Click on the following links to see more articles against John Salza:
Pass the Salza, Please
Answering John Salza’s Straw-man Arguments Against Sedevacantism
Debunking All Canon Law Arguments Against Sedevacantism in a Nutshell
John Salza on Sedevacantism – Part 2
John Salza On Sedevacantism – Part 1
John Salza and Robert Siscoe’s Fable of St. Vincent Ferrer
The Folly of Michael Matt, John Salza and The Remnant Newspaper
A Note to John Salza: Heresy ‘Does’ Automatically Sever One from the Church
Canon 188.4 and Defection of Faith – Why John Salza and Robert Siscoe Get It Wrong (Part III)
The Sin of Heresy – Why John Salza and Robert Siscoe Get It Wrong (Part II)
Why John Salza Gets It Wrong – Part 1
Robert Siscoe and John Salza’s New Argument Against Sedevacantism: DEBUNKED
THE FOLLOWING IS A RESPONSE TO JOHN SALZA’S WEBSITE AGAINST SEDEVACANTISM
7. What are we to think of the “Sedevacantists”?
J. Salza: Rich, “sedevacantists” should change their name to “capitavacantists” (empty heads) because their heads must be empty to argue that we have no pope. I don’t mean to denigrate these people, and I acknowledge that many of them are very intelligent. But I completely reject their position. They have overreacted to the crisis in the Church in a way that is Protestant, not Catholic. This is how I approach the subject.
Speray: That’s funny. Empty heads is how we call Vatican 2 supporters. Anyway, overreacting like a Protestant is ridiculous. There is no overreacting and not recognizing non-catholics as popes is totally Catholic.
J. Salza First, it was in connection with the appointment of Peter over the Church that Christ promised the gates of hell would not prevail against her (Mt 16:18). Thus, if there is no Peter, there is no Church, and the gates of hell have prevailed. If the sedevacantists are right (that we have no pope and we don’t know where the next pope will come from), then this makes the Savior’s promise a lie and Christianity a false religion.
Speray: By this ridiculous accusation, the Church stopped existing each time a pope dies and the gates of hell prevailed. What is a lie, is the Vatican 2 Church is the Catholic Church which is assumed by Salza. All that is being done by Catholic sedevacantists is recognizing what is and isn’t the Catholic Church.
J. Salza Second, the First Vatican Council infallibly teaches that the Church endures always because Peter has “perpetual successors.” The Council makes it clear that the Church’s perpetuity exists, not because of the office of Peter, but because of the person of Peter, for the office would mean little without the person. Anyone who denies this teaching is anathema. Again, if the Sedevacantists argue that there is no person in Peter’s office, then the Church no longer exists because her perpetuity depends upon Peter’s successors. Such a position is anathema.
Speray: Sorry, but Salza misrepresents Catholicism here. The First Vatican Council does not say that the Church exists because there is a pope which is what Salza implies. If one were to follow Salza’s argument. The Church stopped existing when Peter died.
J. Salza Sedevacantists rebut by saying we can have a gap in papal successors because we have gaps (interregnums) in papal successors after a pope dies. But don’t you think Vatican I took this into account when it taught that there must be perpetual successors to Peter’s chair? Don’t you think the council knew about interregnums? Of course it did. The First Vatican Council has already dealt with the issue of Sedevacantism by infallibly declaring that Peter would always have perpetual successors, notwithstanding required interregnums after the death of a pope. Sedevacantists deny that the Church has perpetual successors because they claim we haven’t had a pope in 48 years and don’t know where the next pope is coming from.
Speray: As a matter of fact, the Church once went three and half years without a pope, and following Salza reasoning the Church no longer existed those long three and half years. The Church didn’t know then where the next pope was coming from, but the Church doesn’t need to know when, where or how the next pope is coming from. There is no Church teaching that says we must know. The Great Schism the Church couldn’t even tell who the true pope was for over 40 years. Again, who is the one with the empty head? Salza!
J. Salza No one is denying that a pope can lose his office if he becomes a formal heretic. Robert Bellarmine, a doctor of the Church, taught that a pope would lose his seat if he were to deny or doubt an article of divine and Catholic faith and obstinately persist in his belief. I am not aware of any reputable theologian who denies Bellarmine’s teaching. Note that the pope must not only deny Catholic truth, but he must also do it knowingly and pertinaciously. In other words, he must be confronted about his heretical beliefs still persist in his error. This means that the pope must be a formal (not just a material) heretic.
Speray: This is correct but this doesn’t apply since Roncalli through Ratzinger were heretics and or Masons before their respective elections. They never lost the papacy since they never had it.
J. Salza The issue is not whether a pope can lose his office for formal heresy; he can. The issue is how do we determine when the pope loses his office for formal heresy. How do we determine when this happens? This is the sole issue on the question of Sedevacantism.
Speray: Presuming Ratzinger was a true pope (even though he never was), then why not follow the rest of what St Bellarmine stated in the very document since he was referred as being correct here? St Bellarmine said any Catholic can make that determination.
J. Salza The Sedevacantists would have us believe that this determination can be made in an unofficial, informal capacity by a .00001 percent of the Catholic population in factious, grass roots efforts made up primarily of lay people. Not only is this illogical, but no where in the Church’s 2,000 year history is there any precedent for such a position.
Speray: Actually this is not correct. There have been antipopes before and the regular Catholic had to make that determination. It is true that never before has anything been like today, but that doesn’t make it an illogical position. Catholics must be able to recognize who and who is not a Catholic. What is illogical is to say that Catholics must accept men as true popes who don’t accept basic Catholic Doctrines and worship with pagans. What is worse, Salza is saying that a pope may actually be a heretic and ipso facto lose his office but the average Catholic must accept him as a true pope even though he is not. This is also illogical.
J. Salza Instead, the Church has indicated that such a determination would have to be made in a formal, official capacity such as the invocation of an ecumenical council. This is the teaching of Sts. Anthony of Florence and Alphonsus Liguori, the latter being a doctor of the Church. In fact, this has been the practice of the Church when investigating the heresy of a pope.
Speray: Again, the same rule applies. A council or something may be needed if the crime is uncertain. St Alphonsus Liguori also said a pope ipso facto loses his office by heresy, and never did he imply that such a person must be recognized as a pope until declared by a council or something.
