Question on CvC debate

[Tarcisius]

For all of you that consider Trads, sedes, sspxers etc. not Catholic, not in communion, out of the Church, the same as prots, why is any discussion between us labled Catholic V. Catholic debate? Shouldnt we be allowed to question and argue like the prots on here since you seem to think about us the same way?

[cmotherofpirl]

Nope cause these fringe groups claim to be catholic.

Catholic vs Catholic Debate
A post or comment that results in doctrinal debates that might cause scandal among the faithful. *Effective immediately, any negative criticism of religious or the current Magisterium will result in deletion, and a warning from the moderators. This includes but is not limited to criticism of the Novus Ordo mass and/or our Holy Father.

We don't do doctrinal debates that question the teachings of the Magisterium. We actually believe in the virtue of obedience to the teachings of the Church, therefore they are not debatable, nor can you pick and choose one period of church teaching over another. Protestants who come to dialogue actually deserve to hear what the actual church teaches, not some fringe groups personal protesting opinion.

[goldenchild17]

Yeah, Protestants deserve to be corrected(which they do) but schismatics do not... I really don't see how we can be brought back into the Church if our questions and responses aren't addressed. Maybe you don't care to bring us back into the Church?

Edited May 17, 2006 by goldenchild17

[qfnol31]

Not at the risk of all the other faithful.

So many people are influenced by the laughable junk on the internet and so it would be wrong for us to cause scandal by it ourselves.

[goldenchild17]

Not at the risk of all the other faithful... Apparently Protestants aren't a threat. This tells me just one thing, that our schismatic arguments are pretty strong if you guys feel it would be a risk to expose yourselves to it, but not Protestant stuff... Interesting.

[Theoketos]

Schismatic Catholics [i] on the internet[/i] do take way more effort because they are louder and my experience more hard hearted. That is to say they take away time from a more fruitful [s]debate[/s] dialogue.

Schism is a scandal to the faithful, being born Protestant is not.

Further, while Protestants may only be in material schism, that is they may be in invincible ignorance. Schismatic Sedevacantist have much more to answer for because they have greater original knowledge, that is to say there ignorance, if it is such, is vincible.

Consider the following quote from Vatican Council I (1870):

“For the fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, following closely in the footsteps of their predecessors, made this solemn profession: ‘The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true Faith. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ Who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” (Matt. 16:18), should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied, and its teaching kept holy.’ ...for they fully realized that this See of St. Peter always remains untainted by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior made to the prince of his disciples, ‘I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; and do thou, when once thou has turned again, strengthen thy brethren’ (Luke 22:32).”

Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical Satis Cognitum, taught that the Teaching Authority of the Church can never be in error:

“If (the living magisterium) could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error.”

Sedevacantism
By Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas, CMRI

Sedevacantism is the theological position of those traditional Catholics who most certainly believe in the papacy, papal infallibility and the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, and yet do not recognize John Paul II as a legitimate successor of Peter in the primacy. In other words, they do not recognize John Paul II as a true pope. The word sedevacantism is a compound of two Latin words which together mean “the Chair is vacant.” Despite the various arguments raised against this position — that it is based on a false expectation that the pope can do no wrong, or that it is an emotional reaction to the problems in the Church — the sedevacantist position is founded on the Catholic doctrines of the infallibility and the indefectibility of the Church and on the theological opinion of the great Doctor of the Church, St. Robert Bellarmine.

As an introduction to this article, let the traditional Catholic first ask himself why he is a traditional Catholic. Why does he not attend the Novus Ordo Mass? Why does he reject the teachings of Vatican Council II on Religious Liberty and Ecumenism? Why does he reject the new code of Canon Law (1983) in which under certain circumstances schismatics and heretics may, without an abjuration of their errors and a profession of the Catholic Faith, be administered by a Catholic priest the Sacraments of Penance, Extreme Unction, and Holy Eucharist? If the traditional Catholic answers the first question correctly, he would state quite simply that the New Mass is without a doubt a danger to his faith and that due to the radical changes in the Offertory and Consecration, it is questionable whether transubstantiation even takes place. In answer to the second question, the traditional Catholic would properly state that the teachings found in Vatican II decrees of Religious Liberty and Ecumenism have been condemned by previous popes, in particular by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors. Lastly, to the third question, the traditional Catholic would surely answer that such a law in the new code can never be considered as true and binding legislation since the sacraments would be sacrilegiously administered to heretics and schismatics.

