|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Apr 29, 2017 7:05:07 GMT -5
Pope Martin V settled such difficulties for the future with his ground-breaking law, Michael...can you produce for me the official SPECIFIC condemnation of bergoglio and the Vat2 sect? Im laity and my condemnations hold zero authority.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Apr 29, 2017 13:50:24 GMT -5
Michael wrote:
Yes, I agree, it is an amazingly generous act of God Who left these rites intact.
Michael wrote:
This matter was settled by the Church already. There is a distinction between those excommunicated by name and those who are not. There are approved sources posted on this in the reference library on this matter, I am happy to help if you want me to point you to them.
Michael wrote:
Yes, I agree, but we are not talking about recognizing a heretical pope, (which is an impossible scenario anyway), we are talking about recognizing a non-pope. Eventually, the Church will work this out, the false claimants will be exposed, and the papacy will remain untarnished.
Michael wrote:
This is incorrect, the "orthodox" do not maintain apostolic succession. The succession has two components, orders and mission. When the "orthodox" left the Church, their mission was lost and could no longer be transmitted, as it must come from the successor of St. Peter. They may pretend otherwise, claiming apostolic succession, but their claim does not make it true.
Michael wrote:
I agree it would be a great thing. So long as they keep the Faith, they remain Catholic, they remain in the Church, and remain in their offices. Let's hope that enough members of the hierarchy recognize the true state of affairs and organize an imperfect council to elect a pope!
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Apr 29, 2017 15:06:03 GMT -5
How many legs does a dog have if we call a tail a leg......4
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Apr 29, 2017 15:08:12 GMT -5
Michael wrote:Posted HERE
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Apr 29, 2017 15:23:13 GMT -5
I think the dogmatic una cum folks are engaging in a "soft" heresy in their zeal to expose the false popes.
|
|
|
Post by micah1199 on Apr 29, 2017 17:42:59 GMT -5
Not wanting to attend a Mass una cum an antipope is heresy?
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Apr 29, 2017 18:58:47 GMT -5
Not wanting to attend a Mass una cum an antipope is heresy? No demanding everyone is culpable if they do go to an una cum. I dont think it is wrong for a person to eschew una cum masses...I dont think it prudent...nor necessary to avoid them however if it means going without the Body and Blood of Our Lord. BUT I think it shows a low opinion of God to jettison something He paid such a price to give us simply because vagabons have inserted themselves. There was a time when emperors and kings were also named in the Mass...some were not very Christian people.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2017 19:18:12 GMT -5
Regarding the Una Cum, I always say that "naming Francis as Pope isn't going to make him a Pope".
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 1, 2017 23:29:06 GMT -5
Micheal please show me where in church Documents it is the responsability of laity to choose a Pope and further they are commanded to stay away from the Divine Liturgy or True Mass because a NON Pope was named. The Popes in the western schism were not Anti Popes they were dubious Popes. Whats at issue is culpability. The laity cannot tell the hierarchy which name should be inserted in the Mass...hence it is out of their control. Secondly the laity cannot simply avoid the sacrament for rebellious or self willed reasons. What you have done was to Make the Mass simply a plaything of the laity. A get together...a hang out. You know that by positive Law we may avail ourselves of schismatic orthoduck sacraments if faced with immanent death...why? Because Our Loving God is not a bureaucratic monster...the sacraments are His Gifts from Calvary...they are Our Life without which we go to hell...THEY are the purpose..He purchased these Gifts for us at an unfathomable price...and you would have them dismissed because of blundering heretics at the top. I am not in communion with bergoglio...I am in Communion with Christ. If you were in communist held Ukraine in the 70s...you would be attending a Liturgy that prayed for its government...a godless communist government...would that invalidated the Mass? Yeah sir your "knowledge" has eclipsed your charity. Greetings Vox, (I'll number my responses to organize so I don't get lost. I may have to break down portions of your statements to address directly.) 1. We are in agreement that this is about culpability, but this is where we no longer see eye to eye. "Choosing a pope" is not the issue here, nor is the level of control involved in what the so-called hierarchy does. Show me where in canon law, or doctrine where the laity are allowed to worship in common with those who hold to heresy? Then show me in canon law where it says that it is allowed to be a part of a heretical organization... and if you can find those, show me where we are allowed to support those in heresy. Then, if you can do all that... show me why we are allowed as the laity to ignore Galatians "let them be anathema". 2. A person who is "dubiously" elected "pope" is by definition an anti-pope. You have created a distinction that does not exist. 