Rev. Shannon of the Fathers of Mercy continues discussion/debate with his reply from Dayton, Ohio, on Sat, Jan 07, 2012 08:48, and my reply back on Jan. 8, 2012.
Dear Rev. Shannon,
Again, I answer below in bold.
I have started a new email stream. A good friend of mine was brought into the Church…that is, the Visible Catholic Church which our dear Lord wanted people to find without much difficulty…anyway, this friend of mine was brought into Holy Church via a SSPX priest. Over the years, this friend has seen a lot of confusion and wonders if the Church for him is just a Church of one member or perhaps just a couple. After some time, however, he has realized that the true Church is visible.
I never denied that the Church is visible. Even when 99% of the apostolic sees were filled with Arians, or during the Great Schism when 3 men claimed to be pope, or when the Church was underground in Rome the first few centuries, the Church remained visible.
You know the requirements…Sacramental Baptism, Profession of the True Faith, and under the hierarchy especially the successor of good St. Peter.
Well, it appears you don’t know the requirements: A profession of the True Faith which is what the conciliar popes don’t have. That’s my point. A radical apostate claiming to be pope is not a successor to St. Peter. It also appears you don’t know what constitutes the abandoning of the true religion revealed by God, according to the Magisterium, as explained below.
Our dearest Lord wants us to be assured about this one thing. We may not absolutely know if we are in the state of grace since it is a spiritual thing that cannot be measured, but He does want us to be very certain that we are a member of His Mystical Body. I have no confusion here. I am in the baptismal register of a parish in Massachusetts…I have not been accused of nor have I willingly and formally held to a false teaching….and I am under a local bishop who is under the pope, ergo, I am a member of the True Church. You have compared my orders to that of the Anglicans who are re-ordained absolutely if they happen to come into the true Church and are called to serve at the altar. But then you suggest that I be re-ordained conditionally. Do you have just a little doubt that perhaps the modern holy orders are valid?
Not really. You have not demonstrated how your orders are different than the Anglican’s, condemned by Pope Leo XIII. According to Pope Leo, the Anglican’s form is deficient, your orders appear to have the same deficiencies, so what makes your orders valid? Besides, why should I believe Pope Leo’s teaching that the Anglican orders are invalid? How is it anymore binding that Vatican 2? You must be able to answer these questions. I would love to know that you have valid orders. In one way, I wish Rome never altered the sacraments, but on the flip side of the coin, it’s one more thing against them. They leave no doubt about their apostasy. It’s total. That’s why all the arguments you give (as well as those on my blog) about a pope merely making an error are so blatantly contrary to the current situation, such as Rome’s numerous serious erroneous teachings, plus the numerous apostate meeting with the mixing of religions, and the radical change in the sacraments causing the reasonable doubt, only proves sedevacantism. They leave us with no doubt whatsoever. You haven’t a leg to stand on by defending them.
Perhaps you could refer to me, at least conditionally, as Fr. Shannon…or Fr. Collins, because I may a priest.
Are you? Why should I believe it?
As for good Fr. Anthony Leonardo, you seem to have trouble understanding that he has no right to serve…no right to preach…no right to hear confessions and grant absolution…and certainly has no right to be a pastor souls. Such a right can only be granted by the Visible Church which has a visible directory with official Catholic Church parishes.
Where does the Church teach that you have to have a visible directory under extreme conditions? I submit that Fr. Leonardo has been granted by the Visible Church to serve. So far, you have not demonstrated that you are a true priest under the Visible Church given that you were ordained by a rite which seems to fit Leo’s XIII’s condemnation.
Your assembly hall is only present in the Yellow Pages.
Wrong. We are organized, too. You just don’t see it, because you don’t want to. Your church only claims to be the Catholic Church, but you pointed out above regarding professing the true Faith, you have absolutely no foundation for such a claim. We have the historic Catholic Faith, and you have a modernist invented religion by radical apostates who have usurped Rome.
Ask him for his faculties one day…and if he produces them for you from a bishop ordained in Holiday Inn Cathedral…then ask him for the paperwork that allows him to exercise his priesthood in the Louisville Archdiocese.
Since the Louisville Archdiocese has abandoned the historic Catholic Faith, it has no authority. It’s not a Catholic diocese anymore.
Jurisdiction is required for validity in confessions and for marriages and that cannot be supplied by some independent bishop without an assigned territory.
It can under extreme conditions. You can prove otherwise?
You also suggest that I could be re-ordained conditionally for “we” have churches to do this in. Who is “we?” Don’t tell me you are part of that group We Are Church? It sounds almost cult-like. For members of the Visible Church, we generally refer to her being Christ’s Church.
We are the remnant of what’s left of the Catholic Faith.
The problem with sedevacantists is that they are just like neo-Catholics…they truly believe that the pope can never err and that everything written by them or an ecumenical council is infallible.
Wrong again! Popes can err and have done so. My book goes into it. They can’t be heretics and apostates! You are the real neo-Catholics since you pick and choose what papal teachings and laws you will follow.
For the neo-Catholic, everything that Bl. JP II wrote or said is gospel and so they embrace Assisi and condemn capital punishment as immoral.
