Sad Day For Catholic Apologetics

[VeraMaria]

[quote name='Hananiah' date='Jun 12 2004, 11:26 PM'] 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] [/quote]


I was looking through the site and he has a disclaimer that says

[quote]I am also now in the process of removing, reviewing, and restoring essays on my site that contain questionable information or errors, mostly Novus Ordo.[/quote]


sigh.

[Ben]

I just found this thread and I am sure this has been brought up, but I just wanted to say that, as a traditionalist Catholic who almost became a sedevacantist, I truly believe sedvacantism to be a serious error.

The best resources to refute this great error can be found on various SSPX websites. SSPX and the Sedevacantists are the ones who are most engaged in refuting the other. Its like they are two rival high school sports teams. Sometimes it gets absurd.

Anyway, Sedevacantism is an error because NO one can judge the Pope according to RC teaching. The Pope has no superior on earth, and ONLY a superior can declare you a heretic. However, after a Pope dies or resigns, the next Pope can declare him a heretic, this has happened in Church history. But no Catholic, and not even all the Bishops together in one Ecumenical Council, can declare a Pope a heretic, it is impossible and contary to the teaching of the Church.

The Sedevacantists make the huge mistake of judging the Pope and declaring his election null and void, something they have no power to do.

I will not deny that the Church has had no Pope in the past, but at most it was 3 years, and it was in between elections. But this in no way justifies a few priests and laymen judging the Pope, condemning him, and declaring him not to be the Pope!

And I might add that too many Sedevacantists have realized that the Catholic Church doesn't work without a Pope, and they elect their own Pope! We currently have 12 or 13 anti-Popes out there claiming the Papacy and denouncing JPII.

[BeenaBobba]

Hi PSPX,

[quote]Unfair? I simply said he exagerates. [/quote]

Well, you implied that he's been [b]as[/b] guilty of exaggeration and "invective" as those he accuses of being both. That is what I found a bit unfair. True, just about everyone is guilty of exaggeration and invective to some degree or another every once in a while. But, if you've visited Dave's webpage or blog, you'd see that he isn't even half as bad as a few of his opponents can be. Dr. James White, for example, often attacks Dave's character. Dave, like everyone, can get fed up, but from what I've seen, he is almost always kind and patient. That's a far cry from being just as guilty of exaggeration and invective as some of his opponents.

[quote]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?[/quote]

Here is what I said to Hananiah regarding this:

"I wasn't trying to put them all into the same category. I acknowledge that there are different degrees in which one can be a Traditionalist. Perhaps I used the word schismatic too loosely, and I apologize for that. What I was implying, however, was that all three aren't exactly 100% orthodox."

To the best of my knowledge, both Sungenis and Matatics must be read with a certain amount of caution nowadays, as both aren't 100% orthodox and are, perhaps, personally schismatic. (Forgive me if I'm wrong about the "schismatic" part. Like I said, I might have been rash with the word "schismatic," and again, I apologize for that.)

God bless,

Jennifer

[Stephen III]

Catholic and Fanatical asks:

"Is this desire a death bed desire?? "

I perhaps was not as clear as I should have been. A Baptism of desire is only valid under the imminency of death, so too that the other "sacraments of desire" proposition is in regards to the threat of imminent death. Otherwise as you correctly surmised one would have the obligation of educating and training the conscience. Like the catechumens for example...

Sorry for not making that clearer, I was assuming that it was somewhat understood that a Baptism of desire had the threat of an imminent death as a prerequisite., and my post's somewhat rhetorical question was a continuation in that vein.

Thanks
Stephen

Edited June 21, 2004 by Stephen III

[Hananiah]

[quote name='BeenaBobba' date='Jun 21 2004, 02:48 PM'] "I wasn't trying to put them all into the same category. I acknowledge that there are different degrees in which one can be a Traditionalist. Perhaps I used the word schismatic too loosely, and I apologize for that. What I was implying, however, was that all three aren't exactly 100% orthodox."

To the best of my knowledge, both Sungenis and Matatics must be read with a certain amount of caution nowadays, as both aren't 100% orthodox and are, perhaps, personally schismatic. (Forgive me if I'm wrong about the "schismatic" part. Like I said, I might have been rash with the word "schismatic," and again, I apologize for that.) [/quote]
Jennifer, I think an excerpt from my recent essay on traditionalism might be appropriate here.

[quote][F]or those who believe that any amount of criticism of the reigning Pontiff is sinful, I would like to pose the following hypothetical question. If you lived during the pontificate of Honorius, Zosimus, Stephen VI, Urban VI, John XXII, or any of the other bad to poor Popes with which the Catholic Church has been saddled over her 2000 year history, would you defend everything he said and did? Or would you pray for him, make every effort to induce him to self-reform, perhaps even by rebuking him, and do everything in your power to prevent his scandalous words and deeds from destroying the faith of your fellow Catholics? If the Pope was leading your fellow Catholics astray through his teaching and example, would you let them know that what he was doing was not acceptable? Would you contrast the Pope's words and deeds, in speech and in print, with the authentic patrimony of the Church? If not, why not? And if so, why do you accuse Traditionalists of schism when we do so to the current Pontiff? All I am asking for is consistency. If you would do to Honorius what we do to John Paul II, then you have no grounds for condemning our principles; at worst we have come to mistaken conclusions. If you would not be schismatic for denouncing as unjust Stephen VI's trial of Formosus's corpse, we are not schismatic for denouncing as injurious the salvation of souls the prayer gatherings at Assisi. If you would not be schismatic for objecting to John XXII's teaching that no one would experience the beatific vision until after the last judgment, we are not schismatic for objecting to John Paul II's teaching (maybe) that the Old Covenant is still salvific for the Jews. If you would not be schismatic for lamenting at how Urban VI fiddled in France while Rome burned, we are not schismatic for lamenting at how John Paul II fiddles all over the world while Rome burns.
[url="http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/b/m/bmd175/traditionalism.htm"]What is Traditionalism[/url][/quote]

[Guest JeffCR07]

I think it is a little rash and more than a little improper to compare our Holy Father John Paul II with a Pope that attempted to put a corpse on trial. However, if it IS a use of hyperbole, then your argument is understood.

