On the first hour of Catholic Answers Live on June 29th, John Martignoni attempted to give an answer to sedevacantism. My letter to John below:
Dear John,
I heard the program “Catholic Answers Live” today and can see that you were unaware of the sedevacantist arguments. In an open email discussion with Rev. Brian Harrison, I prove that Vatican 2 did in fact change Catholic doctrine. Read here: OPEN EMAIL DISCUSSION OVER VATICAN II’S “SUBSISTS”
Benedict XVI and John Paul the First have admitted that Vat2 changed doctrines. Their statements and much more can be found on my website.
No one can judge a true pope not to be a true pope, but it doesn’t take any authority to say an antipope is an antipope.
Benedict XVI, as did JP2, teaches, practices, and promotes inter-religous worship which has always been condemned as intrinsically evil and contrary to the Divine Law. I can provide many bible verses, papal, council, and saint condemnations, not to mention laws, to prove this fact. Just read Mortalium Animos by Pope Pius XI.
Sorry, but Benedict XVI (2006) bowing with Muslims towards Mecca with shoes off, arms folded, in a mosque is an abomination!!!! John Paul 2 wore a pagan stole, and actively participated in an Zoroastrian worship ceremony in 1986. He praised Voodoo and invited them to practice their demonic religion in Assisi twice. To think that all of this is okay, or good is totally anticatholic!!!!
To call them popes is an affront to Christ and the Catholic Faith!
Catholic Answers will have Rev. Brian Harrison on in August to talk about “radical traditionalists” like me, but he will do nothing but misrepresent us and use straw-man arguments against us for the world to hear. I’ve taken on Harrison several times and his red-herrings and silly arguments have helped me win over several converts to the real Catholic Church.
Please read: UPDATE: Approved Marian Apparition Warns of a Popeless Church in the 20th Century (Rev. Shannon replies)
Sincerely,
Steven
Hello,
Are you arguing that the personal conduct of a pope can exclude him from being legitimate?
SPERAY: Not exactly. I’m arguing that a pope must be Catholic in belief. If in practice, the claimant to the papacy clearly demonstrates that he believes contrary to the Catholic Faith, such as his promotion of inter-religious worship which has always been condemned by the Catholic Church, then he could not be a pope.
Ratzinger was the author of Dominus Jesus which, as I’m sure you know, is an official statement against religious indifferentism.
SPERAY: Of course, Ratzinger doesn’t teach an equality of the religions, but that’s a different issue altogether. However, Dominus Iesus does go against the historic faith with the “subsists” clause and it’s explanation which I’ve debated here: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2011/09/24/709/
Would you say that the pope is divinely protected against teaching error, or that he’s divinely protected against acting badly?
SPERAY: The pope is divinely protected against teaching error under certain circumstances, but an antipope is not. Popes can act badly as many have, but they must be Catholic. Benedict XVI’s promotion of inter-religious worship as something good is profoundly anti-Catholic. It would be like promoting artificial contraception or homosexuality as something good. All three are contrary to the Divine law making them evil, and a true pope can’t reject the Divine law anymore than he can reject Catholic dogma.
Thanks!
OK, thanks!
Interesting link. I have a cursory understanding of the issues here. Would you say that the Eastern Orthodox do, or do not, have valid sacraments (“valid” meaning that they can confect the Eucharist, for example)?
SPERAY: Yes, they have valid sacraments.
Does grace exist outside the Catholic Church?
SPERAY: Sanctifying grace, no. If it did, then those outside of the Church could be saved outside of the Church and their would be no need of doctrines such a Baptism of Desire. However, actual grace most certainly exists outside of the Church or else no one could ever convert to the Catholic Church.
Thanks!
Of course “extra ecclesia nulla salus” could be understood to not exclude those who are invincibly ignorant and cooperate with the graces they receive, but do not know so on an intellectual level, etc., etc. (you know the rest). I believe that was the point expressed by Pius XII in the Fr. Feeney case, or am I mistaken?