How appropriately did the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on the occasion of his Suspension a divinis by Paul VI write the following reflection on June 29, 1976:

“That the Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive.

“This Conciliar Church is schismatic, because it has taken as a basis for its updating, principles opposed to those of the Catholic Church, such as the new concept of the Mass expressed in numbers 5 of the Preface to (the decree) Missale Romanum and 7 of its first chapter, which gives the assembly a priestly role that it cannot exercise; such likewise as the natural — which is to say divine — right of every person and of every group of persons to religious freedom.

“This right to religious freedom is blasphemous, for it attributes to God purposes that destroy His Majesty, His Glory, His Kingship. This right implies freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, and all the Masonic freedoms.

“The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.”

Let the traditional Catholic, especially the members of the Society of St. Pius X, ask themselves to what extent have the Pope, bishops, priest and laity adhered to this new Church which would, as Archbishop Lefebvre reflected, separate themselves from the Catholic Church. John Paul II completely adheres to the Conciliar Church. He enforces the Novus Ordo Mass and false teachings of Vatican II. He promulgated the New Code of Canon Law (1983). He has boldly practiced false ecumenism and heretical religious indifferentism in Assisi, Italy, on October 27, 1986, by the atrocious convocation of all the false religions of the world to pray to their false gods for world peace!

As unpleasant as this subject may be, traditional Catholics are confronted by the terrible and burning questions:

Is the Conciliar Church the Catholic Church?

Is John Paul II, as the head of the Conciliar Church, a true pope?

The sedevacantist would unhesitatingly and unequivocally say no.

To believe otherwise, to answer yes to the above questions, would be to imply that the Catholic Church has failed in its purpose, that the Church of Christ is not infallible and indefectible, that the Pope is not the rock upon which Christ founded His Church, that the promise of Christ to be with His Church “all days even to the consummation of the world” and that the special assistance of the Holy Ghost, have failed the Church — conclusions which no traditional Catholic could ever maintain. Consider the following quote from Vatican Council I (1870):

“For the fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, following closely in the footsteps of their predecessors, made this solemn profession: ‘The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true Faith. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ Who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” (Matt. 16:18), should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied, and its teaching kept holy.’ ...for they fully realized that this See of St. Peter always remains untainted by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior made to the prince of his disciples, ‘I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; and do thou, when once thou has turned again, strengthen thy brethren’ (Luke 22:32).”

Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical Satis Cognitum, taught that the Teaching Authority of the Church can never be in error:

“If (the living magisterium) could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error.”

How can a traditional Catholic on one hand reject the New Mass, the heretical teachings of Vatican Council II, and the New Code of Canon Law (1983), and on the other hand, continue to recognize as pope the very one who officially promulgates and enforces these errors?

To consider yet another question, is the faith and government of the traditional Catholic the same as John Paul II and his Conciliar Church? Do traditional Catholics believe the same doctrines as John Paul II and his Conciliar Church on the New Mass, false ecumenism, and religious liberty?

Are traditional Catholics subject to the local hierarchy and ultimately to Rome?

Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Mystical Body of Christ, taught:

“It follows that those who are divided in faith and government cannot be living in the one Body such as this, and cannot be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”

Are traditional Catholics united or divided in faith and government with the Conciliar Church?

The sedevacantist honestly recognizes that his faith is actually not the same as John Paul II and his Conciliar Church. He recognizes that he is actually not subject and obedient to John Paul II. As a traditional Catholic, the sedevacantist believes and professes all the teachings of the Catholic Church, and this profession of the true Faith includes a rejection of the false teachings of Vatican II (“all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive” — Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, June 29, 1976).

During the first prayer of the Canon of the traditional Mass which begins Te igitur, the priest in normal times would recite una cum papa nostro N. (one with our pope N.). What significance does this short phrase convey — una cum, one with? One in faith, one in government, one in the Mass and Sacraments — united — this is the significance! Can a traditional priest honestly recite in the Canon of the Mass that he is una cum John Paul II? In what is he una cum John Paul II? In the Conciliar teachings, in government, in the official New Mass and Sacraments — is he actually una cum?