J. Salza For example, when Pope John XXII in 1331 taught in a series of sermons that the holy souls do not see God until the Last Judgment, Cardinal Orsini called for a general council to declare the pope a heretic. As a result, the pope stated that he had not intended to bind the Church to his teaching and retracted his error the day before he died.
Speray: This misrepresents the facts on the issue, but to cut short my reply, John XXII didn’t reject any doctrine yet. The teaching came after the death of John. Popes can err in the realm of opinions and this is a clear case of such a thing. This is nothing compared to John Paul II rejecting that just men before Christ actually went to a place we call limbo of the just or hell. John Paul II said this statement in the Creed is a metaphor and even said that we all will descend into hell when we die. Benedict rejects the Resurrection of the body and says it is the whole person that is resurrected. This is major stuff.
J. Salza Similarly, when Pope Honorius (625-638) in an informal letter approved Sergius’ formula that Christ had one will, the Third Council of Constantinople (680-681) posthumously condemned Honorius and Sergius for heresy. Pope Leo II affirmed the council’s condemnation (Honorius’ teaching was unofficial and thus did not invoke the Church’s charism of infallibility).
Speray: Again, Honorius was nothing like the position of today.
J. Salza These two examples demonstrate that when a pope is suspected of heresy (which could cause him to lose his office), the determination of whether the pope is in fact a heretic must be done in a formal and official capacity, presumably through a general council. Moreover, even though Honorius was condemned by a pope and an ecumenical council, he was never declared to be an anti-pope! Honorious was still considered the pope!
Speray: Suspect of heresy is nothing compared to absolutely knowing for sure. It doesn’t need to be done in some formal and official capacity when it is so clear and manifest as with Ratzinger. As for Honorius, he was not considered a pope after his heresy! The fact that he was at best doubtful afterwards, means he must be considered an antipope. So Honorius proves sedevacantism not disprove it. [Note: I received a phone call asking if I hold Honorius as an antipope because Salza recently wrote that I did. I do not hold that Honorius was an antipope but I do hold that he might have been and that possibility must be considered. In my poor grammar, the above statement makes it appear that he must be held as an antipope. In my book Papal Anomalies, I’m very clear that Honorius MIGHT have been an antipope after the so-called heresy, but leave the question open. The fact is Honorius was no heretic even though a later pope said he was. Because he was pope before his so-called heresy, he would still be held as a pope in history. Pope St. Agatho believed Honorius became a heretic, which means he believed Honorius lost his pontificate. Honorius technically didn’t reject any dogma since it was defined until after his death. However, it doesn’t matter. Catholics are free to believe what they want about Honorius. We have popes that the Church is still unsure of. Honorius has no bearing on the issue since the Vatican 2 popes have publicly and repeatedly rejected Catholic doctrine and Divine law. It’s a totally different issue. ]
J. Salza There is nothing in the Church’s tradition that says the determination of whether a pope is in heresy can be made by the public opinion of .00001 percent of the Catholic population, made up mostly of lay people who have no formal role within the Church’s official, ecclesiastical structure. Further, even where a pope is condemned for heresy (like Honorius) by a general council, the heresy must be formal (i.e., knowingly denying an article of Catholic faith) for the pope to lose his office. Such a situation, while possible, is quite unimaginable. Even Martin Luther, the psychotic alcoholic who called the Vicar of Christ an “ass-head,” was given a chance to explain himself before the Church condemned him. Shouldn’t the Holy Father get the same due process?
Speray: Lay people know the Creed and going against it constitutes formal heresy for a theologian since he knows better. Martin Luther didn’t need to be condemned. It was done for another purpose. To expose him in public. However, he was not a Catholic and guess what? Cardinal Cajetan called him a “formal” heretic long before the declaration. Since there is no Holy Father the question doesn’t apply. However, even if there were a true pope and did and said the things as Ratzinger, he would not need to be declared as one who lost his office.
J. Salza Sedevacantists rebut by saying that an official determination cannot be made since all (or most of) the Cardinals and bishops are imposters. This, of course, begs the question. Who made that determination? And if that were really true, then they dig themselves an even deeper hole. Not only are there no perpetual successors to the chair of Peter, there are no cardinals available to elect a new successor! This means that there is no more Catholic Church and the gates of hell have prevailed.
Speray: Theologians after Vatican I have said that in extraordinary conditions, if there are no cardinals, the bishops could vote in a pope. This argument of Salza doesn’t apply. The gates of hell have prevailed if heretics like Roncalli through Ratzinger are true popes.
J. Salza We should also point out the difference between judging the pope and resisting him. In the Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus (1559), Pope Paul IV declared that the pope is “judged by none in this world,” but “may nonetheless be contradicted (resisted) if he be found to have deviated from the faith.” Thus, there is a distinction between judging or deposing a pope, and resisting a pope. The esteemed 16th century theologian Francisco Suarez even taught that a pope could be a schismatic and hence resisted, but would still retain his office as successor to Peter. Indeed, there must be an official determination of formal heresy by the Church hierarchy before a pope can be deposed and lose his office.
Speray: It’s hard to believe Salza uses this argument. Pope Paul IV declared in his Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus that even if all the cardinals and the whole world recognizes a heretic as a true pope that you the informed Catholic must reject such a person as a true pope. Pope Paul IV gives the sedevacantists the best reason to be sedevacantists. Read the document and find out how Salza completely misrepresents it. As for Suarez, Salza doesn’t give you everything that he says. As for a an official determination, there is one, it comes from Pope Paul IV in the Bull cited, but Salza doesn’t want to accept it.
J. Salza In short, the Sedevacantist thesis rests entirely upon the private judgment of its own adherents. Sedevacantism is, in fact, nothing more that Protestantism by professing Catholics – a hodge-podge of private opinions by splintering factions without any internal controls. This is why various branches of sedevacantism have already elected about 20 different popes throughout the world! They are sure that we don’t have a true pope, but they cannot even agree on who the real pope is!
Speray: This is so ridiculous that it’s hard to believe he would make such a stupid statement. There are many antipopes for sure, and people believe them to be true just like those who accept Ratzinger. There is no real pope precisely because all of them were invalidly elected. This argument by Salza could be used by anybody. I could say Salza uses his private judgment that Ratzinger is pope. After all, everybody we’ve accepted as true popes thoughout the years is by private judgment. Sure, someone elected them, but we must ultimately accept them by our own judgment. True popes come from valid elections. If you follow Salza’s argument, the Church would have been obligated to follow several antipopes in history such as Anacletus II. He was an antipope and most of the cardinals recognized him. Benedict X was an antipope and reigned for 9 months. Follow Salza’s argument and you are expected to follow these antipopes, since you’re not allowed to follow your own private judgment that an antipope is an antipope.
