|
Post by Banned snake on May 2, 2017 0:57:48 GMT -5
This is a very vague statement. While I agree that you and your family have no obligation to petition the sacraments from priests under censure, your reasoning makes no sense. My reasoning is perfectly logical and also lawful as I'll point out below. "1. The term, "hold hands," is not a Catholic term in theology or canon law." This is not a court of canon law. Nor do any canon law courtrooms exist today that are not somehow connected to the apostate sect Novus Ordo. "2. What you are not dealing with is whether the priests in question are indeed heretics or have left the Church." Guilt by association i.e. by worshipping in common with... is a way to become a heretic even if you still profess the faith. "3. Groups cannot be considered as heretical, unless such groups are named as such, their founders are named and thereby those who willfully follow such named founders are then presumed guilty, or lastly they as a group are known for having willfully separated from the Church and have formed a sect. All of this remains unproved in our situation." Irrelevant. But also untrue. Modernism has been declared "the synthesis of all heresies" by Pope Saint Pius X. I don't have to know the "will" of a person acting and speaking like a heretic, or teaching heretical doctrine such as Vatican II indifferentist doctrines, to know that they are doing/saying/teaching heresy and must be avoided as a heretic. "4. Without such conditions as named in #3, we are forced to treat people individually, who enjoy innocence unless the opposite is demonstrated on a case by case basis." This is simply not true. The organization of Novus Ordo is teaching fundamental doctrines of heresy promulgated in Vatican II. The entire organization has separated itself from the Catholic Church and must be avoided. "5. Another way of saying it is this: unless a Catholic has knowingly joined a sect, and unless there are grounds to make a personal judgment against a particular person of heresy, apostasy or schism, prior to the judgment of the Church, then the person must be presumed to be a member of the Catholic Church, and if such a person holds an office, then that fact must also be presumed." There is no "office" to hold in the Novus Ordo sect. It is not the Catholic Church. So any and every so-called clergyman in this sect hold a position in a non-Catholic establishment. Peace in Christ, M
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 2, 2017 1:00:40 GMT -5
as there are plenty of priests available with faculties to hear confessions. In a danger of death, any priest, even a schismatic can hear one's confession. This is highly debatable and if you believe what those like myself believe... there are not very many priests left that can hear confessions and it is even more debatable as to whether or not it is lawful to go to a schismatic for sacraments. Even if lawful it would be incredibly dangerous. M.
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 2, 2017 1:05:09 GMT -5
Micheal S...keep making blanket calumnys and detractions like this one and you will find yourself on the other side of the fence. (1st warning) I don't know if I understand the warning. Am I not allowed to express my belief in this forum that there are very few lawful places to receive sacraments today? If I don't agree with you that its ok to go to an Eastern rite Church that's in union with apostate Rome and Bergoglio, then I am guilty of "blanket calumny and detraction"? Lets be clear what I'm being warned for here. I may be misunderstanding you completely. Note: You are also HIGHLY encouraged to PROVE OTHERWISE as it would be incredibly convenient to be able to receive sacraments from Eastern rite Catholics since they are all over out here. I just don't see how it is even remotely lawful until they publicly proclaim the sedevacant position. Peace in Christ, M
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 2, 2017 1:24:48 GMT -5
Michael, where did you get the Saint Thomas idea that we can confess sins to a person in absence of a priest? I have never heard or read this? This one caught be by surprise when I stumbled onto it. I read it in the Summa Theologica. I think it was under the sacraments on penance, but I'd have to do some digging to look it up again. I've never heard an arguments against it from authorities, doctors or saints and St. Thomas carries a lot of weight. Granted, I didn't dig too hard to look for a counter against it because its convenient today and because of the great authority of St. Thomas's opinions. Pacelli is absolutely right as far as intending to confess to a real priest as soon as possible, but I and many like me do not agree that there are many priests we can lawfully confess to and I very strongly disagree that anyone should go to a schismatic for anything due to danger to ones personal faith and potential scandal to family, and fellow Catholics. Peace in Christ, M.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on May 2, 2017 4:07:23 GMT -5
Micheal S...keep making blanket calumnys and detractions like this one and you will find yourself on the other side of the fence. (1st warning) I don't know if I understand the warning. Am I not allowed to express my belief in this forum that there are very few lawful places to receive sacraments today? If I don't agree with you that its ok to go to an Eastern rite Church that's in union with apostate Rome and Bergoglio, then I am guilty of "blanket calumny and detraction"? Lets be clear what I'm being warned for here. I may be misunderstanding you completely. Note: You are also HIGHLY encouraged to PROVE OTHERWISE as it would be incredibly convenient to be able to receive sacraments from Eastern rite Catholics since they are all over out here. I just don't see how it is even remotely lawful until they publicly proclaim the sedevacant position. Peace in Christ, M The warning is as I said...blanket statements...what you belive is irrelevent...sooo You made the assertions..you prove them...you ignored this on the other thread. I proved with a Papal law and common sense that simply inserting the wrong name in the DL does not make a defect in the Liturgy...you assert it does...you further assert heresy by association...WHERE in any Catholic document is such a claim made for the laity? And you assert the dangerous claim that YOU a layperson can lay judgment upon others as per heresys...can you shw me even one instance in the entire history of Our Church where the laity by plebiscite or actions laid a claim of heresy and executed a judgment on a bishop? Side questions to test your worthiness to comment...have you ever been to the DL? How long have you been in the crisis of Vat2 newchurch?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 2, 2017 11:36:59 GMT -5