SPERAY: Those outside of the Church who are invincibly ignorant, good-willed, and perfectly contrite may be brought inside the Church at death. This is baptism of desire. Therefore, EENS always and under all conditions apply, since BOD or BOB brings one inside of the Church so that he is not outside of the Church at death. Fr. Feeney’s case is a little bit more complicated. Feeney held that unbaptized persons can’t enter into heaven under any circumstances. He did hold that explicit desire (with the other elements mentioned) could justify a person apart from the sacrament of baptism, but such a person would neither go to heaven or hell. He admitted that he didn’t know where such a person would go. The 1949 letter about him is unofficial and has no authority. I submit that Fr. Feeney was mistaken, but he was trying to counter those who tried to say that outside the Church there is salvation. He just missed a few points.
The case of the good thief?
SPERAY: Technically, the good thief probably falls under the Old Covenant since God, the Holy Ghost had not yet descended for the birth of the Church, and therefore he wouldn’t be a good example. Although, I understand what you’re trying to say. If the good thief had died the same way (unbaptized) after Pentecost, he would have been brought inside of the Church at death, by his desire or blood, thus he wouldn’t have died outside of the Church.
Since the magisterium could define that very thing, is the rejection of the magisterium subsequent to Pius XII based on an objective criteria other than the reverse logic of saying they teach something that you consider an error so they must not be legitimate.
SPERAY: I’m not sure how it applies based on what your asking. Perhaps, if you could rephrase the question. I’m saying that the conciliar antipopes have rejected the Divine law which is immutable.
I fail to see a distinction between what you state about the invincibly ignorant and the position of the so-called “anti-popes”.
SPERAY: Somehow you’ve gone off the subject because there is no need for a distinction about a subject I’ve never taken against.
In either case, “no salvation outside the church” does not restrict “the Church” to its visible confines. I see no difference between Pius XII and his successors on this point.
SPERAY: When did I say there was a difference? I’ve spoken about inter-religious worship, not about salvation outside or inside the Church.
If you’ll forgive me for saying so, it seems to me that your argument against the word “subsist” is manufactured to rationalize your position. Vat II and Dominus Jesus are quite clear that the Catholic Church is NOT incomplete in and of itself. There is certainly no doubt how Protestants understood it (Dominus Jesus), because they were quite upset that Ratzinger would call their communions “defective”.
SPERAY: Wrong! The Church of Christ is the Catholic Church. It doesn’t subsist in the Catholic Church. Ratzinger stated that the Church of Christ extends much further than the Catholic Church. This is heretical, because it implies that the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church are two different entities. They are not, they are one and the same.
Oh, I forgot that last part you asked me to clarify. Basically you are in the position of saying that you assent to the hierarchy as long as you approve of the hierarchy.
SPERAY: Wrong! I’m denying that the hierarchy to whom you’re referring is Catholic because it rejects the historic faith.
How would you avoid the charge of being a sola-scriptura’ist, but only with a broader scriptura?
SPERAY: Easy! I don’t believe in the bible only, even if its a bigger bible. I hold Sacred Tradition and the authority of the Church, too. That’s why I use the authority of the Church, to show that those who claim to be the authority of the Church now are not actually the authority, because there is a radical difference. The authentic authority of the Church has always condemned inter-religious worship as contrary to the Divine law, and the usurpers to that authority reject it totally!
As regards the issue at hand, the magisterium cannot define “no salvation outside the church” because you do not authorize them to give a definition that you determine to be wrong.
SPERAY: The Church has already defined no salvation outside of the Church a long time ago and it has been repeated many times by many popes throughout the years.
Sorry for the confusion; electronic corespondence does have its limitations.
The “no salvation outside the church” issue came up because if the “invincibly ignorant” person could be saved by cooperating with grace as he understands it, then we have a case of someone being saved even though they were not an explicit (outward) member of the Catholic Church. I’m just saying that that is what the “subsists” issue, and Dominus Jesus, etc is saying. To say that “subsists” is intended to mean that Christ’s church is a patchwork quilt of which the Catholic Church is only one amoung equils is manufacturing something that isn’t there. No Protestant missunderstood the meaning.
SPERAY: That’s not exactly what Vat2 means with subsists. Vatican 2 does not equate the Catholic Church with the others. They admit that the Catholic Church is the fullness of truth. However, they include false religions as part of the Church with their faulty parts.
I could agre that I very much dislike the pope appearing to go to far on the interreligious prayer thing. Especially without very thorough explanation. But, in principle, putting people of different religions in one room where they each pray in their own way is not the same thing as indifferentism.