J. Salza All this, of course, puts the cart before the horse. That is because the Sedevacantists have not proven that John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II or Benedict XVI have become formal heretics (nor do they have the authority to make such a determination). In fact, they have not even proven that these popes have taught formal heresy. I will admit that a few of Pope John Paul II’s words and actions have been ambiguous at times. The popes, just like the rest of us, succumb to weakness. But this does not prove heresy. And it certainly does not prove the personal sin of formal heresy for no individual is the pope’s judge.
Speray: This is an outrageous lie! These men have held many terrible heresies that would even make Martin Luther look like a good Catholic. It has been proven that they are formal heretics but Salza apparently doesn’t think rejecting the doctrines found right in the Creed are heresies.
J. Salza Moreover, none of the five popes mentioned above have bound Catholics to anything contrary to the faith.
Speray: The five antipopes do not have to bind anything, since they themselves are ipso facto outside the church by their manifest heresies. However, Vatican 2 has bound Catholics to follow, believe, and obey it.
J. Salza Although we are experiencing a liturgical and theological crisis in the Church, the fact is that Catholics are free to practice the faith as they always had before 1958.
Speray: Another outrageous lie. Since one is bound to Vatican 2, then there is no freedom to practice the faith as they always had before 1958. The New Mass was all anybody had for a long time. Salza is living in some kind of dreamland.
J. Salza Sedevacantists argue that true popes would not have allowed such harm to come to the Church. Says who? God Himself warned us that the Church would house wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Speray: Sedevacantists don’t say this. Sedevacantists say that popes must be Catholic.
J. Salza The Church’s esteemed theologians teach that a pope can indeed cause harm to the Church, and when he does so he must be resisted.
Speray: Not by heresy or a harmful or crippled discipline as found in the Vatican 2 Church.
J. Salza Sedevacantists should also look back to the Arian crisis when almost the entire Church – except for a handful of bishops – embraced the Arian heresy. Even the pope flirted with the heresy. But no one declared that the Church lacked a pope.
Speray: Another lie. It was majority of the bishops not the laymen that held to the heresy. The pope did not flirt with it nor did he hold it. That’s why no one declared that the Church lacked a pope.
J. Salza While I sympathize with their concerns, Sedevacantism is an over-reaction to the theological, liturgical and disciplinary crisis in the Church (which I heartily acknowledge exists). Just as Protestants criticize every wayward utterance of the pope to prove that the Catholic Church is false, Sedevacantists do the same thing to prove that the Catholic Church has no pope. They are both in grave error.
Speray: Wrong. Sedevacantism is the correct position. To say that there exists theological, liturgical and disciplinary crisis because of a true pope is a heresy. It admits that error is found in the Church theologically, liturgically and disciplinary which is impossible according to at least 5 popes. As for wayward utterances, Protestants are Protestants because they reject Catholic doctrine, not because of some wayward utterance. A true pope can just utter Catholic teachings and the Protestant will say the Church is false. John Paul II and Ratzinger have done way more than just give wayward utterances. They outright reject historic Catholicism found right in the Creeds. They worship with Jews, Muslims, Pagans, and even devil worshipers. Like I said, Salza is simply living in a dream world that doesn’t exist.
Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell 
Sedevacantists snakes are the same as Protestants snakes full of poison. What this snake wrote is untrue with a tone arrogate from a devil. True the Roman Catholic Church is under attack from the Satan’s Left and His Right.
What was untrue in what I said?
The fact is your statement is the lie and your tone is the satanic one.
You don’t like it when your Vatican 2 apologists are exposed for stupid reasoning and so you give a stupid reply!
Anyone who believes that the Vicar of Christ, can be simultaneously be the Vicar of Satan (that would be Bergoglio) is the SNAKE. The Vatican II counterfeit cult is the prophesied whore. If you stay in it, you’ll go straight to Hell, upon your death.
Galations: 6 (I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. 7 Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. 9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.)
Greetings, Steven. I am only a lay Catholic, and a recent convert at that. So while I am not in a position to go into a full blown theological discussion with you, 🙂 I think I can make a case for why the recent Popes are not as evil as you say there are.
I am not sure if there are many historical precedents, but is it not possible for a Pope to enter a mosque or temple, and say a silent prayer for the conversion of these people? I think the Saints have done something like that in the past.
Further, Vatican II’s outreach to Evangelical Christians has resulted in a large number of them converting to the Catholic faith and many more anti-Catholics accepting Catholicism as true Christianity as well. Perhaps good may still come from the papal attitude towards Muslims. Just some of my thoughts.
Be blessed. Peace and Grace.
Thank you Xavier for your charitable comment.
In response to your comment, let me say that merely going into a mosque or temple to pray for the conversion of these non-Catholics is one thing, but John Paul II and Benedict go into these places and actually pray and participate in their very worship services. NO SAINTS HAVE DONE SUCH THINGS! St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II, Q. 12, A. 1, Obj. 2: “… if anyone were to…worship at the tomb of Mahomet, he would be deemed an apostate.”
This is the equivalent to Benedict bowing with his arms crossed to Mecca while praying with the Muslims.
The Apostle St. John (Christ’s beloved disciple) refused to even use the same bathhouse as the heretic Cerinthus much less pray and worship with him.
John Paul II in his Message to “Grand Sheikh Mohammed,” Feb. 24, 2000 stated: “I thank those who are developing Islamic culture…” (L’Osservatore Romano, March 1, 2000, p. 5.)
John Paul II, on March 21, 2000, stated: “May Saint John the Baptist protect Islam and all the people of Jordan…” (L’ Osservatore Romano, March 29, 2000, p. 2.)
Think about this for a moment. The religion of Islam blasphemes the most Holy Trinity. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, not to mention the largest.
I could give many more examples of these types of comments to Muslims, and he has done the same with religions like Voodoo.
As for the outreach to Evangelical’s, their conversion is to a watered-down version of true Catholicism. I don’t believe the Vatican 2 religion is the Catholic Faith because it outright rejects The Syllabus of Pope Pius IX, the condemnations of modernism of Pope St. Pius X, and several other things.