One last consideration on this subject of sedevacantism is the manner in which all these things have come to pass. When did they take place? How did they take place? This is an area in which sedevacantists themselves differ. Some hold that the papal elections were invalid based on the Bull of Pope Paul IV in 1559, Cum ex apostolatus:

“If ever at any time it appears that... the Roman Pontiff has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy before assuming the papacy, the assumption, done even with the unanimous consent of all the Cardinals, stands null, invalid and void; nor can it be said to become valid, or be held in any way legitimate, or be thought to give to such ones any power of administering either spiritual or temporal matters; but everything said, done and administered by them lacks all force and confers absolutely no authority or right on anyone; and let such ones by that very fact (eo ipso) and without any declaration required to be deprived of all dignity, place, honor, title, authority, office, and power.”

Some sedevacantists quote the Code of Canon Law (1917) in Canon 188 No. 4:

“All offices shall be vacant ipso facto (without a declaration required) by tacit resignation... #4 by public defection from the Catholic Faith.”

Others hold the opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine in De Romano Pontifice (Chapter XXX):

“The fifth opinion (regarding a heretical pope) therefore is true; a pope who is a manifest heretic by that fact (per se) ceases to be pope and head (of the Church), just as he by that fact ceases to be a Christian (sic) and a member of the body of the Church. This is the judgment of all the early Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”

Pope Innocent III as quoted by the theologian Billot in his Tract. de Ecclesia Christi, p. 610:

“The faith is necessary for me to such an extent that, having God as my only judge in other sins, I could however be judged by the Church for sins I might commit in matters of faith.”

Suffice it to say, the issue of the pope is a difficult one, an unpleasant one, and a frightful one; yet it is a necessary and important issue which cannot be avoided.

In conclusion, let it not be said that the sedevacantist rejects the papacy, the primacy, or the Catholic Church. On the contrary it is because of his belief in the papacy, the primacy, the infallibility and the indefectibility of the Catholic Church that he rejects John Paul II and his Conciliar Church.

For the sedevacantist, the Catholic Church cannot and has not failed. The great apostasy predicted by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Thessalonians has taken place:

“Let no one deceive you in any way, for the day of the Lord will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and is exalted above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sits in the temple of God and gives himself out as if he were God.... And now you know what restrains him, that he may be revealed in his proper time. For the mystery of iniquity is already at work; provided only that he who is at present restraining it, does still restrain, until he is gotten out of the way. And then the wicked one will be revealed...” (2 Thess. 2:3-8).

Who is this one “who is at present restraining it... until he is gotten out of the way. And then the wicked one will be revealed”? Perhaps Pope Leo XIII has the answer in his Motu Proprio of September 25, 1888, when he wrote in his invocation to St. Michael:

“These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.”

[url="http://www.cmri.org/sedevac.htm"]http://www.cmri.org/sedevac.htm[/url]

[qfnol31]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='983899' date='May 17 2006, 04:13 PM'] Not at the risk of all the other faithful... Apparently Protestants aren't a threat. This tells me just one thing, that our schismatic arguments are pretty strong if you guys feel it would be a risk to expose yourselves to it, but not Protestant stuff... Interesting. [/quote]

Actually I laugh at the absurdity and cry that people fall for it.

I don't think they're very good arguments to anyone who knows the Faith well...but as it stands, how many people do?

[goldenchild17]

If they are not good arguments then why would it be harmful to show just how faulty they are? What risk would it be to the faithful? It makes no sense, if they are so easy to show the error of, then why not do this to try and bring ppl(like me who are 100% willing if I am shown to be wrong) back to the Church? If some aren't strong enough in their faith to partake in such debate, then why not have a special section for it where only those approved are allowed to respond to such questions? We have a Q&A board here which I think is a great idea. Why not have something similar for these discussions. You guys are alienating a lot of people and confirming them in their "false" beliefs by not responding to them. It has the effect(on me at least) of making me believe that there is no adequate response to my beliefs and that is why you will not answer them.

