Sad Day For Catholic Apologetics

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Hananiah' date='Jun 16 2004, 07:03 PM'] PSPX,

I'm actually not quite sure about Matatics. According to Dave Armstrong, he describes himself as an agnostic regarding the legitimacy of John Paul II's pontificate. I'm not sure if this is true, but it would be a serious error if it is. Also, he recently did a speaking tour with an SSPX priest. [/quote]
Let me asure you that Matatics is NOT a sedevecantist. He attends an indult parish in Scranton (ST. Michael's). As regards the SSPX, it is quite irrelevant who else spoke at a conference he was at. This in no way implicates him in anything. He supports his family by speaking where peole want to hear what he has to say (and by selling tapes of those talks.) The Holy Father has spoken at events not only with schismatics (like the Sedevecantists clearly are) but also with pagans of the worst sort: animists and vodoo witch doctors. Do we implicate him in such circumstances of being of one mind with these folks? I hope not.

[popestpiusx]

By the way, Dave Armostrong is prone to the same exageration and invective that he is so very fond of accusing others of.

[Hananiah]

Alright, thanks for the information.

[Donna]

Re: Mr. Matatics' speaking tour Hananiah mentioned.

The one in charge of [i]Culture Wars [/i]magazine, E Michael Jones - no adherent of the SSPX by any means! - spoke at an SSPX seminary, in 2003, I think.

I'm sure there are other examples of like things. Are they good or bad?

Context matters.

[Donna]

PSPX, thanks. I should really read everything before I reply!

It was at a conference!? Oh brother, then paint everyone red, man. There is so much mixture of speakers at conferences! Not just Trad ones, either.

I think this is a good thing.

[Donna]

Jeff, thanks for the clarification, which I'm not quite sure what to make of.

First, there is a huge difference between the sedes and the liberals (speaking gnerally). The liberals do not want to keep the Faith. They hate the Commandments, the papacy, the hirarchy, etc;

Did St. Paul withstand Cephas to his face because he hated the Pope? Did Jesus hate the Pope (Get thee behind me, Satan)?

There is a serious misunderstanding, in my unscientific observation, among Catholics who do not "get" Traditionalists (whether these be Indulters, SSPX, Independent, or sedevacantists). It is that these tend to defend a Pontiff rather than the Papacy itself; ditto with current documents, rather than the whole of magisterial teachings. I'm sure there are many exceptions.

But it's crazy; one disagrees for a legitimate reason, which remains unclarified for years and other Catholics are ready to throw one into the leper's valley.

The devil is laughing.










However, the layity have the Faith, too.

[Hananiah]

Bump. He's added a section of objections and responses.

[Donna]

Oh dear, I hope they are not in Latin.

Then again, my last post was maybe unclear, I see now that I've read it again.

Bad habit, I do not finish my thoughts sometimes. Also, state of duty often has me rushing away suddenly.

Em, are you talking about Jeff's objections, Mr. H? Where is they?

How many more questions can I ask in 30 seconds?

GO!

[CatholicAndFanatical]

Wow, nice posts everyone..learn things new everyday.

On another board im dialoging on there are a few people that are against the Pope saying he isnt the Real Pope.

I mean, I always thought the first thing a false Pope would do was try to convince people that the Eucharist really isnt the True Body of Christ, or you dont have to go to confession anymore and things like that.

Who would of thought a false Pope would bring people CLOSER to Christ.


I see IronMonks around...HI MAX!! *waves*


God Bless everyone

[Donna]

Hey, C & F!

You've been in my thoughts.

Nice to see ya.

[Stephen III]

Derksen's a clown.

He seems so caught up in becoming an anti-catholic basher that he would deny them a last dying chance of conversion.

As far as reconciling the two canons, one should pay close attention to the words!

