How To Respond To Sedevacantists?

[Prosologion]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1348029910' post='2484044']
Can disciplinary decrees and/or recommendations ever be altered, or are they dogmatically binding through all time?
[/quote]

Communicatio in divinis is not a disciplinary law, it's divine and unchangeable. Read the quotes I posted. It's quite clear.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Prosologion

[Prosologion]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1348030024' post='2484045']
Now here is the thing. These big walls of text are really not working for me. I am a relatively busy person, and for your sake I rather hope that you are as well. Therefore I propose that we try to keep our replies as short as possible, quote as little as possible to retain context, and when all else fails simply make one short point at a time.
Otherwise by necessity I am simply going to ignore the large majority of what you are posting. I honestly do not have the time to reply to you sentence by sentence. If you want to talk about stuff, that is how I am going to do it. You are free to do as you please.
[/quote]

Sure, which is why i haven't even gotten to the other things you or others have said.

But I have to go for the night. I'll have to come back until tomorrow.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Prosologion' timestamp='1348030589' post='2484047']
Communicatio in divinis is not a disciplinary law, it's divine and unchangeable. Read the quotes I posted. It's quite clear.
[/quote]

Well here is what you gave me:

[indent=1]Mortalium Animos says in #10: "So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why [b][u]this Apostolic See has [i]never[/i] allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics[/u][/b]: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting [b][u]the return[/u][/b] to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it."[/indent]

So that is fair enough. I happen to agree.
The important part here is that the passage has to be understood as a whole. What is the reason that the Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics? As Pope Pius says, it is because we do not want to imply acceptance of those assemblies, and by so doing offer a false affirmation of their errors.
The spirit of the law here is that we cannot imply that the assemblies of separated brethren have any kind of efficacy. That is true and will always remain true. Nor does Vatican II deny that, at least not in any of its infallible statements.

I wonder, have you read [i]all[/i] of Mortalium animos? I am sure you have, so you would not have missed this part:

11. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.

Rest of the passage in spoilers because it is slightly lengthy.

[spoiler]Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls? Alas their children left the home of their fathers, but it did not fall to the ground and perish for ever, for it was supported by God. Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion. For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, "the Mother and mistress of all Christ's faithful"?[25] Let them hear Lactantius crying out: "The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind."[26]
[/spoiler]

[mortify]

No Pope no Church

[Prosologion]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1348031271' post='2484051']
Well here is what you gave me:

[indent=1]Mortalium Animos says in #10: "So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why [b][u]this Apostolic See has [i]never[/i] allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics[/u][/b]: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting [b][u]the return[/u][/b] to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it."[/indent]

So that is fair enough. I happen to agree.

The important part here is that the passage has to be understood as a whole. What is the reason that the Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics? As Pope Pius says, it is because we do not want to imply acceptance of those assemblies, and by so doing offer a false affirmation of their errors.
The spirit of the law here is that we cannot imply that the assemblies of separated brethren have any kind of efficacy. That is true and will always remain true. [b]Nor does Vatican II deny that, at least not in any of its infallible statements.[/b] [/quote]

Your quote was correct until the bolded part.

Not only does Vatican II deny that, as is obvious from the quote I showed, unitatis redintegratio #15, but now teaches this [b][i]as the norm and as real, Catholic doctrine.[/i][/b]

Here is the quote again:

Unitatis redintegratio # 15:"These Churches [Eastern "orthodox" schismatics], although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments and above all, by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy. [b]Therefore some [u]worship in common (communicatio in sacris), given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not only possible but to be encouraged[/u][/b].

How can you possibly say Vatican II doesn't deny what Mortalium Animos says in this quote?

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1348031271' post='2484051']I wonder, have you read [i]all[/i] of Mortalium animos? I am sure you have, so you would not have missed this part:

11. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.

Rest of the passage in spoilers because it is slightly lengthy. [/quote]


If what your question implies is that I contradict myself because I regard the last 5 "popes" as heretical, apostate and schismatic antipopes, and Mortalium Animos says that no one is in the Church if he does not recognize and accept the authority and supremacy of St. Peter and his [b]legitimate[/b] successors, you are sorely mistaken.



