Sad Day For Catholic Apologetics

[Hananiah]

I had heard rumors a few weeks ago, but didn't believe them. Now he has made a public announcment.

[url="http://www.cathinsight.com/statusjpii.htm"]http://www.cathinsight.com/statusjpii.htm[/url]

[Crusader_4]

Is he very tradtional in that he believes that JP II is not the Pope or that the Pope is a made up thing?

Edited June 13, 2004 by Crusader_4

[blovedwolfofgod]

i think this guy has a serious problem. But still, how do we counter such a statement?

[Archbishop 10-K]

Noooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I used to refer to Cathinsight.com all the time, and this is really depressing news. I'm a semi-traditionalist myself, but denying our awesome Pope is going way too far.

[Hananiah]

[quote name='Crusader_4' date='Jun 12 2004, 09:30 PM'] Is he very tradtional in that he believes that JP II is not the Pope or that the Pope is a made up thing? [/quote]
I would avoid using the term traditional to describe sedevacantists, but to answer your question he believes that JPII is not the Pope.

I think the way to refute this argument is to attack premise 2. It is beyond my abilities, however.

[phatcatholic]

hananiah,

how does one reconcile the two canons he refers to in his second premise:

[b]Canon 732 §2, 1917 Code of Canon Law:[/b]
It is forbidden that the Sacraments of the Church be ministered to heretics and schismatics, even if they ask for them and are in good faith, unless beforehand, rejecting their errors, they are reconciled with the Church.

--with--

[b]Canon 844 §§3-4, 1983 Code of Canon Law:[/b]

§3 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the eastern Churches not in full communion with the Catholic Church, if they spontaneously ask for them and are properly disposed. The same applies to members of other Churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the same position as the aforesaid eastern Churches so far as the sacraments are concerned.

§4 If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgment of the diocesan Bishop or of the Episcopal Conference, there is some other grave and pressing need, Catholic ministers may lawfully administer these same sacraments to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who spontaneously ask for them, provided that they demonstrate the Catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed.


this somewhat troubles me. your thoughts?

pax christi,
phatcatholic

Edited June 13, 2004 by phatcatholic

[amarkich]

It is much easier to take the Sedevacantist position because it is more reasonable. Faith plays a larger role in our belief that John Paul II is truly the Pope. The "best" argument that I have heard against Sedevacantism is that God would not leave the Church without a Pope, hence the words of Our Lord "behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." c.f., St. Matthew xxviii.20. The issue, then, is whether or not the Church can actually be without a Pope. The Sedevacantists argue that this occurs between the death of one Pope and the election of his Successor. While this is true, it does not necessarily merit equal standing to a period of 40 years (since Vatican II) without a true Pope, or, in this case, 21 years (since the destruction of the 1917 Pio-Benedictine Canon Law in exchange for the new, lax, and possibly scandalous 1983 Code of Canon Law). The Sedevacantists will likewise point to such incidents in the Church as the Western Schism (this argument, however, if void because the Church professes that there was a Pope at this time). Likewise, they point to the fact that some Popes have been anathemized (which could very well happen to the Popes since Vatican II or to John Paul II, should one of their Successors deem them to have held heretical beliefs or to have made some grave error; N.B., this does not in some way claim or admit that the Church has erred). Further, while this point is well made, it is not valid insofar as obedience to the anathemized Popes (at least as far as disciplinary canons are concerned) was still required. In short, the idea that there is no Pope is not altogether unacceptable but would be an unprecedented event in the Church (N.B., the words of Our Lord are in no way skewed by the fact that there is no Pope governing the Church because He is still with the Church through the Church's governance and the authority of the Church's Bishops). The only issue to consider, as far as rational argumentation is considered, is whether or not vocal disobedience to the Pope and rejection of his legitimacy is a safe belief as far as each individual's soul is considered. You can live completely by the Church's laws as an individual from before Vatican II (and even before the pre-Vatican II changes that were simply the beginning of the Vatican II and post-Vatican II innovations). I follow this life as far as is possible. While I cannot attend a Mass which is completely without the pre-Vatican II changes (namely the 1955 changes and 1962 changes; we are subject to the 1962 liturgical books), I can still follow all the Canons of the old Canon Law concerning fasting (midnight to Communion, including water--and medicine, at least for me); I can also encourage others to follow the Canons concerning women's dress at Mass (covered heads--and, if you are a woman, you can follow this). Further, I can still follow the other laws of the Church according to the old Code as long as they are in obedience to the new Code (all of the old laws of the Church concerning individual piety are stricter than the new laws, so there is no problem here). The only issue is whether or not it is a safe situation in which to exist, denying the authority of the Pope. There have been Saints who have done it (Saint Athanasius for example--the Creed which takes his name is also a very strong expression of the infallible doctrine "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus", by the way). This is very shaky ground, however, and seems to be a useless endeavor unless one is in some place of authority by which one could rebuke the Pope and publish his opinions on the matter (Canon Law in this case). This is essentially what Saint Athanasius did (and Sedevacantists will generally look to him as their sort of Patron Saint). I certainly cannot see Sedevacantism as a legitimate stance in light of Church history (even though I believe, with many accomplished theologians, that Modernism is the greatest heresy and is therefore greater than Arianism; N.B., I would venture to say that more Bishops today have fallen into the Modernist heresy than had fallen into the Arian heresy, depending on which statistics you believe about Arianism and the Bishops' stance on it at that time). I also feel that the concept of the Church being without a Pope for such a long time, while not contradicting the words of Our Lord concerning the Church, is unfounded not only in history but also in practical theology, for it is still necessary to the Church to be governed (even if it is done by a Pope who is later anathemized). With all of that being said, it seems that the best case scenario would be for the Church to simply revert back to the old Canon Law, the Old Mass, etc, etc (and, if necessary, to anathemize those writings or individuals who have scandalized many), but this is simply the best case scenario based upon my knowledge of how anathemas are received (there may be even more havoc as a result of anathemizing a previous Pope; in this case, it would be better to save the anathemas for a later time in history so as not to increase the scandal from before). All we (the laity) can do is pray for a true reform of the Church (which is not a reform in its common understanding but rather a restoration, a renewal of what has always been taught and believed by all). God bless.

