. They state they believe in Francis, while maintaining their Catholic Faith. perhaps you know of others in the categories I mentioned that accept Francis and deny their Faith, but I am not aware of any. I disagree with the assertion that most people are logical, my life experience has shown me that most are not, at least in the age we are living in. Most do not even define their terms before using them, never mind using a syllogism.
|
|
|
Post by lukedashjr on Aug 12, 2016 21:08:19 GMT -5
The Catholics I know that maintain Francis is Pope, that consider themselves "traditional" or "conservative" do not deny any teaching of the Church. They either deny Pope Paul IV's teaching that a heretic cannot be pope; or they deny Francis is a heretic, and in doing so adopt his heresies onto themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 13, 2016 6:07:39 GMT -5
The Catholics I know that maintain Francis is Pope, that consider themselves "traditional" or "conservative" do not deny any teaching of the Church. They either deny Pope Paul IV's teaching that a heretic cannot be pope; or they deny Francis is a heretic, and in doing so adopt his heresies onto themselves. They cannot deny something they may not be aware of.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 13, 2016 13:50:12 GMT -5
The Catholics I know that maintain Francis is Pope, that consider themselves "traditional" or "conservative" do not deny any teaching of the Church. They either deny Pope Paul IV's teaching that a heretic cannot be pope; or they deny Francis is a heretic, and in doing so adopt his heresies onto themselves. Are you aware that heresy must be direct?
|
|
|
Post by orthopapist on Aug 15, 2016 23:56:27 GMT -5
VOX: "Now why wouldnt you listen to the sermon?" Have already listened to them before, no longer.
VOX: "As far as Trads needing improvement...of course we do...but to scold about it is like scolding a shipwreck survivor stranded on a barren island for not shaving and grooming themselves. Context OPape...Context!"
I know what you mean. I think of this analogy: Someone's sick. So their doctor suggests exercise, they start exercising more. They are still sick so they change doctors. The doctor recommends to start eating better so they do that. Improving, but still sick and their doctor can't help so they switch doctors. They start taking supplements. Still sick. They take on a new doctor and therapy. Still sick. They undergo treatments with a new doctor. Still sick. Now, doctors have told them they have done all they can, but after they have done so much they're not satisfied and believe they can heal, so they decide that that is the "last straw" and they go all in 100% to read up on everything they can do and they commit themselves completely to doing it. Maybe they find an unknown doctor unexpectedly. Finally they recover.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 16, 2016 6:46:03 GMT -5
People must realize that the term "Catholic" doesn't just solve the matter. Adolf Hitler was a Catholic, and the day before his excommunication Fr. Martin Luther was a Catholic. Merely being a "Catholic" is not the end of the discussion. The discussion is really about whether there is a danger, and about our obligation to stay away from that danger.
Sure, before his excommunication, some people loosely would say, "Stay away from that Fr. Martin Luther, he is a heretic!" and others could respond, "Wait a minute, alas! he is still a Catholic!". But let's really not quibble about terminology when obviously the hyperbole means that the man is a danger to your faith because he holds heretical views. Sometimes hyperbole is needed in order to grab the emotion of the seriousness of the situation. Places in Scripture have even used hyperbole. As far as I am concerned, going to an SSPX chapel regularly is a serious danger to one's faith. Technically "Catholic"? Sure, but nevertheless, when something is a danger to your faith, it is considered "heretical".
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 16, 2016 8:09:21 GMT -5
All heresys are a danger to your faith...but not all dangers are heresys. Good post though
|
|