SPERAY: It goes much further than that. In 1986, John Paul II actually wore a pagan stole and actively participated with a priestess Zoroastrianism. In 2006, Benedict XVI bowed towards Mecca with shoes off and arms folded with Muslims. Last year, he bowed before a Lutheran altar and prayed with a woman priest/bishop. I suggest you read this article on the Assisi Events here: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-diabolical-assisi-events/
And even if the pope were a personal heretic, it does not cause him to lose his office. That is why you need to erase the current magisterium retroactively.
SPERAY: According to both Canon and Divine law, a pope cannot be a heretic since a heretic is not a member of the Church. As a matter of fact, the Catholic Church defined the Gates of Hell as the tongues of heretics at the Second Council of Constantinople.
By the sola-scriptura comparison, I meant to point out your private interpretation of church documents apart from the magisterium.
SPERAY: They aren’t my private interpretations. I’ve shown the papal explanations along with the Vatican approved experts who all say the same thing.
To say that the magisterium isn’t the magisterium because of your conclusions about historic Catholic teaching, is a circular argument.
SPERAY: Not at all. What you call the magisterium practice and promote inter-religious worship as something good. If they promoted homosexuality as something good, would you conclude that they are Catholic and a valid magisterium?
Either the magisterium is guaranteed or it isn’t. Pitting one magisterium against one of another time is either not true or the Catholic Church isn’t.
SPERAY: I agree. You’re missing my point. What you have today is not the magisterium at all. The magisterium is Catholic. Antipopes are not part of the magisterium.
Perhaps our correspondence has run its course. I thank you for your time and wish you all the best!
SPERAY: Please read more. You’ve been very kind and I think you will understand what I’m saying if you looked a little deeper. It took my father 5 years before he got it.
P.S. there is one issue of which I am still curious: since Pius XII’s cardinals are all dead, is it ever possible to elect a “true” pope in your view?
SPERAY: Catholic Answers Live uses this as their definitive argument against me. However, I answer this question here: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/the-case-that-proves-church-laws-can%E2%80%99t-always-apply/
I provide in my book several famous Vatican approved theologians and canonists that teach that the cardinal elect could become extinct and that the law of devolution would apply. They say the power of the whole Church could provide for a pope under extraordinary circumstances because of the Divine law which no Church law or the inability to apply a Church law could prohibit.
Also, the law that Pope Pius XII legislated is nothing new. For hundreds of years, the law of the Church has been that only cardinals can elect a pope.
To give another answer to the objection, I could point out that the Catholic Church had many true popes in the past who were unlawfully elected. Popes Vigilius, St. Eugene, John XII, and Alexander VI are just a few examples.
Therefore, for the sake of the argument, if Pope Pius XII’s law was intended to be binding under all conditions (which it isn’t), it doesn’t follow that a future pope is impossible. From historic precedent, it’s not absolutely necessary to have a true pope through a lawful election.
I typed my last post quickly (and sloppily), you are right on my statement about a pope being a heretic. I meant to indicate improper actions.
I will read your links when I have more time. Certainly traditional Catholic doctrine holds that intellectual deference is owed to the magisterium/pope in matters that are not immediately clear (probably not the most precise way to say it).
SPERAY: I agree to a point.
And in light of the totality of Ratzingers statements on the subject such as his book “Truth and Tolerance” and Dominus Jesus, said intellectual deference would presume that the correct interpretation of the Assisi, and similar events, would exclude religious indifferentism.
SPERAY: Depends on what you mean by religious indifferentism. I highly suggest the reading of Pope Pius XI’s Mortalium Animos here: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM in light of all those events and see the contrast. What the conciliar antipopes have done is abominable, and they hold and promote these abominations as good and holy. As I’ve stated before, the Church’s condemnation of the mixing of religions has the same foundation as the condemnations against homosexuality and artificial contraception.
I believe that this is one of the issues relevant to the dialog with the SSPX. What does religious freedom mean in the modern, post-enlightenment world?
SPERAY: This is a different subject entirely. It has nothing to do with the condemnations of inter-religious worship.
Whatever it means, the correct understanding of it will not contradict the Church’s traditional teaching, but it will be more refined and nuanced.