EENS,
Adam

[Dave]

I remember when Mario Derksen's site used to be orthodox. Then he gradually started taking a critical attitude of the Magisterium that made him indistinguishable from those in SSPX (actually, I bet he joined them, considering how he put up articles claiming that the SSPX allegedly wasn't really in schism). And now this -- a slippery slope.

[peach_cube]

I believe his error could be the determination of who are heretics and schismatics. If all protestants are heretics and schismatics then he appears to be true. However, if we count heretics and schismatics as those who have rejected Catholic teaching, only once they were exposed to it, then his assumptions are false.

[Archbishop 10-K]

Without getting heavy into dogma, and just using common observation, doesn't it seem like being a sedevacantist is essentially being a type of Protestant? As Catholics, we are strongly tied to the authority of the Pope and the unbroken succession (I think, anyone back me up here?) thereof. Also, why would God allow for a man such as John Paul II to be universally recognized by the faithful as the Pope if he really wasn't? Where's the logic here!?

[phatcatholic]

maaaan, i'm still dyin to know how to reconcile those two cannons.

(see my post above)

[Archbishop 10-K]

Well, wouldn't "demonstrating respect for the Catholic faith" and being "reconciled with the Church" the same thing? I mean, the latter canon seems to be outlining deathbed conversion to me, but correct me if I'm wrong, since I'm no expert.

[Bruce S]

[quote] All we (the laity) can do is pray for a true reform of the Church (which is not a reform in its common understanding but rather a restoration, a renewal of what has always been taught and believed by all). God bless.
[/quote]

You had one going, the Charismatic's, and stopped the ONE move of the Holy Spirit to energize the Catholic Church in our lifetimes.

[BeenaBobba]

What's with people like Robert Sungenis, Gerry Matatics, and now this guy becoming all Traditionalist and schismatic?

God bless,

Jen

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

I have a couple thoughts. When I was going through RCIA, some of us were wondering, "why can't we receive communion? We all believe in transubstantiation and agree with the church." The answer was in that while we had faith, we were not in communion. Taking communion during mass is an act of communion.

However, this refers to an grave situation, so I'm assuming one where life may end soon. I always assumed during RCIA that if I was hurt pretty bad and about to die in the hospital, I could have received communion even though I wasn't Catholic yet, due to this law. If I'm going to die, I would like do die in a state of grace. I could not be baptized again, and thus my only options would be through the other sacraments. In any case, the bishop MUST approve the administration of the sacraments. I could then receive the sacraments because I would have Catholic faith in these sacraments and would already be on my way to receiving them.

Essentially, 5 events must occur at the same time, or at least within a small window:
1) Christian is in a grave situation
2) Christian seeks sacraments in this situation (this implies already a strong tie to them, usually only demonstrated in Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and Lutheran churches, or in potential converts)
3) Christian cannot get his own minister for the desired sacraments
4) Christian agrees that a Catholic priest can administer the sacraments in absence of his own minister and has full faith in the sacraments in accord with the Catholic faith (almost no one but potential converts would demonstrate this at this point)
5) Bishop grants dispensation for priest to administer the sacrament.

This is not a back door into ecumenical celebration of the Eucharist. This is a way of administering the sacraments to the faithful who may not be in union with the church. As I recall, you can only be received into full communion inside of a church (for RCIA alums, those are the questions the priest asks you before you get confirmed. This is necessary for the confirmation in this case as the only dispensation the bishop gives is to confirm you after becoming in union with the church).