The canons he attacks with an obvious slant, and as his PROOF that our beloved holy father is not the pope are:

[b][i]§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.[/i][/b]


First off, the the phrase..."[b][i]not in full communion"[/i][/b] is a phrase best viewed as to the seperated status of the larger Eastern Church itself from the Catholic Church. Almost a formality. For as most people would know, our seperation is based primarily on two things: 1.) that the pope is or is not the universal head of the church and 2.) The filoque statement in the Profession of Faith. Two things that while we hold to our Roman Catholic teaching and tradition, the church has come to view (IMO) as a tragic and unfortunate reason for seperation and hardly worth maintaining seperation over. (Afterall could there not be some compromise that does not diminish the validity of the positions?)
In virtually all other areas we are in complete agreement, so much so that their orders are considered valid! Their Eucharistic celebration is authentic and recognized as being so.
As are their baptisms, marriages, etc.
But the validity of their sacrements is really not the question here. The question is in regards to (btw not just as for the Eastern Orthodox, but for anyone not formally RC) the statement of being "[i][b]properly disposed[/b][/i]". As others have pointed out to be properly disposed, one would be: 1.) [b]under the likelihood of death[/b], 2.) [b]a true and geniune conversion [/b]etc. etc.
These things in and of themselves, I believe would be enough to administer the sacrements! Afterall what the person is effectively doing is renouncing their former associations with the seperated . They are making a profession of faith! A deathbed conversion. Would Christ himself deny these penitents that most holy and living grace given through these sacraments?! I think not.
And if you want biblical proof, all one has to do is recall the story of the thief on the cross. We Catholics refer to that which was bestowed on the penitent thief on the cross who professed his faith in Christ as what?......[u][i][b]A Baptism of desire![/b][/i][/u] The thief on the cross was formally not one of Christ's followers, yet upon his deathbed (or death-stick if you prefer) received the sacrament of Baptism, by none other than Christ himself! (Remember that priests act as in the persona of Christ when they administer the sacraments.)
Let me finish by asking a somewhat rhetorical question?

If we as Roman Catholics can accept and believe in a [i][b]Baptism of desire[/b][/i], why cannot there also be other [i][b]Sacraments of Desire[/b][/i]?

God Bless
Stephen

Edited June 19, 2004 by Stephen III

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Jun 16 2004, 11:33 PM'] By the way, Dave Armostrong is  prone to the same exageration and invective that he is so very fond of accusing others of. [/quote]
I think that's very unfair. Dave's one of the best apologists, and he's always seemed very charitable to me. (I've never seen him over-exaggerate or become overtly abusive, either.)

God bless,

Jen

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='BeenaBobba' date='Jun 19 2004, 06:26 PM'] I think that's very unfair. Dave's one of the best apologists, and he's always seemed very charitable to me. (I've never seen him over-exaggerate or become overtly abusive, either.)

God bless,

Jen [/quote]
Unfair? I simply said he exagerates. You are the one who accused (wrongly, I might add) Matatics and Sungenis of being schismatic. Shall we discuss (or perhaps define) "unfair"? Or rather, would you like examples?

[CatholicAndFanatical]

Hiya Donna!!

Thank you for the prayers, much needed on this end.

I miss you and everyone here, been so long since I posted here there are some new faces around.

Maybe my constant talk of phatmass is getting somewhere huh?

Have a great night! May God continue His blessings on you!

[CatholicAndFanatical]

Stephen III


Great posts and points you made.


[quote]
If we as Roman Catholics can accept and believe in a Baptism of desire, why cannot there also be other Sacraments of Desire?
[/quote]

Is this desire a death bed desire?? I think that is the difference, if a person is healthy to go through the normal lines of becoming Catholic then that should be whats done, simply 'believing' they are Catholic wouldnt be enough (IMO). If this person is uneducated on the foundation of the Church, then it would do more damage than good to this person. Sure they recieve the Body of Christ, but do they even [b]know[/b] they are receiving Him?

A desire on the deathbed is just like the thief on the cross, whether its dying after a long stint of cancer or being in a horrible car crash, once you ask Christ for forgiveness it is done.

More is expected from someone not on their deathbed, like learning about Christ and His Church.

Again, this is my opinion, I just found your question interesting and I started to brainstorm. I am far from qualified to answer correctly so I'll quit.

God Bless!