SPERAY: We already know the correct understanding of religious freedom. When it comes to Vatican 2’s explanation of religious liberty, which is very clear, you have modernist Rome teaching that man has a natural right to practice any false religion in public. This is absolutely 100% false! If it were true, then the state wouldn’t have the natural right to prohibit things like Chic publications who blaspheme the Church with lies while promoting heresies in writing. The state may tolerate it by granting it civil rights, but this toleration and natural rights are not the same. If Vatican 2 is right, then Martin Luther was right, and Pope Leo X was wrong, because his condemnation was against Luther’s belief, “That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.” Vatican 2 would affirm Luther, not Pope Leo X.
The Church cannot pretend that the last 500 years never happened.
Thanks again for your time.
Yes, Mortalium Animos says that Christian unity does not come at the cost of truth, and the Catholic Church is not just one among equals (so does Dominus Jesus).
SPERAY: I already stated that Vat2 doesn’t hold that the Catholic Church is equal to false religions. It’s the condemnation of inter-relgious worship which I’m referring.
Since childhood I have had a Lutheran friend. Over the years I have been at his church for various events such as his wedding, the baptism of his children, his father’s funeral, etc. While I have witnessed their proceedings, I am not spiritually part of them. Nor have I ever been less than forthright about my belief that the Catholic Church is the one true Church.
SPERAY: In 1986 and 1987, Sundays after mass, I would go to a Baptist church for 2 to 3 hours and witnessed there worship service and participated in their Sunday school class. I wouldn’t worship with them and I never held that their religion was equal or even good for that matter. I did it for my own education. Was it right? Not according to Canon Law. I was in the wrong, even though I meant well. Bishop Hay wrote a book a century ago strongly condemning the things I was doing, and I agree now that I know. The mere appearance of scandal is bad enough.
Questions:
Do you judge my actions to violate the intent of Pius XI’s encyclical? By “participation” does Pius mean being in the same physical location, or does he intend “participation” to mean spiritual assent?
SPERAY: I’ll let the experts give the answer. Canon 1258 § 1. It is unlawful for Catholics to assist actively in any way at, or to take part in, the religious services of non-Catholics. § 2. A passive or merely material presence may be tolerated, for reasons of civil duty or honor, at funerals, weddings, and similar celebrations, provided no danger of perversion or scandal arises from this assistance. In doubtful cases the reason for assisting must be grave, and recognized as such by the bishop.
Commentary: This is the so-called communicatio in sacris active cum acatholicis.The reason why the Church has always forbidden such participation in the religious services of non-Catholics is the intimate conviction that she herself is the only true Church of Christ.
Secondary reasons for this prohibition are: the quasi-approbation of non-Catholic worship, which lies in a Catholic’s participation therein and which at the same time is an external profession of faith.
The other reason is scandal, which may be given to Catholics who see the mixture of worship and the deference paid to non-Catholic ministers and functions.
Finally there is the danger of perversion, or of gradually increasing religious indifference when the faithful freely and indiscriminately participate in heretical religious services.
Even the simulation of false religion is incompatible with the purity of the Catholic faith. (S.O., Aug. 28, 1780; S.C.P.F., 1729 [Coll. nn. 546, 311]. (Rev. P. Charles Augustine, O.S.B., D.D., Professor of Canon Law, A COMMENTARY ON THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW, Volume VI, Administrative Law, Canon 1258, pp. 192-193; B. Herder Book Company, Imprimatur by John J. Glennon, Archbishop of Saint Louis, Monday, November 22, 1920; emphasis added).
Do you think that the desired end result (namely the conversion of my friend) would be better served by lecturing him on what a heretic he is and refusing to attend his father’s funeral, or by my congenial disposition toward him while never compromising what is true for the sake of getting along?
SPERAY: Did the law and commentary answer this for you?
Do you see any distinction between those who knowingly and persistently refuse the truth, and those who are simply ignorant of it?
SPERAY: Absolutely! However, the question arises to how it applies in the external forum and internal forum, the law, and how we judge and act accordingly.
OK, you’re right. “Subsists” does mean that Christ’s Church is broader than the Catholic Church. But, what is meant by “broader” is merely that goodness and truth are found outside the Catholic Church’s visible structure.