3. "The laity cannot tell the hierarchy which name should be inserted in the Mass...hence it is out of their control." The laity's control over the doings of the hierarchy is irrelevant. If the priest in question has united himself with a heretical organization such as, but not limited to the Novus Ordo sect, then he must be avoided and cannot be approached for sacraments. This has always been the policy of the Church. The laity has control of their own feet walking into a building where the clergy are, or are not in union with apostates. 4. "plaything"... I don't know what you are trying to say here or how it applies. This has less to do with the mass than it does with being a part of, or in obedience to a heretical organization and the head of said heretical organization. You keep focusing on the liturgy, but it is not the real issue. You cannot approach those in union with heretics for confession, weddings or funerals either. 5. "deathbed"... this is debatable as many Bishops have forbid the laity the option of receiving deathbed sacraments from schismatics even when there are no orthodox priests available. To die alone without the sacraments is in most cases safer than to be in your most crucial moment (last hour of agony fighting the temptations of satan and his legions) where you will be more vulnerable to being corrupted by the heretic/schismatic who is not in union with Christ, but with satan. In your most vulnerable moment, do you really want to be receiving anything from an agent of satan? 6. "God is not a bureaucratic monster..." This is dangerous kind of talk. This implies that God would be a monster if (insert rule or law). And that is blasphemy. Whatever God holds us to is just, no matter how difficult or how inconvenient. God is just and His laws are just. To imply that He would be a "monster" if He required certain difficult things is at best bad form, at worst dreadfully sinful. It is true that God does not command impossibilities, but this is not an impossible situation. 7. "without which we go to hell" The Japanese heroically survived persecution for about 250 years with NO PRIESTS and NO SACRAMENTS. Not only is it possible to be saved without access to priests, but people have been doing so for centuries. 8. "attending a Liturgy that prayed for its 'godless communist' government" Praying " for" and uniting your mass " in union with" are two very different things. I pray for the salvations of sinners such as murderers. But I do not join assassin's guilds and pray "in union with" them. I pray for heretics... I do NOT pray WITH heretics. Do you see the difference? It is a very important distinction to make. One is CHARITY, the other is SIN. 9. "Charity vs knowledge"... Charity is defined as the love of God. I don't understand why you are attacking my love of God in this instance. My personal piety is not part of the equation, whether a sinner or a saint. The issue at hand, and the laws of the Church are what they are, no matter how sinful or holy I, or anyone else is. Peace in Christ, M.
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 2, 2017 0:08:07 GMT -5
"ecclesiastical sentence or censure globally promulgated whether by the law or by an individual; unless the sentence or censure in question has been specifically and expressly published or denounced by the judge on or against a definite person, college, university, church, community or place. "
1. Key words here are "ecclesiastical sentence etc.". This is not the issue. Its not about a crime that has been committed by say Bergoglio or JP2, but the very fact that these men are non-Catholics.
2. Do you agree that there are certain doctrines that must be professed and believed to be a member of the Church, i.e. to be Catholic? (Yes/No)
3. Do you agree that the Catholic Church teaches that Apostasy, Heresy & Schism are acts that separate one from unity with Holy Mother Church? (Yes/No)
4. Do you agree that one can manifest their own heresy, apostasy and/or schism publicly to others before being judged so by an authoritative court of law? (Yes/No) --If No... do you agree that a group of men can manifest their murderous intention to kill you by shooting at you without the need for a judge to tell you in court that the gunmen are trying to kill you and that you should avoid them? (Yes/No)
5. Do you agree that a layman can be punished not only for heresy, but for supporting heresy in any way? (Yes/No)
6. Do you agree that in order to be punished for the crime of heresy, you must be expected to be able to recognize heresy/heretics and avoid it/them? (Yes/No)
7. Do you agree that a manifest heretic should be avoided once recognized, even before a judicial sentence has been pronounced? (Yes/No) --If No... replace heretic with abortion doctor. (Yes/No)
8. Do you realize that a manifest heretic/apostate/schismatic is separated from the Church by Divine law without the need for a judgement, making them a non-Catholic? (Yes/No)
9. Do you agree that a non-Catholic can not hold a leadership position in the Catholic Church? (Yes/No)"
10. The Catholic answer to these questions should all be (Yes). And this creates the logical and moral conclusion of "we must anathematize all manifest heretics" & "we must anathematize all heretical organizations". This includes the entire Novus Ordo establishment and all its leaders, its "clergy" and in many cases the laity (for prayer in common).