The Assisi Events alone are grounds for sedevacantism! Pope Pius XI has condemned the idea of the Assisi Events as apostate in Mortalium Animos. Look at this quote in light of the Events:
“For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.
3. But some are more easily deceived by the outward appearance of good when there is question of fostering unity among all Christians.”
For the sede, falling into the same trap, they reject him as pope because he actually did something wrong.
Wrong. He is rejected because he doesn’t believe in the Catholic Faith. You call the Assisi Events just something JP2 and Ratzinger did wrong? A mere error? Really? It’s totally apostate! It’s as evil as anything anyone could do!
You suggest that all of Vatican II must be believed…what gives you this ridiculous idea?
What gives you the ridiculous idea that you can reject it (if were legit)? It doesn’t really matter anyway, since the conciliar popes believe and promote it, and they even tell you that you can’t reject it. But I guess you get to pick and choose what you want to believe in your religion, right? Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura and Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum condemned what you’re suggesting.
Should I believe with divine Faith the document on the Media and Social Communications at VAtican II?
Not with divine faith, but with religious assent if it concerns faith and morals.
Should I hold as de Fide every statement of a Wednesday audience? Come on, dear Steven, wake up.
I never even implied such a notion! All you’re giving in this reply is smoke and mirrors.
The charism of infallibility is quite narrow.
I actually agree with you here! But as the Church teaches, you must also hold to some non-infallible teachings, too.
Vatican II has not bound me to believe anything against the Catholic Faith.
Yes it has! You must hold to the heresies with religious assent and you can’t reject it according to Paul VI and B16.
I can reject ecumenism…a very bad policy for sure…and still be a Catholic in good standing.
You are bound to reject it to be Catholic in good standing, especially if you have the theological credential of Ratzinger. Or should we assume as doctrinal watchdog, he was ignorant?
By the way, I never stated that Pope Benedict was a formal heretic.
So he’s unaware or not intentionally going against the historic Faith, perhaps? You know, I know, our children know, but he doesn’t? Sorry, but we can’t give the pope the luxury of such ignorance, besides he’s the expert.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”
Ratzinger has no excuses! He knows precisely what he’s doing.
Canon 2200.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “When an external violation of the law has been committed, malice is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proven.”
“The very commission of any act which signifies heresy, e.g., the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity… Excusing circumstances have to be proved in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action has given rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of such proof, all such excuses are presumed not to exist.” (Eric F. Mackenzie, A.M., S.T.L., J.C.L. Rev., The Delict of Heresy, Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Univ. of America, 1932, p. 35. (Cf. Canon 2200.2).
Rev. P. Charles Augustine goes into more detail as he explains Canon 2216-2217 and the different penalties:“Why can the Church, unlike the State, inflict a penalty latae sententiae? It appears unjust and unworthy of a perfect society to condemn one before he is heard. But we must not forget that the Church is a peculiar society, with a religious character that does not remain on the surface, but penetrates and encompasses the whole man. She reaches into the court of conscience. Besides, the most sacred offices might be neglected and abused without punishment because of lack of witnesses and plaintiffs, and the fear of penalty and final exposure may check malice and carelessness. Therefore the first traces of censures latae sententiae coincide with the spread of evil influences in the sixth and seventh century. In order to protect ecclesiastical discipline more efficaciously, this quasi self-executory remedy was found most efficient and secure. (pp. 74-75 Book Vol. VIII, book V)
Interestingly, Pope Innocent IV stated at the First Council of Lyons, 1245: “The civil law declares that those are to be regarded as heretics, and ought to be subject to the sentences issued against them, who even on slight evidence are found to have strayed from the judgment and path of the Catholic religion.” (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 283.)
Finally, in relation to the situation today, St. Robert Bellarmine would comment on the Liberius case: “For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.” (St. De Romano Pontifice, lib, IV, c. 9, no. 15)
We’re not talking about a slip of the tongue, or some simple error that can be overlooked with Ratzinger. We’re talking about many major errors and violations of the law that affect everyone. He’s a super modernist! What you have now is a new religion coming out of Rome. They give approval to nearly every other religion in the world except one; they condemn the traditional Catholic religion and those who hold fast to the historic Catholic Faith.
Also, you suggest that the Sacraments and liturgical acts approved by the pope are perfect and not to be touched. Why is it then, that the Sacrament of Confirmation has changed its form on a number of occasions in past centuries? What is perfect and complete should never be changed.
Wrong once again! I never said “not to be touched.” However, just because something changes doesn’t necessarily mean that there is something wrong with it. When I was kid in the first and second grade, mom and dad told me to go to bed at 8:30pm. This is a discipline. When I was in the 6th and 7th grade that discipline changed to 9:30pm. When I was in high school, it changed again to 10pm and later. Each discipline was perfect and spotless. Disciplines can change and be spotless. Are you suggesting that there was something wrong with the Canon of the Mass for 500 years that Pope Gregory had to change it? I gave you the words of the popes and theologians themselves, but I guess you can pick and choose not to believe all those popes that said the sacraments are perfect and spotless, or not even crippled.