I will post a letter that I wrote to the New Oxford Review, (they probably won’t print) to better illustrate my point.
MANY OF THESE CONVERTS ARE OF POOR QUALITY AND LARGELY, STILL THINK AND LIVE LIKE PROTESTANTS…..NEWCHURCH DOES NTO ATTRACT THE DAVID ALLEN WHITES AND CHESTERTONS…..SOME OF IT IS NOT THERE FAULT, AS NEWCHURCH SHOWS THAT CATHOLICISM IS ON EQUAL PAR TO PROTESTANTISM, HENCE NO REAL NEED FOR CHANGE…NEWCHURCH VIEWS ITSELF AS IN THE FRONT OF THE BUS OF INDIFFERENTISM, WITH ALL PEOPLES ON THE SAME BUS, GOING TO THE SAME PLACE..
Hello again,
Well, Steven, I don’t know as much of history, so I’ll mostly rely on Biblical examples.
Steven Replies: You must know history to get a better understanding as I’ll show you in a minute. I’m glad you replied again. It’s good to know that you are at least looking into my position more closely.
As for Benedict, yes, I know he prayed with Muslims. But still prayer is internal. He may as well have prayed for the conversion of Muslims to the Triune God. I think there are grounds to grant him benefit of doubt.
Steven Replies: What grounds? He crossed his arms, and bowed towards Mecca, and prayed with the Muslims. It doesn’t matter what he prayed for. If you are fornicating with a prostitute, but are praying at the same time for her conversion, what does it matter? However, if you can’t understand what I’m trying to say to you, then try going inside your local Mosque, take off your shoes, cross your arms, bow towards Mecca with the leader of that Mosque and pray for his conversion and see if your conscience tells you how dreadfully wrong this is. Why not pray before the Eucharist for their conversion. Why do so at the Mosque as the Muslims and with the Muslims? Lastly, Church law forbids the act, anyway. Finally, what about the quote of St. Thomas Aquinas? You didn’t address the quote that proves my point. You didn’t address the two quotes of John Paul II especially the one where he asks John the Baptist to PROTECT the satanic religion.
St.Paul said that the “unknown God” pagans worshipped in ignorance was the true God. How was a lay disciple present at the time to respond? That St.Paul had committed heresy, or that for the sake of Evangelism, the Spirit had led him to say so?
Steven Replies: Sorry but you got it dead wrong. In Acts 17:23, St. Paul tells the pagans that there worship is false as they worshiped idols (Acts 17:16) and begins to tell them the truth about Jesus. However, this verse doesn’t apply with Muslims who reject and blaspheme the Holy Trinity.
Perhaps this is necessary to become all things to all men in order to win them over at last. That’s why I cited what happened with Evangelicals, maybe a similar thing will happen.
Steven Replies: You don’t become a non-Catholic to win over non-Catholics. St. Paul’s reference in I Cor. 9:22 was about the status of men, not the religions of men.
Didn’t St.Peter too commit apostasy by denying the Lord? I think the faithful should always assume the Pope is true, unless the Church declares otherwise. How could early generations ever know if a Pope had committed heresy in some foreign land, or in private by doubting some truth.
Steven Replies: St. Peter did not commit apostasy by denying the Lord? Every time we sin, we deny the Lord, but it’s not apostasy. He denied Him out of fear of being killed. This is quite different than rejecting the historic Catholic Faith because you believe it should change with the times. If a Muslim put a gun to a pope’s head to do these acts, you wouldn’t find me saying that pope committed apostasy. Though, he would have sinned even if under extreme duress; such acts under the condition of this type of pressure would not qualify as apostasy. Apostasy is a totally free act of the will. As for always assuming the pope is true, unless the Church declares otherwise, who do you think that authority of the Church is that can make that declaration? You’ve actually got it backwards. You should never assume the Pope is true if he has publicly committed heresy or apostasy. The early generations might have not known about heresies and you know what? In history, many thought to be true popes were not, and never were and that is the fact of it. You have to make a judgment based on what you know. You may be wrong, but that doesn’t mean that you assume something against your better judgment.
I don’t think private judgment is the last and final arbiter. Is a suspicion the same thing as a Church judgment?
Steven Replies: Private judgment is not supposed to be. A heretic is a heretic and you must be able to recognize one especially if he claims to be the pope. Your private judgment just allows you to know what already is which is a heretic is not the pope. There are several men in the world right now that claim to be the pope. Do you recognize all of them as true popes or do you use your own good judgment to know the difference? As for church judgment, who makes that judgment for the Church if you have a false claimant as pope? If this is your position, then you need to answer this question. If you claim that it must be a future pope, than I will prove to do you in my next reply why this is an illogical answer.
Be blessed, Steven.
Galations: 6 (I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. 7 Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. 9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.)
Hello again Steven,
“bow towards Mecca with the leader of that Mosque and pray for his conversion and see if your conscience tells you how dreadfully wrong this is.
Why do so at the Mosque as the Muslims and with the Muslims? Lastly, Church law forbids the act, anyway. ”
I understand that that would be wrong. But I think the Church law you mentioned makes provision for passive participation, like for example, at the funeral service of an Evangelical friend. Read something like that somewhere, mostly in the 1911 CE. So, one should view his act in the same manner. As a gesture of peace, but by no means an approval of Islamic theology or practise.
Steven Replies: We’re not talking about passive participation. Benedict and JPII have actively participated going against the law.
“Finally, what about the quote of St. Thomas Aquinas? ”
It wasn’t worship, so the application to this event is invalid.
Steven Replies: It was worship!
[i] he asks John the Baptist to PROTECT the satanic religion.[/i]
One must always presume the good faith of the Pope. The best way to protect a false religion is to lead it to the fortress of truth, which the Baptist will only be too glad to do.
Steven Replies: You assume JPII was pope. I don’t and he didn’t ask John the Baptist to lead it to the fortress of truth, but rather to protect the religion itself.
“Sorry but you got it dead wrong. In Acts 17:23, St. Paul tells the pagans that there worship is false”
The verse is: Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.
Steven Replies: I’m sorry I wasn’t clear. Verse 16 spoke about idols which may represent something unknown to them. But they’re still idols!
So the Apostle does seem to say, like Christ to the Samaritan woman, that they do not worship in spirit and in truth but they worship a God they do not know in ignorance.
“This is quite different than rejecting the historic Catholic Faith because you believe it should change with the times.”