My responses in red: This is a very vague statement. While I agree that you and your family have no obligation to petition the sacraments from priests under censure, your reasoning makes no sense. My reasoning is perfectly logical and also lawful as I'll point out below. "1. The term, "hold hands," is not a Catholic term in theology or canon law." This is not a court of canon law. Nor do any canon law courtrooms exist today that are not somehow connected to the apostate sect Novus Ordo. We know this is not a court. Are you then asserting that private vague terms are better than the terms approved for usage in theology and canon law?"2. What you are not dealing with is whether the priests in question are indeed heretics or have left the Church." Guilt by association i.e. by worshipping in common with... is a way to become a heretic even if you still profess the faith. This has to be defined. Pope Martin V taught that such worship with heretics not under a sentence is permitted. The theologians also say as much, so long as the Catholic rite is used and scandal is avoided.
Secondly, it is not a fact that those under Francis are all heretics. If you believe so, then make a case individually against each such person, naming names and citing evidence case by case. "3. Groups cannot be considered as heretical, unless such groups are named as such, their founders are named and thereby those who willfully follow such named founders are then presumed guilty, or lastly they as a group are known for having willfully separated from the Church and have formed a sect. All of this remains unproved in our situation." Irrelevant. But also untrue. Modernism has been declared "the synthesis of all heresies" by Pope Saint Pius X. I don't have to know the "will" of a person acting and speaking like a heretic, or teaching heretical doctrine such as Vatican II indifferentist doctrines, to know that they are doing/saying/teaching heresy and must be avoided as a heretic. Yes, against persons, but you cannot say that all people who are connected with an undeclared heretic are part of a sect. If you do, you risk making a rash judgment. That was my point, ad nit appears from your answer that you did not grasp it. "4. Without such conditions as named in #3, we are forced to treat people individually, who enjoy innocence unless the opposite is demonstrated on a case by case basis." This is simply not true. The organization of Novus Ordo is teaching fundamental doctrines of heresy promulgated in Vatican II. The entire organization has separated itself from the Catholic Church and must be avoided. Yes, but who is or is not a member of the new sect is the dispute. If a person still believes the Catholic Faith, and desires to remain in the Catholic Church, then he is by definition not a member of the new sect. "5. Another way of saying it is this: unless a Catholic has knowingly joined a sect, and unless there are grounds to make a personal judgment against a particular person of heresy, apostasy or schism, prior to the judgment of the Church, then the person must be presumed to be a member of the Catholic Church, and if such a person holds an office, then that fact must also be presumed." There is no "office" to hold in the Novus Ordo sect. It is not the Catholic Church. So any and every so-called clergyman in this sect hold a position in a non-Catholic establishment. You do not appear to grasp this matter. I never discussed offices that are of a sect, I am only discussing offices in the Church. All officeholders in the Catholic Church do not lose their offices through tacit resignation unless they leave the Church through heresy, apostasy or schism. This can be accomplished very notably if they join a sect. None of that has been proven against a single lawful remaining member of the hierarchy.Peace in Christ, M
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 2, 2017 12:31:48 GMT -5
as there are plenty of priests available with faculties to hear confessions. In a danger of death, any priest, even a schismatic can hear one's confession. This is highly debatable and if you believe what those like myself believe... there are not very many priests left that can hear confessions and it is even more debatable as to whether or not it is lawful to go to a schismatic for sacraments. Even if lawful it would be incredibly dangerous. M. It may have been debatable pre-1917 Code, but since then there is no debate. SOURCE
I strongly disagree with your conclusion that there are not many authorized confessors. The principles underlying this matter are being hashed out in the other posts on this thread. I do agree there is a certain degree of danger to approaching a schismatic or heretic for confession, but clearly the Church is saying through its law that the greater good which outweighs the risk is making the confession in this case, otherwise the law of the Church would forbid it.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on May 2, 2017 17:39:18 GMT -5
We shall see if Michael answers with catholic sources to pacellies clear and balanced (and sourced) answers to his contentions. I appreciate a good debate...but only between intellectually honest desputants.