When I state that the Sacraments of the New Rite are faulty, I do not doubt that grace flows purely through them. RAther, the accidentals of the rites are certainly mitigated in such a way that the person receiving the Sacrament, as well as the priest and witnesses, may not be as well disposed to receive that grace well. Be good.
In Jesus and Mary,
Well then, you still have a flaw present. The Church teaches to the contrary. You’re rejecting the teachings of the Church, but I guess you don’t have to believe all the teachings of the Church; just the ones you like. We Catholics find that alien to the Catholic Faith.
So far, you haven’t really answered any of my questions or dealt directly with my points. I have dealt directly with each of your points.
You added the following email on Sun, Jan 08, 2012 10:06 AM before I sent you the reply from above…
Pax Christi! Just a small correction regarding Bl. JPII and evolution. You are using a faulty translation. The actual statement made in 1996 was:Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.*.
An explanation is then added: The English edition at first translated the French original as: “Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of more than one hypothesis within the theory of evolution.” The L’Osservatore Romano English Edition subsequently amended the text to that given in the body of the message above, citing the translation of the other language editions as its reason.
Okay fine. It doesn’t really matter to me. It sure doesn’t help your cause, though.
Another thing to keep in mind is all the Church teachings, including those on matters touching upon science. Consider, for example, the following statement approved by Pope Urban VIII and sent, by the pope, to all inquisitors, papal nuncios of Europe notifying all clergy and professors: The proposition that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture. The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves….is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.
As you know from your reading, the Fathers are unanimous in holding a geo-centric and geo-static system, though they were presented with a heliocentric model by the Greeks. I have been a geo-centric, geo-static guy for years, although I at once fell into the heliocentric model. I guess I was in material heresy at least for a bit. You might say that this is not an article of the Faith, and you might be right. At the same time, however, the fact that the world was created “in the beginning” cannot be proved by science, for this world could have been eternal with the Creator, albeit always dependent. It is Scripture that assures us that the world is not eternal, but created in time. For the past 200 years, the members of Holy Church have dropped the ball on this issue, including popes that have allowed the heliocentric model to be discussed….heresy discussed?
I don’t believe so. It’s not important as to whether the earth moves, sun moves, or both move, provided that you believe in the inerrancy of Holy Writ in all that it asserts. You can believe that God created it all in the beginning and still hold to any of the 3 propositions. I believe Urban’s teaching is false. It’s not heretical since he isn’t going against a doctrine, but since the First Vatican Council, teachings are to fall under faith and morals, not science, to be doctrinal. Although, it is interesting that Urban and even St. Bellarmine thought that the issue was indeed about faith since it goes against Holy Writ. Pope Benedict XV in writing Praeclara Summorum believed that the earth moves. Holy Writ is infallible when asserting a scientific fact, but the question is if Holy Writ was asserting that the earth doesn’t move. Since the issue is a scientific one, can the Church make a doctrine on a scientific issue if the Scripture asserts it? It’s definitely a fascinating topic!
Pope Pius XII not only opened the door for the false science of evolution,
I don’t agree that he opened the door to the false science of evolution, but I could believe that he left the door unlocked. Many popes have failed in their duty. Once Pope St. Pius X died, his successors let the modernists come back to the same posts from which Pope St. Pius fired them. However, it’s a far cry from the conciliar popes who are the modernists.
but he also spoke at papal audiences about the big band theory, another total joke scientifically speaking, as if explosions are creative.
Wait a second. Was the Big Bang theory telling how the world was created? After all, the original ball of all material had to be created for an explosion to happen. Can you not accept the theory without contradicting the Faith? I don’t believe in the theory anyway. I’m pretty sure it’s been debunked by science itself.
Evolution and the big bang theory are blasphemous treatments of the good Lord Who, at the beginning, creates and orders all things sweetly, without explosions, without mutations, without death and disease.
I don’t necessarily agree with you here. We know that micro-evolution is a fact, but macro-evolution is what we’re speaking about. Scientists have to give us an old earth theory to make it believable, and they can’t give very good evidence for that theory. It may be old, but no one really knows, or could know for sure. We also see explosions all the time with volcanoes, and they are magnificently beautiful. God couldn’t have ordered these explosions in the beginning? And finally, I have to give ole Jimmy Akin credit for an explanation for how death and disease is a possible scenario for animals that lived before man (in case the days of Genesis didn’t represent literally 24 hours, which he also give a possible explanation for). He may be wrong, but I don’t think we can say for sure that he isn’t. We can only give our opinions why or why not. Quite frankly it doesn’t matter provided the parameters of interpreting Holy Writ are kept secure in the doctrine that they are the infallible Word of God and don’t go outside the doctrines of the Catholic Church.
The modern, revolutionary spirit, in other words, has been within the membership of Holy MOther Church for more than a century, dear STeven, not just in the past 50 years.
Be good…Fr. SC
The revolutionary spirit has been within the Church for 2000 years, but we aren’t talking about the revolutionary spirit, but the actual revolutionaries. I have a revolutionary spirit, but I don’t act on it.
Read Full Post »