[Hananiah]

I realize that John Paul II is not as bad as the Popes on the list. I'm just trying to establish a principle.

[Donna]

(C&F, that was sweet; thank you).

And to apply the principle that Hananiah is trying to establish, would it therefore be wrong to criticize a Pope for giving a disgraced Cardinal (who resigned his See over scandals like impure clergy preying on underaged faithful and financial ruin) run of a Major Basillica in Rome?

[Donna]

How might such an action impact the good will of (not the dead) members of the Church?

Edited June 22, 2004 by Donna

[Guest JeffCR07]

Donna, the point that you are making, it appears to me, is one more of personal opinion than of objective rationale. For me personally, I feel better knowing that the Holy Father has taken Cardinal Law from his position of authority in the Sates (where I live) and has placed him in a predominantly symbolic position, with little true power or authority, in such a way that he can be more easily watched by the Holy See.

However, with regards to Hananiah's point:

I am not saying that Traditionalists or that people who tend towards a "liberal" questioning of the Pope are wrong or in sin, merely that they are not orthodox. This is neither meant to be a slanderous comment, nor an attack on credibility or moral standing. As long as members of either group remain within the bounds of the Magisterium's teaching, and do not fall into schism with Rome, they are fine in my book. However, I would like to offer another way of looking at the issue:

A faithful layperson under the pontificate of Pope Stephen VI could, without falling into sin or doing anything wrong, submit to the Pope entirely, trusting that the Holy Spirit will not allow the Church to fall into ruin. This layperson could pray for the continued physical and spiritual health of the Holy Father, and prostrate himself or herself before the authority of the Magisterium and the Vicar of Christ, even as the trial of a corpse is going on.

But how can this be true? Isn't that insane? Many might say so, but I would argue that the layperson would justify it as such: "Stephen VI has been given the keys of the kingdom. He is the sucessor of Peter and wields the same authority as that Apostle. Far be it from me to Judge him. If a later Vicar, or if the Magisterium as a whole, in union with a later Pope, wishes to deem these actions as wrong, unfitting, or sinful, that is within their power, and I will submit to their authority as willingly and as truly as I submit to the authority of Stephen. I pray that God gives me the humility to accept my role, and that my actions may, if Christ desires it, provide an example for others, that there might be unity among Christians under the authority of the Pope.

Edited June 22, 2004 by JeffCR07

[Hananiah]

What if your little brother starts following the Pope's example? Then do you tell him that it's wrong?

[Guest JeffCR07]

Perhaps we are speaking of two different things here, or else I'm just an idiot and do not understand your point, lol. I am speaking exclusively with regards to Papal teachings (ie, someone can faithfully submit to the teachings of a Pope who, say, has a mistress, or a Pope who takes a corpse to trial). I am not saying that the person would mindlessly mimic the Pope's actions, but rather, would not speak out against the [i]teachings[/i] of the Pope.

Bear with me, and let me try to illustrate my point using a modern example:

Many catholics in the States believe that Pope John Paul II is not "open" enough and that the laity should have a larger role in the Mass (hence the other thread about EMoHC's)

Lets call these, for simplicity's sake (not offensively intended, and, I know, not an accurate term) the "liberals"

Many catholics believe that Pope John Paul is being "too open" (hence the thread about the Church and Ecumenicism)

Lets call these, for simplicity's sake (not offensively intended, and, I know, not an accurate term) the "conservatives"

Now in either case, the individuals in question feel that the Pope's [i]teaching[/i] is not correct, and not good for the church. I am simply arguing that it is not wrong for a layperson to, out of a desire for unity among the faithful and genuine humility, follow the Pope's teaching.

How would I feel if my little brother did the same? Good, I'm glad that he desires unity and is humble enough to submit when it is in the interest of the Church.

Or are you asking if, for example, a Pope had an extramarital affair, how would I feel if my little brother followed suit? If that is what you meant, then we [i]are[/i] talking about two different things. In no way shape or form am I condoning all the actions of the Popes - they are imperfect as we all are imperfect.

But I see a large difference between actions like those (affairs, corpses on trial, etc) and the exercising of his role as Head of the Church when he teaches.

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff

[Hananiah]

I think this applies to teachings as well as conduct. The best example would be Pope John XXII's teaching that no one would see the beatific vision until after the last judgment. No one who lived at the time would have been obligated to assent to this teaching.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Hananiah' date='Jun 23 2004, 12:09 AM'] I think this applies to teachings as well as conduct. The best example would be Pope John XXII's teaching that no one would see the beatific vision until after the last judgment. No one who lived at the time would have been obligated to assent to this teaching. [/quote]
Furthermore, one would have been in serious theological error (heresy?) to assent to these teachings.

[Donna]

Jeff, that is a beautiful example you gave in reply to me.

Can it apply within a [i]continual[/i] state of renewal and updating? I guess you would answer, "aye".

The unity is first and foremost a unity of the Faith. That is the object and yardstick.

Are all teachings -I don't speak of ex-cathedra or dogmatic ones- based upon the theology and philosophy of the Church through the ages? If they are, there is solid ground. If they are not, that means that something is shifting.