I suspect that we agree on quite a bit of these things, but the differences, though slight are going to be tough to iron out.
Peace in Christ, M.
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 2, 2017 0:33:50 GMT -5
I agree it would be a great thing. So long as they keep the Faith, they remain Catholic, they remain in the Church, and remain in their offices. Let's hope that enough members of the hierarchy recognize the true state of affairs and organize an imperfect council to elect a pope! Keeping the faith is not enough to remain Catholic. If you unite yourself and worship in common with heretics you commit sin and by canon law are "suspected of heresy". If this goes uncorrected for (six months or so off the top of my head) you automatically become a heretic. So you can lose the faith WITHOUT LOSING THE FAITH, by worshipping in common with heretics or those who have worshipped in common with heretics for 6 months, who have worshipped in common with, etc. Who you associate with is VERY important. Who you recognize as legitimate authority is very important. Those who recognize and unite themselves with the heretical sect Novus Ordo and the leader of said sect are worshipping in common with heretics. If they've done so longer than six months they've become canonical heretics themselves. "Apostolic Succession" This term has more than one meaning. When used to refer to a valid lineage of holy orders that traces back to the apostles... the "Orthodox" do indeed have it. This term is used (perhaps incorrectly) in this way very often today. But you are quite right in saying they don't have any jurisdiction or mission to teach. distinction between those excommunicated by name and those who are not. Not relevant in this situation. Excommunication and becoming a non-Catholic for acts of apostasy and heresy are not related. People are excommunicated for any number of reasons, but heresy and apostasy cut you away from the Church without the need for any declaration. The Church does declare on heresy and apostasy, but the person in question has already cut himself out of the Church. It is a formality for the sake of practical function. Those in union with the undeclared heretic will be punished once the declaration is made... so it is NOT safe to say, well they have not been condemned yet so I don't have to worry about it. NO WAY. You have recognized the heresy and the heretic... you (and the priest) must anathematize them or commit sin. The only people who are not guilty of sin in this matter are those who don't have a clue. That's not you or me or any sede. Those who don't know are in trouble for other reasons... such as being part of a heretical organization etc, but that's another issue. We know, and therefore can be held as guilty. we are talking about recognizing a non-pope. Again, we are not talking about a "non-pope" or anti-pope here only. Anti-popes of the past were Catholic and professed the Catholic faith. These last 6 imposters do not profess the orthodox Catholic faith, but a Modernist heresy of indifrintism and quasi-pantheism. Mistakenly recognizing an orthodox anti-pope as pope is not a sin, nor even terribly dangerous for the laity. It is very dangerous to the clergy who might be appointed bishop or cardinal by an anti-pope but this does not concern you and me. A heretic, non-catholic pseudo-pope usurper on the other hand is a SIN to recognize as your commander and chief, vicar of Christ, because he is a non-Catholic. To accept him as your spiritual leader is to accept anti-christ in the place of vicar of Christ. If you say (I don't accept him as my spiritual leader, he's just a bad pope) then you have accepted a schismatic theology of disobedience to what you recognize as a valid pope. If you say (It's not necissary for me to know who the Pope is to be Catholic) this too is schismatic. You hit a problem in any way you look at it. Peace in Christ, M.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on May 2, 2017 4:21:06 GMT -5
Im not attacking you personally...so quit whining. I quoted A Pope on the matter. It clearly says what it says. You decide to use a lay interpretation on the matter and then assert YOUR fallable interpretation. In fact everything you have written is almost exclusivly your opinion the matter. Why should the laymans opinion matter. If you are wrong and people are convinced by your fallable opinions to stay away from Grace given by the Sacraments...then a grave sin has occured. If you are right...please show me FROM INFALLABLE sources the harm to the laity..SPECIFIC to the concept of attending an una cum Liturgy...what harm or sin has cometo the layperson? I assure you no matter how strongly or numerous times you assert it I AM not in communion with bergoglio no matter who around me says hes a Pope.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 2, 2017 11:14:58 GMT -5
Michael wrote:
I disagree, this is the crux of the matter. Any judgment prior to the ecclesiastical sentence is a non-authoritative judgment, which binds only the one making such a judgment to that fact.