SPERAY: That’s not exactly how Vatican 2 or the Vatican 2 popes explain it. They teach that the “life of grace” (UR3) can exist outside of the Church, but how can this be if the 1302 AD infallible decree defined that there is “no remission of sin” outside of the Church? UR3 also teaches that God uses false religions “as means of salvation” yet Pope Leo XIII taught that, “The Church alone…supplies those means of salvation” But the real biggie is that Vat2 in UR teach that Eastern Orthodox “through the celebration of the Holy Eucharist in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows.” And what do we now have but Ratzinger calling Schismatic/Heretical Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs “Pastors in the Church of Christ”???? He’s done it more than once and so did Paul VI. You have the Vatican 2 antipopes actually confirm that “subsists” means that the Church of Christ is not only found as the Catholic Church, but it’s also found as the Eastern Orthodox too, just not fully. Fr. Edward Schillebeechx, Walter J. Bughardt, S.J., Fr. Gregory Baum, and Ratzinger have all repeated in a roundabout way the teaching of Avery Cardinal Dulles that: “The Church of Christ is not exclusively identical to the Roman Catholic Church. It does indeed subsist in Roman Catholicism but it is also present in varying modes and degrees in other Christian communities.” That’s why the open debate on the word “subsists” is so important. Papal theologian Rev. Brian Harrison couldn’t give an answer to it.
It seems that you would have to agree with that since you acknowledge that the Orthodox have valid sacraments, the salvation of the invincibly ignorant is possible, et alia.
SPERAY: Since they don’t mean subsists in the mere way that you stated it, then your above statement doesn’t apply. However, Satanic Black Masses with valid priests have valid sacraments, does this mean that the Church of Christ exists in this form of satanism?
So it’s not so much that the post Vat II magisterium needs to prove that “subsist” is as narrow as “is”, but rather you would need to prove that Pius’ “is” is as narrow as you assume. The Feeney case may may show that it isn’t.
SPERAY: Rome has now given 4 different “official” explanations for the “subsists” clause, and it still hasn’t dealt with the actual problem, because it can’t do so. The word implies heresy plain and simple. The Feeney case has nothing to do with it because Vatican 2 has already admitted that there is no salvation outside of the Church in the proper context. The problem, however, is that when Vatican 2 says Church, it means the Church of Christ and not necessarily the Catholic Church. As a matter of fact, LG 1’s explanation of the Creed is the exact understanding as those Protestants who recite the same creed. When Protestants recite that they believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, they mean everyone who believes in Christ and is baptized, which would cross many denominational lines. That’s precisely how Vatican 2 goes on to explain it in UR, and how the Vatican 2 antipopes actually give witness to it in word and deed. Catholics don’t understand the Creed in that way. Protestant churches are not Christian churches at all. However, since Vatican 2, Rome now calls heretics and schismatics non-Catholic Christians or separated brethren, and even denies that they are heretics and schismatics: “The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection…. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.”
The terms heretics and schismatics refer to the baptized. Non-baptized persons can’t rightly be called heretics and schismatics, but rather they are called infidels, heathens, pagans, etc. However, Rome now teaches that “all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body.”
This is a change in doctrine, because the Church infallibly decreed: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also…heretics and schismatics…” (Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino 1441)
This teaching has been repeatedly echoed down through the years.
Pope Leo XIII taught: “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.” (Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896)
Pope Pius XII taught, “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.” (Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943)
The Catholic Church has always recognized that a heretical or schismatic Christian is an oxymoron. Do you agree?
Yes to the oxymoron but on one condition: the heretic or schismatic is not invincibly ignorant. If the person/persons in question are invincibly ignorant that would seem to affect the question and I’m wondering if that is implicit in what Vat II said.
It would seem that that could be the case given that it spoke of those who are not directly responsible for the break, but have inherited their tradition (read, invincibly ignorant).
SPERAY: Merely being invincibly ignorant doesn’t qualify (unless you’re an infant), but if someone is baptized, invincibly ignorant, good-willed, etc., and is practicing in the Lutheran or Anglican church down the street, such a person is a Catholic, not a Protestant at all. However, this is in the internal forum where only God makes the judgment calls. By law, we must judge in the external forum, which means they must be rendered outside the Church, even if they aren’t truly. If such a person dies in this state, he would die inside the Church, since the subjective reality is what matters, even if objectively he appears to be outside of the Church. Vatican 2 is going much further, because it implies that false religions themselves are part of the Church of Christ. Vatican 2 doesn’t just include the invincibly ignorant as it states, “all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.” This is clearly untrue since not all who have justified in Baptism are members of the Church. I explained this in my last reply, with the papal quotes.
I’ll have to do some more research.