You read too much into documents or statements addressed to unbelievers, which are not theological pronouncements but diplomatic initiatives.
Steven Replies: I read them for what they say. Benedict said all the condemnations against the modernists are obsolete. What do you think that means?
“Apostasy is a totally free act of the will.”
Right. What then if the Pope is secretly being pressured by someone to do so? Then he would not be an apostate, and since we’re believing in conspiracy theories anyway, each one is as good as the other!
Steven Replies: It is no theory that Benedict has apostatized.
“In history, many thought to be true popes were not, and never were and that is the fact of it.”
Your theory seems to render Christ’s efficacious prayer for the miraculous and visible unity of Christ’s followers in His Catholic Church a failure.
Steven Replies: What theory? It is a fact of history. Read my papal anomalies section.
Where is the difference between this and a Judaizer who claims St.Peter lost his papacy because he (in the Judaizer’s own private judgment) contradicted the teaching of Scripture(ie the OT) Do you not see the doctrinal anarchy this creates is almost identical to Evangelical Christianity?
Steven Replies: Big difference! Go and read JPII’s rejection of a dogma at https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/one-of-the-great-heresies-of-john-paul-ii-in-his-own-words/
One of the Reformers could have said all or some of the Popes erred on contradicting Scripture or Tradition(or even that Tradition is false as it contradicts Scripture) and therefore we have no more popes since that time to the present, till some mysterious future pope comes, or till Christ returns? Then the Rationalists threw out Scripture itself for allegedly contradicting reason, as per their own private judgments.
Steven Replies: Doesn’t apply. Nothing at all to do with sedevacantism.
This renders Christ’s very promise of a Sacred Magisterium as some sort of a circular pious fraud. The teachings of the infallible Magisterium are not infallible because they are true(as judged by us); they are true(as is to be accepted by us on Faith) because they are infallible.
Steven Replies: Again, you misunderstand sedevacantism. They are not the magisterium at all since they don’t believe in the historic Catholic Faith.
“You have to make a judgment based on what you know. You may be wrong, but that doesn’t mean that you assume something against your better judgment.”
What if each individual’s “better judgment” leads to 1 billion Catholics living in each of 1 billion different sects?
Steven Replies: What if your false assumption of an antipope who teaches tons of heresies leads you to hell?
“Do you recognize all of them as true popes or do you use your own good judgment to know the difference?”
The Church tells me that only one person can be a pope at a time, and this one person is one who has been validly ordained.
Steven Replies: No kidding. All of them make that claim. So which one do you choose from and how?
“As for church judgment, who makes that judgment for the Church if you have a false claimant as pope? If this is your position, then you need to answer this question.”
This is a difficulty question, and my answer is I’m not sure. However, there are considered possible theological opinions other than yours that one can hold.
Steven Replies: That’s not an answer. You must have one or else you have no business doing this.
I will defend the idea that a material heretic, if he chooses to accept ordination to the Magisterium, then by virtue of that, he receives grace so as to be supernaturally protected from heresy. In that way, a Pope cannot commit heresy.
Steven Replies: I can see that you have not read much of my website or else you would have not made any of these statements. Popes can most certainly be material heretics as many have been. Sedevacantism is about formal heretics pretending to be popes.
Please read all of my articles on sedevacantism and the page “Why Sedevacantism” before you respond again. Then you may have a better understanding of my position. I’m glad you are replying though. And I appreciate your kindness!
Hello again,
Okay, my replies below…
>>>”Benedict and JPII have actively participated going against the law.
Well Steven, I think the difference is largely internal. So only God and the person himself will be able to determine that. A person may merely keep up formalities or courtesy, while in his own soul not participating worship. If Bishops and lay people are permitted this then the Pope can be as well, right?
Steven Replies 2: Are you saying that taking off your shoes, crossing your arms, bowing towards Mecca is not active participation but merely keeping up formalities? This would mean they weren’t really praying with them either…right? Don’t you see, that you’re making up very lame excuses for such scandalous acts? You said it yourself, “that would be wrong.” Deep down you know what they did is terrible!
>>>”You assume JPII was pope. I don’t”
But since you are citing this to disprove that he is, logic says that you must assume it for the sake of the argument, before you go ahead to disprove it. I was giving you one possible interpretation of his words.
Steven replies 2: Your interpretation doesn’t even make sense to me. It only looks like you’re making up excuses.
>>>”Steven Replies: I’m sorry I wasn’t clear. Verse 16 spoke about idols which may represent something unknown to them. But they’re still idols!”
The passage doesn’t say it was an idol. But just that there was an Altar dedicated to the “unknown God”. St.Paul said, Douay Rheims, “What therefore you worship without knowing it, that I preach to you” So, it seems that he did say they worshipped God in a sense but not truly.
Steven replies 2: Okay, these people never heard of the Gospel so St. Paul is going to reveal it to him, but did St. Paul pray with them in their mode of worship? NO he did not. You have not explained how this verse applies to JPII and Benedict praying in the mode of worship with the Muslims? This is why you brought up those verses to begin with. I’m trying to tell you that this verse doesn’t even come close to applying.
>>>Steven Replies: I read them for what … do you think that means?
They should be read in line with previous tradition and Councils as they themselves say. I think the approach towards modernist errors is what has changed, not that errors are now completely accepted.
After the Roman Empire converted to the Faith, there was a changed reality for Christendom. It doesn’t mean older methods of the Church were wrong for their time, just that they now needed to be understood and applied in a new context.
Steven replies 2: You’re kidding me, right? The methods and condemnations applied all the way until the 1950’s. Vatican 2 reversed these very teachings.
>>>Steven Replies: It is no theory that Benedict has apostatized.
You didn’t answer. What if he is secretly being pressurized into it? Then it wouldn’t be apostasy.
Steven replies 2: If Benedict had a gun to his head or his loved ones heads to teach or practice heresy, then it would not be apostasy. Is this your explanation in why he is doing so?
>>>Steven Replies: Big difference! Go and read JPII’s rejection of a dogma at
I read it. But before we go to that, you didn’t answer my question. If the See can be vacant for 40 years because it has been for 3 during interregnums (and even then there is a visible Church with the Camerlengo), who is to stop someone saying the See can be vacant for 2000?
Steven replies 2: Good question, but I could turn the question on you, where has the church taught that it couldn’t have a vacant See for 2000 years? The fact is the Church had a doubtful popes for 51 years during The Great Schism. A doubtful pope is as bad as no pope at all.