[b]First,[/b] a heretic, schismatic or apostate can in no way be a true Pope, since heresy, schism and apostasy sever you from the Church automatically and any one who is one of those is not even a Catholic, so someone who is not even a Catholic cannot presume to have any authority in the Church since he is not even a member of it, much less be its "pope", and it is an indisputable fact that all the last 5 antipopes have been just that: heretics, schismatics and apostate antichrists heresiarchs of a false sect. The Church teaches that heretics cannot be Popes and that in any case a true Pope (which none of the last 5 ever were) can cease to be the Pope if he were to become a manifest heretic, schismatic or apostate.

Go read Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio. Pope Innocent III, Saint Antoninus, Saint Robert Bellarmine, Saint Francis de Sales, Saint Alphonsus, the majority of theologians (even post-vatican II "theologians"- LOL) all taught that a manifest heretic cannot be pope and that a true pope ceases to be one ipso facto and without the need for any declaration.

[b]Second[/b], Ratzinger clearly stated the demands for Protestants and Eastern schismatics for unity in his book and then bluntly rejected them saying none of them offer any real hope of unity, contrary to what you or someone else said (can't remember),

[b]Third,[/b] your very own antipope and the "hierarchy" of your sect say that you don't even have to hold the Catholic faith or be a Catholic or submit to the would-be Pope to be in the Church of Christ:

Benedict XVI, [u][b]Address to Protestants[/b][/u] at World Youth Day, August 19, 2005: “[b]And we now ask: [u]What does it mean to restore the unity of all Christians?[/u][/b]... This unity, we are convinced, indeed subsists in the Catholic Church, without the possibility of ever being lost (Unitatis Redintegratio, nn. 2, 4, etc.); the Church in fact has not totally disappeared from the world. [b]On the other hand, [u]this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one’s own faith history. Absolutely not![/u][/b]” (L’Osservatore Romano, August 24, 2005, p. 8.)

"Cardinal" Walter Kasper, Prefect of Vatican Council for Promoting Christian Unity: “… [b]today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being Catholics. [u]This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II[/u][/b].” (Adista, Feb. 26, 2001)

“[b]There is no proselytism as a directive on the part of the Holy See, nor is there any intention to convert Russia to Roman Catholicism[/b].” --Igor Kovalevsky, Secretary General of the Novus Ordo "Conference of Roman Catholic Bishops" of Russia, Itar-Tass News Agency, May 7, 2004

(FROM ISRAEL TODAY, JAN. 22, 2004) “[b]NEW BISHOP IN JERUSALEM IS JEWISH[/b] –
For the first time since the Apostle James served as bishop of Jerusalem, [b]the Holy City has a [i]Jewish[/i] bishop![/b] Benedictine Abbot [b]Jean-Baptiste Gourion[/b] was ordained as the new bishop at the Catholic church in Kiryat Ye’arim, above the Israeli Arab village of Abu Ghosh near Jerusalem. Bishop Gourion will be responsible for the Hebrew-speaking Catholic community in Israel, many of whom are of Jewish origin... Explaining how he (Bishop Gourion), as a Jew, became a Catholic, he told us: ‘[b][u]For me, Christianity and Judaism are the same. I didn’t have to leave Judaism to come to Christianity. The Jew and the Christian form the same body[/u].” As such, he makes it clear that he will not engage in ‘missionary’ activities…[/b]

[b]Bishop Gourion[/b]: I have a very close relationship with my three siblings, who attended my ordination in Jerusalem and gave me God’s blessing. All in all, I think my appointment by the Catholic Church points to a new era between Jews and Catholic Christians. We have to learn to understand each other better. [u][b]The Catholic Church has no intention of converting Jews to Christianity. Therefore, the Pope advocated a Jewish bishop in Israel[/b][/u]…


I could give you many more outrageous quotes of this sect and of your very own "popes" blatantly rejecting to proselytize and to convert people.

And lest you say that the "Anglicanorum Coetibus" was an example of anglicans converting 100% to Catholicism, think again. It was not. Wait till I deal with that.