[goldenchild17]

[quote]Schismatic Catholics [i] on the internet[/i] do take way more effort because they are louder and my experience more hard hearted. That is to say they take away time from a more fruitful [s]debate[/s] dialogue. [/quote]
Then why not do as Scripture suggests? If one is too hard of heart to consider your position, then brush your feet off and move on. But Scripture does tell us to try. Give individuals a shot at open dialogue. I know for certain I have been aching for open discussion on things that have bothered me in the last year. All I want is the true story and true interpretation of things, but as I have been restricted from bringing up what I have found I have not been able to benefit from such learning as could be possible if such discussions were in some way made available.

[quote]Schism is a scandal to the faithful, being born Protestant is not.

Further, while Protestants may only be in material schism, that is they may be in invincible ignorance. Schismatic Sedevacantist have much more to answer for because they have greater original knowledge, that is to say there ignorance, if it is such, is vincible.[/quote]
Then all the more reason to engage them in dialogue in order to convert them! If we are in MORE trouble than Protestants, this gives even more purpose in trying to put us back on the right path.

[quote]Consider the following quote from Vatican Council I (1870):

“For the fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, following closely in the footsteps of their predecessors, made this solemn profession: ‘The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true Faith. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ Who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” (Matt. 16:18), should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied, and its teaching kept holy.’ ...for they fully realized that this See of St. Peter always remains untainted by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior made to the prince of his disciples, ‘I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; and do thou, when once thou has turned again, strengthen thy brethren’ (Luke 22:32).”

Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical Satis Cognitum, taught that the Teaching Authority of the Church can never be in error:

“If (the living magisterium) could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error.”[/quote]
Not sure what this accomplishes. I affirm completely that the Church can NEVER err through it's infallible teachings. Which is why I can't believe at this time that the Church in the Vatican is the Catholic Church. If the Church cannot err, and the Church of the Vatican has erred(as I believe it has) then I can't accept it as the true Church.

And I am quite familiar with the article you posted. Why did you post it though? He and the CMRI are sedevacantist, I don't believe they would be accomplishing your point... I have a lot of respect for the CMRI and if presented the opportunity in the Fall may begin to consider joining their order as a priest.

[goldenchild17]

I'm just not sure why it would be so hard or bad to put up a forum, even a private hidden forum for us to air our concerns and have any Catholic(or just those who are designated to deal with these concerns) be able to dialogue back and forth. Any fighting could be deleted, such topics closed and whatnot. But some of us actually do want to know what good answers to our questions would be. If we are in a worse condition than the protestants, then I would think it proper to allow discussion in order to set us straight... A private forum for this purpose would protect those not fully formed in their faith or prone to falling away, and keep them and Protestants from viewing and/or responding to the topics in such a forum. Besides protecting them, it would allow a chance for us to see our errors if indeed they are so easy to spot. If I am in error I most certainly want to know why.

[Socrates]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='983955' date='May 17 2006, 05:04 PM']
I'm just not sure why it would be so hard or bad to put up a forum, even a private hidden forum for us to air our concerns and have any Catholic(or just those who are designated to deal with these concerns) be able to dialogue back and forth. Any fighting could be deleted, such topics closed and whatnot. But some of us actually do want to know what good answers to our questions would be. If we are in a worse condition than the protestants, then I would think it proper to allow discussion in order to set us straight... A private forum for this purpose would protect those not fully formed in their faith or prone to falling away, and keep them and Protestants from viewing and/or responding to the topics in such a forum. Besides protecting them, it would allow a chance for us to see our errors if indeed they are so easy to spot. If I am in error I most certainly want to know why.
[/quote]
Well, since you (as of last I heard) claim the Pope is not really the Pope, and the Catholic Church is not really the Church, your error is quite easy to spot from a Catholic perspective. In essence, your position is not much different from a protestant view.

I think the reason such debate is banned on here, is so non-Catholics trying to learn about the Catholic Faith will not be subjected to the spectacle of various self-proclaimed "Catholics" arguing about such things as who the Pope is, and who is really the Catholic Church.

Personally, I'm curious to know you think IS the Pope. (Feel free to email me.)