>>>Steven Replies: They are not the magisterium at all since they don’t believe in the historic Catholic Faith.
That wasn’t my argument 🙂 Your claim is based on the premise that one must examine the claims of the Magisterium, personally decide it is true, then accept it as infallible if one is satisfied and that the Pope may still be valid. Right?
Steven replies 2: No. You have totally misunderstood the position of sedevacantism.
If this is true, where is the authority of the Magisterium in the first place?
Steven replies 2: Who teaches infallibly during an interregnum when the pope dies?
>>>Steven Replies: No kidding. All of them make that claim. So which one do you choose from and how?
Choosing between two or more claimants is different from rejecting all of them! I do apply common sense, and historical precedents but looking to the consensus of bishops in the Church is normal for the faithful and not necessarily wrong.
Steven replies 2: You missed my point. The fact is you have to reject some that make the claim. In the past, the consensus of the bishops recognized antipopes. How do you decide?
According to you, this has happened often in history. Yet none of the great Saints and theologians or the Tradition of the Church seems to have taught that anyone should teach sedevacantism. Teaching sedevacantism causes scandal and confusion. Is there precedent for recommending sedevacantism publicly?
Steven replies 2: Sedevacantism is a type of position taken by all Catholics when a pope dies. As for the great saints and theologians, I give many examples in my books where they did in fact teach that a pope ipso facto loses his office if he became a heretic and a pope taught that if a heretic is elected, even if recognized by all, he is still not the pope. Teaching sedevacantism does not cause scandal but perhaps confusion for those who don’t understand Catholicism. Read my papal anomalies and get the answer about precedents.
At best, one can hold that the claimant of Pope does not actually hold office privately. And teach in public the opinion one holds as the true teaching of the Church and teach others that the his statements cannot be interpreted contrary to Tradition.
Steven replies 2: That makes no sense at all. If a claimant is not pope, he is not pope and the whole world should know the truth.
Or give some other explanation, that the Pope is pressurized into it, and so is not in actual heresy or apostasy or so on.
Steven replies 2: There is no reason to believe the last 5 claimants were pressured. They were directly responsible from the beginning as theologians. These men hate historic Catholicism and thus created a new religion. This is so clear or else Vat2-ites would not be against sedevacantists on so many of our beliefs.
It’s not that I believe any of this, but I think if someone does, then he should do this. Otherwise, can you show some Saint recommending the teaching of sedevacantism by believers?
Steven replies 2: If I did, will you think about becoming a Catholic who holds to the position. I’m asking you now, what would it take for you to acknowledge Benedict as an antipope?
And yes, my answer is that a future properly convened council can make this decision public and even then the Pope should be given the benefit of doubt that he didn’t mean to bind the Church to his teaching.
Steven replies 2: Buy my book, Debunking Sedevacantism and get the answer.
>>>Steven Replies: I can see that you have not read much of my website or … Sedevacantism is about formal heretics pretending to be popes.
I agree I hadn’t read most of your website. I just happened on it. I did have an incorrect understanding of your position. I read some more of your articles now.
God bless, Steven. 🙂
Steven replies 2: You’re real cool, Xavier. I hope you keep in touch. I like your spirit in trying to defend Rome today. My question still stands, “what would it take for you to acknowledge Benedict as an antipope?”
Lex orandi…
Hello again, Steven. Sorry for the delayed response, was busy with my studies and all. Hope you are well. 🙂
>>>My question still stands, “what would it take for you to acknowledge Benedict as an antipope?”
I have many thoughts on this issue, and no doubt I will digress, so please feel free to edit my post as you like in your reply.
This is really the crux of the issue: but before I answer I must ask you in return, in other words, what are the doctrines you think we accept that we must now deny or deny that we now accept in order to become true Catholics again, according to you?
SPERAY: It is not according to me but the Catholic Church. I cover some of it on this blog, WHY SEDEVACANTISM.
My answer to your question is simple: The Holy Father must have been shown to have wilfully taught a heresy to be believed the whole Church.
SPERAY: His teaching whether formal or private has nothing to do with it. He believes it which is enough. The fact that Ratzinger is a theologian (a doctor at that) gives him no excuse.
Let me backtrack. St.Irenaeus says every (particular) Church must agree with the Roman Church so that there can be unity and truth in the (universal) Church. St.Cyprian I believe says something similar. Hence, the indefectibility of the Roman Church is presumed, even during an interrugnum. Therefore, if the Roman Church presumes to teach some doctrine to the whole Church even at this stage, then they must be believed.
SPERAY: Again, it is about Ratzinger himself.
Another thing, let me point out some methodologies sedevacantists usually follow to prove their position that I believe to be slightly mistaken logically.
1. Scandalous acts: St.Peter according to St.Paul acted in a blameworthy and even scandalous way even leading astray St.Barnabas. But he never lost his office. Therefore, scandals alone cannot prove a Pope to be false. Now, if you say that they worshipped, I would say worship is an internal act. You can’t know whether I am worshipping or not. Only God knows that. Maybe I am just keeping up formalities. Also, maybe it was felt necessary as a gesture of goodwill because of the persecution of Christians in Muslim lands. So, in a certain way, the Pope’s hands are tied, yes.
SPERAY: Scandalous acts alone is not the issue. True popes can be scandalous as some have been. Acts of apostasy alone will cause a true pope to lose his office. Worship can be internal and external. In the external forum, Ratzinger and JP2 have worshiped in false religions. We judge in the external forum which is good enough to recognize them as apostates. However, they never popes to begin with.
2. Doctrinal development: No one denies the Saints teach the Faith truly for their time, however, I think even theologians of the magnitude of St.Thomas have not believed in the Immaculate Conception, as we now understand it. Now, that doesn’t mean they were heretics or anything, but after the Church teaches it, their writings cannot be used to cast doubt on what the Church has said is true. Thus, it is problematic to use the writings of the Saints in that way.
SPERAY: Not an issue.
3. Changed times: At least some of the early Fathers were absolute pacifists and in earlier times, almost all Christian bishops must have taught laypeople to suffer patiently and not fight for any cause. But after Christianity gained recognition in Rome, the Church slowly recognized the doctrine of “Just war”. This didn’t contradict anything earlier, but again, because of the changed reality, the Church’s approach to the world had to adapt. So again, when the Church said Christians need to go to war, could anyone say that the Papal seat was empty by citing these fathers?