But speaking about the anglicans, this is what your "pope" said about them earlier this year:

Benedict XVI’s March 10, 2012 Homily during celebration of Vespers with the Anglican “Primate” Rowan Williams and the “monks” of Camaldoli: “I am delighted to be joined on this occasion by [b]His Grace Dr. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury[/b]… This Roman Camaldolese Monastery has developed with Canterbury and the Anglican Communion, especially since the Second Vatican Council, links that now qualify as traditional. Today, for the third time, the Bishop of Rome is meeting [b]the Archbishop of Canterbury[/b] in the home of Saint Gregory the Great. And it is right that it should be so, because it was from this Monastery that Pope Gregory chose Augustine and his forty monks and sent them to bring the Gospel to the Angles, a little over 1,400 years ago. [b]The constant presence of monks in this place[/b], over such a long period, is already in itself a testimony of [b]God’s faithfulness to his Church, which we are happy to be able to proclaim to the whole world[/b]. [b]We hope that the sign of our presence here together in front of the holy altar[/b], where Gregory himself celebrated the Eucharistic sacrifice, will remain not only as a reminder of our fraternal encounter, but also as a stimulus [b]for all the faithful – both Catholic [u]and Anglican[/u][/b] – encouraging them, as they visit the glorious tombs of the holy Apostles and Martyrs in Rome, to renew their commitment to pray constantly…”

First, Benedict XVI utters a massive heresy by clearly [b]identifying Anglicans as part of the Church[/b]. He does so by calling Anglicans “the faithful” (a term used for the members of the true Church) and by saying that the Anglican “Archbishop” (a heretic and schismatic) [b]helps proclaim and represent “God’s faithfulness to his Church[/b].”

Second, as he always does, [b]Benedict XVI calls the Anglican layman Rowan Williams an “Archbishop[/b].” This is blasphemy. According to the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church, Williams is not a bishop. This position was explicitly established by Pope Leo XIII in his infallible papal bull Apostolicae Curae, September 13, 1896. [b]Pope Leo XIII made it clear that the Anglicans and the Anglican Church (which Rowan Williams now claims to be the head of) do not possess valid holy orders[/b]. Thus, Benedict XVI continually mocks the teaching of Pope Leo XIII and the centuries-old teaching of the Catholic Church on the invalidity of Anglican orders.

Sorry for the long post but it was necessary.

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1348032258' post='2484057']
No Pope no Church
[/quote]

Sure. So in every single interregnum of the Church ([b]more than 250[/b]), according to you, "there has been no Church".

Do yourself a favor, take off the blinders, and go learn something about what the Church actually teaches.


P.S. you should take the advice of your own signature.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Prosologion

[Prosologion]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1348028621' post='2484035']
Prosologion, you said nothing about my comment about the reception of traditional Anglicans by means of Anglicanorum coetibus. Would you agree or disagree that Anglicanorum coetibus was a masterstroke of legitimate ecumenism?
[/quote]

Ok now I will deal with this.

[b]First[/b], the whole thing is a sham. They are not real converts but completely false ones. Benedict XVI allows the Anglican “converts” to retain [b]“spiritual, liturgical and pastoral traditions” particular to the non-Catholic Anglican “Church.”[/b] This is heresy. The Catholic Church condemns and does not allow people to use Anglican spiritual, liturgical and pastoral “traditions” since they are utterly null and void, but the antipope describes them as a “precious gift” that nourishes the “faith” of the heretics.

[b]Second[/b], they are not “converting” because they believe in Catholic teaching, but simply because the Anglican Sect has become too radical for them to maintain a warm community feeling within it. If the Anglicans weren’t allowing homosexuality, women “priests,” etc. these people would almost certainly remain Anglicans. To cement their place as false converts within the New Order Counter Church, the Vatican II sect and Antipope Benedict XVI are even allowing them to continue to use their heretical Anglican liturgical books, as previously mentioned.

[b]Third,[/b] did you see Benedict XVI state [b]anywhere[/b] that they are to completely reject, abjure and repudiate being members of the anglican sect? Or say that the anglican sect is an invalid and worthless sect which leads to Hell? Or that they are to hold all that the Catholic Church teaches (which obviously the apostate Benedict XVI himself does not even hold since he's a complete modernist)? [b]NO[/b].


But you think this was "a masterstroke of legitimate ecumenism" eh? Sure you do, because you're not a Catholic nor hold the Catholic faith.