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='983955' date='May 17 2006, 07:04 PM']
I'm just not sure why it would be so hard or bad to put up a forum, even a private hidden forum for us to air our concerns and have any Catholic(or just those who are designated to deal with these concerns) be able to dialogue back and forth. Any fighting could be deleted, such topics closed and whatnot. But some of us actually do want to know what good answers to our questions would be. If we are in a worse condition than the protestants, then I would think it proper to allow discussion in order to set us straight... A private forum for this purpose would protect those not fully formed in their faith or prone to falling away, and keep them and Protestants from viewing and/or responding to the topics in such a forum. Besides protecting them, it would allow a chance for us to see our errors if indeed they are so easy to spot. If I am in error I most certainly want to know why.
[/quote]

There are many catholic boards that provide such fora, Phatmass is not one of them. It is not the purpose of this site. This board in particular is for inter-religious dialogue, and strives to present teaching that is faithful to the magisterium. So at this point, C Vs C will not be permitted here. If you wish to ask questions there are many theologians here capable answering them. But we do not debate magisterial teaching, Masses, Vatican II etc, since obedience to them is not an optional.

[goldenchild17]

[quote]Well, since you (as of last I heard) claim the Pope is not really the Pope, and the Catholic Church is not really the Church, your error is quite easy to spot from a Catholic perspective. In essence, your position is not much different from a protestant view.[/quote]
Again this is stated, but as it is not allowed to be discussed I will never know why. If my position is no different than a protestant, and if I am worse than a protestant because I have left the Church, then I should be corrected(especially if it is so easy to do) and I would most definitely want this.

[quote]I think the reason such debate is banned on here, is so non-Catholics trying to learn about the Catholic Faith will not be subjected to the spectacle of various self-proclaimed "Catholics" arguing about such things as who the Pope is, and who is really the Catholic Church.[/quote]
And thus the reason for a private forum(as I know we have at least one other private forum here). It would be easy to do and nobody that isn't authorized(ie. anyone that might be "scandalized") can view the discussions going on.
[quote]
Personally, I'm curious to know you think IS the Pope. (Feel free to email me.)
[/quote]
We don't have one at the moment, as there has not been yet held a valid conclave in quite awhile.

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='983971' date='May 17 2006, 05:33 PM']
There are many catholic boards that provide such fora, Phatmass is not one of them. It is not the purpose of this site. This board in particular is for inter-religious dialogue, and strives to present teaching that is faithful to the magisterium. So at this point, C Vs C will not be permitted here. If you wish to ask questions there are many theologians here capable answering them. But we do not debate magisterial teaching, Masses, Vatican II etc, since obedience to them is not an optional.
[/quote]

I understand. The purpose of this site is not to bring schismatics back into the Church. I am fully aware of this now. I just find it very sad is all, as it would be very easy to do and not scandalize those who might otherwise be. Especially since I think many would benefit from it, not only the schismatics who could be shown their errors(those who are open to learning, like me) but anyone who wanted to learn how to defend the Church against such schismatics.

Edited May 18, 2006 by goldenchild17

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='984009' date='May 17 2006, 08:12 PM']
Again this is stated, but as it is not allowed to be discussed I will never know why. If my position is no different than a protestant, and if I am worse than a protestant because I have left the Church, then I should be corrected(especially if it is so easy to do) and I would most definitely want this.
And thus the reason for a private forum(as I know we have at least one other private forum here). It would be easy to do and nobody that isn't authorized(ie. anyone that might be "scandalized") can view the discussions going on.

We don't have one at the moment, as there has not been yet held a valid conclave in quite awhile.
I understand. The purpose of this site is not to bring schismatics back into the Church. I am fully aware of this now. I just find it very sad is all, as it would be very easy to do and not scandalize those who might otherwise be. Especially since I think many would benefit from it, not only the schismatics who could be shown their errors(those who are open to learning, like me) but anyone who wanted to learn how to defend the Church against such schismatics.
[/quote]
There are other sites that debate Magisterial teachings, but we are not one of them. People here are quite willing to explain them, however. Ask away We just don't start by considering them debatable.

[qfnol31]

[quote]Then all the more reason to engage them in dialogue in order to convert them! If we are in MORE trouble than Protestants, this gives even more purpose in trying to put us back on the right path.[/quote]

I'll answer this one because it's easy.

I will not risk the faith of many who are unstable to save the one I know think is in error.