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 2, 2017 20:29:28 GMT -5
You made the assertions..you prove them...you ignored this on the other thread. I proved with a Papal law and common sense that simply inserting the wrong name in the DL does not make a defect in the Liturgy...you assert it does...you further assert heresy by association...WHERE in any Catholic document is such a claim made for the laity? And you assert the dangerous claim that YOU a layperson can lay judgment upon others as per heresys...can you shw me even one instance in the entire history of Our Church where the laity by plebiscite or actions laid a claim of heresy and executed a judgment on a bishop? Side questions to test your worthiness to comment...have you ever been to the DL? How long have you been in the crisis of Vat2 newchurch? "Simply inserting a name" I never said these words. You are not quoting me, but someone else perhaps. This is not my argument, I've made no such assertion. "heresy by association" I very well DO assert. I would quote canon law here, but you have decided that the laity are incapable of recognizing heresy and are by your assertion "forbidden from doing so" not just you, but Pacelli seems to hold the same idea. "laity to judge a bishop" I never stated such a thing. However, there are not very many validly ordained bishops in the Latin rite left. So in judging a Novus Ordo "bishop" such as Francis Bergoglio... I'm actually only making a statement about a laymen parading around as a "bishop" or in this case a "pope". See "Sacramentum Ordinis" by (Pius XII) on what is required for an ordination to be valid. Also see "Cum ex apostolatis" (Paul IV) on avoiding invalidly elected heretics such as Franko as if they are "warlocks and publicans". Also... even though I said no such thing about judging a bishop, I do have to make a clarification here. A lay person is not capable of making an authoritative legal judgement on the orthodoxy of an individual. This is true. Nor can a lay person walk in to a court of law and judge someone to be a murderer. However. Everyone has the right to recognize the danger of heresy and violence when it is witnessed, and further everyone has the right, nay the DUTY to avoid the danger and warn others of this danger. I have to be sure... Is it your position, for example... that a Catholic can safely be a part of a new heretical sect as long as the Church has not gotten around to denouncing it by name? "DL" I have no idea what the DL is. It will be a whole lot easier to have a constructive discussion if you will actually address my statements instead of cutting down the arguments someone else made. I'm not saying what you say I'm saying about half the time here. The length of time I've been dealing with this mess is irrelevant. What is the appropriate amount of time to have been involved in this "crisis" to have a valid position? 30 days? 30 years? M.
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 2, 2017 20:56:30 GMT -5
It may have been debatable pre-1917 Code, but since then there is no debate. What is written in canon law vs. how the Church practices canon law are not always the same thing and in many cases are up to the discretion of the local Bishop. The practical Church policy in this case does not favor your "source". Hence the difficulty in the laity pulling quotes out of canon law. I strongly disagree with your conclusion that there are not many authorized confessors. Agree to disagree on this and on the schismatic situation. You do not appear to grasp this matter. I never discussed offices that are of a sect, I am only discussing offices in the Church. All officeholders in the Catholic Church do not lose their offices through tacit resignation unless they leave the Church through heresy, apostasy or schism. This can be accomplished very notably if they join a sect. None of that has been proven against a single lawful remaining member of the hierarchy. My friend, it is you who do not appear to "grasp" the situation. Let me back up here... Vatican II promulgated heresy (this I think we all agree on), what you and many fail to recognize is that this authoritative promulgation of heresy was the formal creation of a new sect that has abandoned the Catholic faith. They even called the new missal "Novus Ordo" "New Order". At this point in history, all Novus Ordo clergy have had to agree with accept and teach said heresy and novelty (I think we can agree on this too at least for the Latins) so every single clergyman that has done this has lost his office in the Catholic Church automatically since they've joined the new sect via submission. Do you know of a single Latin bishop alive today that has publicly rejected Vatican II as