What I posted earlier about Benedict XVI saying that the anglicans are part of "the faithful" completely corroborates all I said and exposes this for the scandal, heresy and sham that it is.

[Prosologion]

[img]http://www.traditio.com/comment/com1104v.jpg[/img]


[b]The Next Batch of Protestant Anglican Clergy to Join the Novus Ordo Sect?
There Is Little Difference between Protestant Anglican Clergy and Novus Ordo Clergy
Newchurch's Invalid New Ordinal of 1968 Was Cribbed Substantially from the Invalid Anglican Ordinal
So Anglican Ministers "Converting" to Newchurch Are Just as Invalid as Novus Ordo Presbyters[/b]

These latter-day Protestant Anglicans have simply been duped from one Protestant sect, the Anglicans, into another, the Novus Ordo. For all their trouble, they have gained nothing but leaping out of the frying pan into the fire. [b]The reason that so few changes had to be made to the Anglican services to "Novus Ordoize" them is that the heretical and invalid Novus Ordo rites were specifically based in large part upon the heretical and invalid Anglican rites to begin with![/b]

See Pope Leo XIII's Bull Apostolicae Curae for more information on the invalidity of the anglican sect.

[Nihil Obstat]

Placeholder.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Nihil Obstat

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1348079156' post='2484230']
Placeholder.
[/quote]

Yeah, I just do not have the patience to answer you point by point. Poor debating etiquette? Absolutely. However, I simply cannot handle the absolute tedium required to do this right now.
I am sure that most regulars here can do this. That is, if you have the patience normally associated with watching paint dry and counting blades of grass.

Prosologion, I wish you all the best in rediscovering the true Church. Your zeal in recognizing legitimate ecumenism and rejecting indifferentism and syncretic practices is admirable.

[Prosologion]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1348083902' post='2484267']
Yeah, I just do not have the patience to answer you point by point. Poor debating etiquette? Absolutely. However, I simply cannot handle the absolute tedium required to do this right now.
I am sure that most regulars here can do this. That is, if you have the patience normally associated with watching paint dry and counting blades of grass.

Prosologion, I wish you all the best in rediscovering the true Church. Your zeal in recognizing legitimate ecumenism and rejecting indifferentism and syncretic practices is admirable.
[/quote]

Well, I mean there's just really no answer to all this, except to accept and acknowledge that it is all true and that this is all happening.

If you think you can somehow refute what I say, you're just engaging in a vain effort because the truth is irrefutable and what I'm showing is the truth.

Truth cannot contradict Truth (Fourth Lateran Council). You are all wrong and need to realize what is going on, and abandon the Newchurch.

[Nihil Obstat]

Have a great day; it has been fun talking to you.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Nihil Obstat

[Norseman82]

Because SOMEBODY had to post it....

[img]http://mommylife.net/archives/2012/09/07/eastwood-chair-rnc.jpg[/img]

[mortify]

[quote name='Prosologion' timestamp='1348039800' post='2484071']
Sure. So in every single interregnum of the Church ([b]more than 250[/b]), according to you, "there has been no Church".

Do yourself a favor, take off the blinders, and go learn something about what the Church actually teaches.


P.S. you should take the advice of your own signature.
[/quote]

I encourage you to study and meditate as well... and maybe go out a little more, might do you some good

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1348107096' post='2484505']
I encourage you to study and meditate as well... and maybe go out a little more, might do you some good
[/quote]

He is right about the interregnum thing though. The Church still exists during the sedevacant period after the death of the previous pope, when there legitimately is no pope.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Prosologion' timestamp='1348030589' post='2484047']
Communicatio in divinis is not a disciplinary law, it's divine and unchangeable. Read the quotes I posted. It's quite clear.
[/quote]

In a decree given in 1949, the Holy Office allowed some prayers with non-Catholics. If it were absolutely forbidden by divine law I think they would have noticed : [b] [/b]
"V—Although in all these meetings and conferences any communication whatsoever in worship must be avoided, yet the recitation in common of the Lord's Prayer or of some prayer approved by the Catholic Church, is not forbidden for opening or closing the said meetings."

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFECUM.HTM"]http://www.ewtn.com/...RIA/CDFECUM.HTM[/url]

S.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Skinzo