I’m also wondering what the implications are if you are right. It would seem that James White (Protestant apologist) would be correct: “scratch Rome and she bleeds to death”.
SPERAY: Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See, 1861, London: Burns and Lambert, pp. 88-90 STATED: “The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts so new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the text of theologians of greatest repute. First Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Biegas, Suarrez, Bellarmine and Bosius that Rome shall apostatize from the faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ and return to its ancient paganism. …Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church.”
The Great Apostasy is foretold everywhere including Holy Writ.
What are the implications of saying that a pope’s validity is subject to a private determination that he taught error?
SPERAY: The question is whether the claimant to the papacy is Catholic. Does he hold to the Catholic Faith? The Pope must be Catholic, and if the one claiming to be pope is rejecting Divine law and Catholic dogmas, then he is not a Catholic and thus not the pope.
Saying that a pope can be invalidated by teaching error nullifies any guarantees via apostolic succession.
SPERAY: We’re talking about antipopes, not popes. These men were never popes because they were heretics long before their elections. We’re guaranteed apostolic succession by Christ’s promise. I have no worries about the validity of the Catholic Faith. We’re simply in a terrible time, and if Cardinal Manning’s statement is true, then I’d expect it to get worse.
It’s like “assurance of salvation”: your “assured” as long as you don’t prove you weren’t the real deal to begin with; which is no assurance at all.
SPERAY: Doesn’t apply.
I have homework to do.
SPERAY: I’m still doing it too. I learn something new everyday and if you prove me wrong, I’ll admit it as I’ve done before on this website. One person who lives in Australia has corrected me twice on jurisdiction.
I don’t think the argument that Vat II uses a variation on invincible ignorance can be dismissed that easily, but I will have to get back to that when I have more time.
SPERAY: You need to read the documents closely, including the official explanations. But let me ask you the question: Do believe like the antipopes that the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs are “Pastors in the Church of Christ?
I was giving the “assurance of salvation” argument only as a comparison to your position; not arguing on that subject in particular. In other words, what follows from your position is that we would have to examine every pope in history to find out which ones are and aren’t heretics (and therefore which ones were real popes and which ones weren’t) because God does not give any guarantees based on apostolic succession (or election) alone.
SPERAY: I was addressing your argument. It doesn’t apply. You seem to be missing the point of sedevacantism.
Saying that we can do so for an anti-pope is just making a circular argument.
SPERAY: Not at all. Again, question: What makes an antipope an antipope? What makes a true pope a true pope?
Then, we can never know if the current pope is a real pope or not because he may disqualify himself later on by some heretical action.
SPERAY: Wrong. Real popes can lose the office too. There are many, many teachings from saints, popes, and theologians on this point. A true pope will be a true pope until he deposes himself through heresy. It doesn’t mean that a true pope who becomes a heretic was never a true pope. In the case of Benedict XVI, he was never a true pope, because he was a radical heretic long before 2005.
On top of it all, we would have to play sola scriptura with Church documents to make these determinations to begin with.
SPERAY: Again, you’re completely misunderstanding the argument. It doesn’t work that way. Another question for you to think about: Does the pope need to be a Catholic or not?
I’m not concerned with private revelation.
SPERAY: Cardinal Manning’s quote wasn’t a mere private revelation. It was the “universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church” because they were basing it on the Book of the Apocalypse, which is public revelation. I wrote a book explaining it in detail. What do we call a teaching that comes from the universal testimony of the Fathers?
OK, I understand your points.
Since you would not re-baptize an Orthodox convert, how would that not show that they are “brothers in Christ” in some sense?
SPERAY: All heretics are baptized. Heretics are outside of the Church. They aren’t my brothers because they are not part of the family.
I’m not sure that calling Orthodox bishops “pastors” is not just another way of saying that their sacrament of orders is valid.
SPERAY: They most certainly are pastors, but your missing the key part of the phrase, “in the Church of Christ.” Are they Pastors in the Church of Christ? Or are they pastors outside the Church of Christ? See the difference?
The Council of Trent said that heretics can validly baptize. Does an infant baptized in an Orthodox Church receive the Holy Spirit and forgiveness of sins? If so, how would they not be connected to the body of Christ in some way?
SPERAY: Yes. Those babies are definite members of the Church of Christ which is the Catholic Church.
What if those babies remain “invincibly ignorant” when they grow into adults? Do they remain members of the Catholic Church? “Brothers in Christ”?