a false council, retained the Tridentine Mass and continues to teach Catholic doctrine in its traditional form? I do not know of such an individual. Lafebvre went along with V2, so did Thuc. The only one I know of that rejected the New Order from the get go is Shuckardt and he got his orders from a schismatic, not to mention all these men are dead, but I digress. Do you agree with me up to this point? Before we address how this problem effects the Eastern rites? Yes, but who is or is not a member of the new sect is the dispute. If a person still believes the Catholic Faith, and desires to remain in the Catholic Church, then he is by definition not a member of the new sect. Somehow I missed addressing this. No way. This is not "by definition" at all. You'll have to source this definition please. Would you say that a member of the "church" of satan can still be Catholic as long as they hold the Catholic faith? We already know that a Catholic who joins the Masons is automatically no longer Catholic no matter what he/she believes so your definition is inaccurate. Secondly, it is not a fact that those under Francis are all heretics. Secondly, it is not a fact that those under Francis are all heretics. If you believe so, then make a case individually against each such person, naming names and citing evidence case by case. Sorry this is all out of order, I have an old glytchy computer. Anyway, I don't have to make an individual case for each supposed clergyman... even though this would not be hard. They all accept Vatican II as a valid and lawful council. This is enough to make them heretics. Even if it is material, by accident, in good faith etc. It does not matter. Heresy is still heresy even if you are in good will. I've already supplied this source. Pope Martin V taught that such worship with heretics not under a sentence is permitted. Did he say "worship with heretics is lawful" or did he say "worship with those not excommunicated by name" is lawful? There is a HUGE difference between these two statements. M.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on May 3, 2017 8:59:16 GMT -5
Michael DL stands for Divine Liturgy...ever been to one?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 3, 2017 13:18:17 GMT -5
My answers in red. It may have been debatable pre-1917 Code, but since then there is no debate. What is written in canon law vs. how the Church practices canon law are not always the same thing and in many cases are up to the discretion of the local Bishop. The practical Church policy in this case does not favor your "source". Hence the difficulty in the laity pulling quotes out of canon law. Please provide sources for your assertion that local authorities established a practice contrary to the law. My source is a canonist, i.e. one who is specifically trained and commissioned by the Church to write and explain canon law. He is an expert. You have not provided anything for your assertion, so it would be wise for you to learn from a writing on this point by an expert who enjoys the approval of the Church. I strongly disagree with your conclusion that there are not many authorized confessors. Agree to disagree on this and on the schismatic situation. You do not appear to grasp this matter. I never discussed offices that are of a sect, I am only discussing offices in the Church. All officeholders in the Catholic Church do not lose their offices through tacit resignation unless they leave the Church through heresy, apostasy or schism. This can be accomplished very notably if they join a sect. None of that has been proven against a single lawful remaining member of the hierarchy. My friend, it is you who do not appear to "grasp" the situation. Let me back up here... Vatican II promulgated heresy (this I think we all agree on), what you and many fail to recognize is that this authoritative promulgation of heresy was the formal creation of a new sect that has abandoned the Catholic faith. They even called the new missal "Novus Ordo" "New Order". At this point in history, all Novus Ordo clergy have had to agree with accept and teach said heresy and novelty (I think we can agree on this too at least for the Latins) so every single clergyman that has done this has lost his office in the Catholic Church automatically since they've joined the new sect via submission. No, I do not agree. I am not going to make generalizations and use loose made up terms. The clergy in question are Catholic clergy, and must be regarded as such until the contrary is proven, in each specific case. If a judgment against them is to be made against any of them, it is an individual non-binding judgment made by a non-authoritative person, and does not affect the body of persons as a whole.