SPERAY: Not an issue. Ratzinger is a modernist who absolutely contradicts Catholic teachings.
Something similar to that is what I believe has happened in recent times especially after Vatican II. Yes, Satan has kept up vicious attacks at the same time, but it isn’t cause and effect. I don’t think everything will change just because we go back to Latin masses and start calling Protestants heretics again.
SPERAY: The Vat2 religion is a new religion altogether.
In fact, even through much evil, I believe God will bring good. Protestants and Catholics have cooperated in the struggle against abortion in a way that would surely have been impossible before Vatican II. And maybe, after that battle is over, something good will come out of it. Maybe as Protestantism breaks up into non-denominational Evangelicalism, and as Catholics remain firm yet charitable by their side, will they realize that only in the Catholic Church can all Christians truly be non-denominational once more.
SPERAY: This fight against abortion masks another real problem of religious indifferentism.
Whole Anglican and Episcopal parishes have already come into full communion with the Church. Many have credited the Pope’s efforts for it. Anglicanorum Ceotibus and all. Saying it was the answer to unthought of prayers. Would it really have just been better to condemn them as unrepentant schismatics?
SPERAY: Remember that I don’t believe they came into full communion with the Catholic Church but rather the Vat2 church. Two different religions. It’s not much of a jump from Anglicanism and Episcopalian to the Vatican 2 religion.
The stinging condemnation of contraception has come after Vatican II in Humanae Vitae. The refusal of holy ordination to be conferred on women was firmly stated by Pope John Paul II. On homosexuality and abortion, of course, no compromise has ever been made.
SPERAY: Of course not! They are too clever for that type of change. They are clever enough to change other things that you don’t want to see.
If people feel that some actions give scandal, they should write to them or sign a petition to ask the Vatican not to do so if they really feel that way. I’m sure the Cardinals and the Pope would not intentionally want to give a cause for offense to cradle Catholics. I am myself a recent revert so I don’t feel qualified to do anything other than presume good faith.
SPERAY: Please take another look at what you reverted back to. I came out of the Vat2 religion and became a Catholic. Don’t let their name fool you. They are not Catholic.
I believe that it is truly intentioned to be in the Spirit of love and Christian meekness. We want to have peaceful relations with all religions, but no we have not compromised, we promote neither religious indifference nor any errant doctrine.
SPERAY: But that is exactly what the Vat2 religion has done. Read my page WHY SEDEVACANTISM and see the changes in doctrine and practice. Let me know if you have any questions about it.
Grace be with you.
SPERAY: You too! Glad to hear from you!
So, if I externally offer a pinch of incense, whilst internally praying an ave…
Also, another point is that people sometimes say they can embrace Sedevacantism because it is at least better than liberalism.
SPERAY: Not at all. Sedevacantism is absolutely necessary or else the Gates of Hell are running the Church as pope and bishops.
Well, maybe so, but here in India, there is a group of Christians, they reject Chalcedon. And so, after that, they have been completely cut off from doctrinal development, because each valid Council invariably invokes the previous one as valid. There is already talk of having a Vatican III someday. So even if it appears to be harmless now, it could be very harmful some day.
SPERAY: Vatican 2 is not a Catholic Council since it was started and finished by Masons/heretics as antipopes. Vatican 2 is a robber council. We’ve had other robber councils in Church history.
People plan for 5 years, nations for 50. The Church plans across centuries. Things sometimes get worse before they get better. Trent cannot be blamed for not having fully healed the divisions of that day, it cannot be said to have exacerbated it. Similarly, Vatican II should not be blamed either. One day, it will all bear fruit, I believe, God willing.
SPERAY: Vatican 2 is bad fruit in and of itself. It is the result when Modernist devils are recognized as popes. Trent was thoroughly Catholic as were all the other great Ecumenical Councils. Please, please don’t take my word for it but look at it yourself in light of what the Church always taught.
Anyway, God bless.
SPERAY: I hope to hear from you again!
Hello again.
>>>SPERAY: It is not according to me but the Catholic Church. I cover some of it on this blog, WHY SEDEVACANTISM.
Let’s assume hypothetically that you were elected Pope tomorrow. What all would you change? What would you require us to recant and what to accept?
SPERAY: I would go eliminate everything that came after 1958.
>>>SPERAY: His teaching whether formal or private has nothing to do with it. He believes it which is enough. The fact that Ratzinger is a theologian (a doctor at that) gives him no excuse.
But how do we know he believes it? We can’t divine his mind.
SPERAY: He repeats it over and over. He is the embodiment of Vat2. We judge in the external forum as the law prescribes.
>>>SPERAY: Again, it is about Ratzinger himself.
Is the Roman Church indefectible or not? Yes or no? If yes, then even in a sedevacantist scenario, we would have to listen to anything Rome teaches.
SPERAY: Yes, but Rome is not. Rome is not THE Church. It is one part of the Church and now is not since it has apostatized. We don’t listen to non-Catholic Rome.
>>>SPERAY: In the external forum, Ratzinger and JP2 have worshiped in false religions. We judge in the external forum which is good enough to recognize them as apostates. However, they never popes to begin with.
But this is the same judgment that a Protestant uses to say a Catholic “worships idols” when in fact we are venerating statues.
SPERAY: Right and wrong judgment is the issue. Protestants use a false judgment with false reasoning. 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). Would you go against the law?
>>>SPERAY: Not an issue. Ratzinger is a modernist who absolutely contradicts Catholic teachings.
But it is an issue, because Vatican II was about formulating the Church’s response to changed realities, just like after Rome became Christian was a changed reality. I think even Vatican I had dissidents. But a Council has to do something, that’s why it was called in the first place. And if the Roman Church accepts it, then the whole Church should. The Roman Church cannot err.
SPERAY: The issue I addressed to your statement was about Saints and undefined doctrines. I’m not talking about that. Rome is not Catholic. This is the issue you need to understand with us.
>>>SPERAY: Of course not! They are too clever for that type of change. They are clever enough to change other things that you don’t want to see.
What things? Things like denying the real presence or the resurrection? These claims may pervade the internet, but surely you know such accusations wouldn’t stand up in any court.
SPERAY: Read my ‘Why Sedevacantism’ page…please! It’s all much deeper than what you think.
SPERAY: Please take another look at what you reverted back to. I came out of the Vat2 religion and became a Catholic. Don’t let their name fool you. They are not Catholic.