SPERAY: Absolutely! I already said so before.
Just for clarification, I would say that invincible ignorance is not just a matter of one’s theological education, but includes–and I think primarily so–psychological and spiritual factors.
SPERAY: There are several factors, only God knows everything, which is why we don’t judge in the internal forum.
By the way, you said before that the Church can’t make judgements about the internal forum. While I can see that would be true regarding specific individuals, how would you argue that the Church can’t make such judgements about the situation that we have today as a theoretical matter?
SPERAY: I’m not sure exactly what you’re asking. What situation today?
What I mean by “situation today” is that we have churches, ecclesiastical communities, or whatever you want to call them, that have existed for centuries. The theological wars that caused these divisions have never even occurred to most of their adherents. If Vat II said that, as a general principal, most of these people could be considered invincibly ignorant, then your arguments against Vat II teaching religious indifferentism would not hold any weight. That seems reasonable to me since Vat II explicitly denies religious indifferentism.
SPERAY: Religious indifferentism is the idea or belief that no religion is better than another. Vat2 most certainly denies religious indifferentism, because it teaches that the Catholic Church is the fullness of truth. Therefore, you’re argument doesn’t work because religious indifferentism is not part of the equation. While it is true that many people could be considered invincibly ignorant, Vat2 teaches that it’s not merely the invincibly ignorant or that everyone baptized is invincibly ignorant (take your pick), because it states that “all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body” which is clearly wrong. Heretics are cut off from the Body of Christ and all heretics have been justified in baptism. You don’t find the word heretic anywhere in Vat2 and I don’t think the word appears in the 92′ Catechism either.
It seems then, that your entire argument hinges on whether the church can make such a statement about the internal forum as a general principal, not on an individual basis.
SPERAY: I submit that it’s silly to refer to all as being invincibly ignorant. However, my entire argument hinges on the fact that the Church of Christ is the Catholic as taught by Popes Pius XI and XII. It’s not something else.
It seems reasonable to me to say that it can. If so, Vat II does not contradict prior church teaching because prior church teaching dealt explicitly with the external forum.
SPERAY: Vat2 is dealing with the external forum too. It’s making a doctrine out of an assumption that is untrue. Are we to assume those Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs are invincibly ignorant? They know very well what the Catholic Church teaches. They are theologians and scholars. Are they “in the Church of Christ” as Paul VI and Benedict XVI stated?
Furthermore, I wonder if one could say that, in a sense, we are dealing with the external forum because so many non-Catholics manifest an objective ignorance about the Catholic Church. If the Catholic Church were what they say they think it is, then they would be right to reject it. Whether or not they are fooling themselves is in the realm of the objective forum.
SPERAY: Food for thought. Wouldn’t you say that Vat2 on this point is at best very ambiguous? Are you aware of what Pope Pius VI taught in Auctorum Fidei about ambiguity in teachings?
Oops! that last sentence should read “internal forum” not “objective forum”.
You say it is clearly wrong to say that “all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body”, but did you not affirm that very thing in the hypothetical case I gave of the Orthodox infant? This makes me think you are denying that heretics can validly baptize.
SPERAY: Anybody, even heathens can validly baptize. Heretics (baptized) are not members of Christ’s Body. They’ve been cut off. We don’t assume that everybody who has been baptized in invincible ignorance remains invincibly ignorant. That would make all formal heretics hypothetical cases. That’s why I asked whether Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs (scholars and theologians) should be considered “in the Church of Christ.”
I find this conversation useful but I do not want impose on your time.
SPERAY: You’re not, don’t worry. You’re keeping it short and sweet and I’m having fun doing so.
You are forcing Vat II to say that everyone who is baptized is saved; and that is not what it is saying. Clearly what it is saying is the same thing you affirmed: that baptism outside the visible Catholic Church is still valid.
SPERAY: No it’s not. Vat2 is saying that all who have been baptized are members of the Church of Christ, which is simply not true. We don’t assume that everybody is invincibly ignorant and really inside the Catholic Church. We don’t call these non-Catholics Christians, yet, Vat2 says they all have a right to be called Christians.
John ,
Where can I find info on” The Book of Enoch” regarding angels ?
Also would your Bishop like a packet from Bai educating support of separated/divorced renaining faithful to their vows?
Joan D. Ford
Jdford1@ameritech.net