I do not agree that all Roman rite clerics in our situation profess heresy and errors against the Faith. I do not agree that they wish to sever themselves from the authority of the Church. I also apply the same assertions to the laity. Do you know of a single Latin bishop alive today that has publicly rejected Vatican II as a false council, retained the Tridentine Mass and continues to teach Catholic doctrine in its traditional form? I do not know of such an individual. Lafebvre went along with V2, so did Thuc. The only one I know of that rejected the New Order from the get go is Shuckardt and he got his orders from a schismatic, not to mention all these men are dead, but I digress. No, but that is not the same as saying they are heretics. Heresy has a definition, and this is not part of the definition. There are other possible reasons why such bishops do not denounce the council. Schuckardt, like all traditionalist bishops doesn't count among the bishops who matter. The traditionalists hold no office or title in the Church, men who have orders, without a commission, and status in the Church.Do you agree with me up to this point? Before we address how this problem effects the Eastern rites? See above. Yes, but who is or is not a member of the new sect is the dispute. If a person still believes the Catholic Faith, and desires to remain in the Catholic Church, then he is by definition not a member of the new sect. Somehow I missed addressing this. No way. This is not "by definition" at all. You'll have to source this definition please. Would you say that a member of the "church" of satan can still be Catholic as long as they hold the Catholic faith? We already know that a Catholic who joins the Masons is automatically no longer Catholic no matter what he/she believes so your definition is inaccurate. Secondly, it is not a fact that those under Francis are all heretics. Secondly, it is not a fact that those under Francis are all heretics. If you believe so, then make a case individually against each such person, naming names and citing evidence case by case. Sorry this is all out of order, I have an old glytchy computer. Anyway, I don't have to make an individual case for each supposed clergyman... even though this would not be hard. They all accept Vatican II as a valid and lawful council. This is enough to make them heretics. Even if it is material, by accident, in good faith etc. It does not matter. Heresy is still heresy even if you are in good will. I've already supplied this source. I am not talking about good willed Catholics who innocently have adopted a heretical position without realizing it. I am stating that your assertion that the people in question are all believing and professing heresy is gratuitous. You have no evidence, yet you say it as though it's a fact. Pope Martin V taught that such worship with heretics not under a sentence is permitted. Did he say "worship with heretics is lawful" or did he say "worship with those not excommunicated by name" is lawful? There is a HUGE difference between these two statements. M. Pope Martin V did not distinguish this, and neither does the 1917 Code. If you think that Pope Martin or the Code wished to treat heresy in separate category from other crimes, then provide a source specifically stating this.
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 3, 2017 19:40:30 GMT -5
Pope Martin V did not distinguish this, and neither does the 1917 Code. If you think that Pope Martin or the Code wished to treat heresy in separate category from other crimes, then provide a source specifically stating this. Again we see the problem with laymen such as yourself "judging" and interpreting canon law (in this case applying a bull to your "judgment" of canon law) as if you were a trained canon lawyer. You are not and this failure to distinguish between the very obvious difference between "excommunication" and "heretic" is scary. Can you list 5 reasons a man can be excommunicated from canon law? If you can list at least one that does not include heresy, then your failure to distinguish becomes culpable. "source" canon law. You have no evidence, yet you say it as though it's a fact. I have a ton and a half of evidence and it starts with heretical decrees from Vatican II. Do I need to list them? Is it your assertion that you can be a member of a new unnamed Protestant sect and still remain Catholic? Even though said sect has publicly produced a series of "doctrines" that are non-Catholic, worship in a new non-Catholic manner and have invalid orders? Because if you say yes... then you've gone off the deep end and there's really nothing more to talk about. But if you say "no" then why do you not apply this to the Novus Ordo sect? You can't have it both ways. The traditionalists hold no office or title in the Church, men who have orders, without a commission, and status in the Church. Neither do any of the Novus Ordo sect, hold any status in the Church, no office or tittle... due to manifest public heresy. See St. Belarmine. Please provide sources for your assertion that local authorities established a practice contrary to the law. My source is a canonist, i.e. one who is specifically trained and commissioned by the Church to write and explain canon law. He is an expert. You have not provided anything for your assertion, so it would be wise for you to learn from a writing on this point by an expert who enjoys the approval of the Church. Sources for what now? Your assertion that a local Bishop does not have the authority to regulate his local diocese would require a source please. This is not contrary to the law as you assert so boldly. Where's your source? You claim you have an expert explaining the whole thing to you. Lets hear the expert instead of your bold assertions against what a bishop has the power to do in his own see and what he cannot. M.
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 3, 2017 19:45:11 GMT -5
Michael DL stands for Divine Liturgy...ever been to one? I figured that out while I was laying in bed lastnight lol. No. We call it the Divine Office in the Latin rite. Based on my position in this crisis... I cannot do so, since I have not found an Eastern Rite church that is not somehow in union with the Novus Ordo sect. So I have not had the pleasure. Here's hoping it will be possible in the future. M.
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 3, 2017 19:48:16 GMT -5
What? Which "loose made up term" was too much for you? "Promulgated" or "heresy"? I don't know what you are trying to say here, but your not making sense. Vatican II either produced heretical doctrines or it did not. Do you agree that it did indeed produce heresy? (Yes/No)
|
|