Michael wrote:
Yes, of course.
Michael wrote:
Yes.
Michael wrote:
Yes
Michael wrote:
N/A
Michael wrote:
Yes, but this needs to be defined to make it clear. It can easily be misunderstood.
Michael wrote:
Yes, and the most certain way of recognizing a heretic is the authoritative judgment of the Church. Everything beneath that is non-authoritative.
Heresy can be recognized prior to the judgment of the Church, and Catholics are bound to avoid a person that they are morally certain is a heretic, as understood by the laws of the Church.
Michael wrote:
Yes, with qualifications. I will add that this does not include Catholics who do not recognize this fact. Secondly, if the heretic is not named, the Church permits one to partake of the sacraments from him under certain conditions. Michael wrote: N/A
Michael wrote:
Yes, but that's not what is at issue in this discussion.
Michael wrote:
Yes
Michael wrote:
The Catholic answer is not simplistic on a complex matter, while these questions flesh out the issues, there are nuances (hence the need for more than a yes or no to some of the specific questions posed) and matters that your questions did not address that are relevant to the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 2, 2017 21:12:12 GMT -5
The Catholic answer is not simplistic on a complex matter, while these questions flesh out the issues, there are nuances (hence the need for more than a yes or no to some of the specific questions posed) and matters that your questions did not address that are relevant to the discussion. The matter is not as complex as some would make it out to be. 8. Do you realize that a manifest heretic/apostate/schismatic is separated from the Church by Divine law without the need for a judgement, making them a non-Catholic? (Yes/No). Yes, but that's not what is at issue in this discussion. This is EXACTLY the issue at hand. Even more so since the very people who would normally make formal declaration to protect the laity are the perpetrators of public heresy. 5. Do you agree that a layman can be punished not only for heresy, but for supporting heresy in any way? (Yes/No) Yes, but this needs to be defined to make it clear. It can easily be misunderstood. Defined how? This is also the very crux of the matter. What further distinction must needs be made? I disagree, this is the crux of the matter. Any judgment prior to the ecclesiastical sentence is a non-authoritative judgment, which binds only the one making such a judgment to that fact. Whether the "judgment" is authoritative or not is irrelevant. Every Catholic is bound under pain of mortal sin to judge what is and what is not heresy, what is sin and what is not sin, this is a daily occurrence, whether the courts say this or that does not change our duty to avoid sin (up to and including heresy), to avoid sinners (up to and including heretics) and to remain an orthodox Catholic. Not only is it our duty to judge every day, but our duty to warn our fellow Catholics. We can be guilty of sins of thought, word, deed and OMISSION. Peace in Christ, M.
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 2, 2017 21:14:19 GMT -5
Im not attacking you personally...so quit whining. I quoted A Pope on the matter. It clearly says what it says. You decide to use a lay interpretation on the matter and then assert YOUR fallable interpretation. In fact everything you have written is almost exclusivly your opinion the matter. Why should the laymans opinion matter. If you are wrong and people are convinced by your fallable opinions to stay away from Grace given by the Sacraments...then a grave sin has occured. If you are right...please show me FROM INFALLABLE sources the harm to the laity..SPECIFIC to the concept of attending an una cum Liturgy...what harm or sin has cometo the layperson? I assure you no matter how strongly or numerous times you assert it I AM not in communion with bergoglio no matter who around me says hes a Pope. I don't know Vox... I've been accused of via implication "soft heresy", "knowledge over charity" "intellectual dis-honesty" and some other cheesy remarks... I had to throw in a little wine to go with the cheese.
|
|