>>>SPERAY: But that is exactly what the Vat2 religion has done.
The Holy Father some years ago reiterated that Eastern communities are not in full communion with the Church, as they need to be. If he was so strict towards them, it hardly sounds like religious indifferentism.
SPERAY: Antipope Ratzinger thinks that they are part of the Church. This is a lie. He holds that the East will go to Heaven anyway on that part that they are in communion. Do you understand?
>>>SPERAY: Vatican 2 is not a Catholic Council since it was started and finished by Masons/heretics as antipopes. Vatican 2 is a robber council. We’ve had other robber councils in Church history.
But what do you think those who reject Chalcedon say? That it was a true Council and that they themselves are in schism? No, they say the same. Heretics gathered power and took over. What distinguishes your claim from theirs here?
SPERAY: Chalcedon was not created by Masons. Chalcedon did not reject historic Catholic Doctrine. Chalcedon did not create novel teachings. Vat2 was and did.
>>>SPERAY: Please, please don’t take my word for it but look at it yourself in light of what the Church always taught.
I have begun to read some old Councils in recent days. I’ll continue doing that. Perhaps we will concur in the truth some day, God willing.
Peace and grace.
>>>SPERAY: I would go eliminate everything that came after 1958.
Can you be a little more specific? I read a bit of your main page and your case against the “Vatican II Church”. But just as you asked me, I ask you, what is it we need to change?
SPERAY: Everything new! Do you know what is new?
>>>SPERAY: Yes, but Rome is not. Rome is not THE Church. It is one part of the Church and now is not since it has apostatized. We don’t listen to non-Catholic Rome.
That seems to be contradictory. What does it mean to say that the Roman Church is indefectible if it can apostatise?
SPERAY: You must be able to distinguish between the Catholic Church as a whole and the particular churches that make up the Catholic Church. Rome is one particular church but it is not THE church. Many saints and popes have prophesied that Rome will apostatize. Therefore, there is nothing contradictory.
I read your main page. As I see it, you have two main premises, first that sedevacantism is a tenable position and second that the current Popes after Vatican II are heretics.
Fine, this is my contention against that first point, about extreme sedevacantism.
1. The Roman Church is indefectible.
SPERAY: The Catholic Church as a whole is indefectible but not necessarily any particular church.
2. So, even granting that a Pope can lose his office, the Magisterium in Rome, the land and the Church the two great Apostles bathed in their blood, cannot teach falsehood to the universal Church.
SPERAY: It is true that the Magisterium can’t teach falsehood. Sedevacantists aren’t saying they could. What we are saying is that there is no magisterium in Rome. The land of Rome had no pope when the papacy moved to Avignon, France, so Rome already has been without the papacy before. Rome has in the past recognized antipopes who in fact can teach falsehood. Therefore, your argument here is false.
3. Therefore, even if we need to adopt a minimalist sedevacantist position, that the Pope may be doubtful at times or even an antiPope, we don’t need to ever adopt the absolute sedevacantism you are suggesting of breaking communion with Rome.
SPERAY: It is Rome who broke away from the Catholic Church. I’ve clearly shown that it has.
I will come to your ” 3 principle heresies” next. But in Pope John Paul II’s Catechism, almost everything you say we deny is stated as truth. Eg that all men are bound to seek the truth, don’t have a right to be wrong, especially with regard to the Church, that the Church on her part has the right and duty to evangelize all men etc.
SPERAY: JP2’s catechism has some errors. Vat2 has taught that man has a right to be wrong.
>>>SPERAY:When an external violation of the law has been committed, malice is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proven.”
Would me saying a few warm words or maintaining a moment’s silence at the funeral of a non-Catholic friend count as an external violation of the law?
SPERAY: It possibly could. It depends on the circumstances. If you went to a pagan temple, and put on a pagan outfit, and lighted candles in a pagan ceremony like JP2 did, ABSOLUTELY!
>>>SPERAY: The issue I addressed to your statement was about Saints and undefined doctrines. I’m not talking about that. Rome is not Catholic. This is the issue you need to understand with us.
Undefined doctrines as well as the Church’s response to changed times.
SPERAY: Again, not the issue.
>>>SPERAY: Read my ‘Why Sedevacantism’ page…please! It’s all much deeper than what you think.
Ok, next to your charge of heresies. Firstly, under “degrees of heresies” in the 1911 CE article on heresy, it says, “Next, a doctrinal proposition, without directly contradicting a received dogma, may yet involve logical consequences at variance with revealed truth. Such a proposition is not heretical, it is a propositio theologice erronea, that is, erroneous in theology.”
SPERAY: Not the issue.
So seeing as you needed to explain in a logical sequence why it was contrary to revealed truth, doesn’t that mean it is at best erroneous in theology and not heretical?
SPERAY: No. I have to explain what is not known by ignorant people to be Catholic doctrine and how the Vat2 church rejects it. If I used a logical sequence to explain why Arianism contradicts the Trinity, does that mean that Arianism is at best erroneous in theology and not heretical?
>>>SPERAY: Antipope Ratzinger thinks that they are part of the Church. This is a lie. He holds that the East will go to Heaven anyway on that part that they are in communion. Do you understand?
Did he say that? The true Church subsists in the Catholic Church, but Protestants and Orthodox may be joined to it and if they are in good faith, may, not will, attain eternal salvation.
SPERAY: WRONG! The true Church IS the Catholic Church. It doesn’t merely subsists in it.
This is completely in line with the earlier saying “they are united to the soul of the Church”
>>>SPERAY: Chalcedon was not created by Masons. Chalcedon did not reject historic Catholic Doctrine. Chalcedon did not create novel teachings. Vat2 was and did.
Of those in Vatican II, how many bishops were present, and how many do you accuse (leaving aside now whether those are credible) of being Masons?
SPERAY: I said created. Roncalli and Montini were Masons. They had no authority to call the council. It doesn’t matter if all the bishops signed it (which they didn’t) because a Council is only as good as it is ratified by a pope. Vat2 wasn’t ratified by any pope and therefore is not binding nor even Catholic. It is a Robber Council!
I don’t believe God intends ordinary Catholics to be too caught up about theological intricacies most do not understand anyway. That is why the Roman Magisterium and its indefectibility is such a great gift.
SPERAY: Who do you think makes up the magisterium? Who teaches infallibly during an interregnum?
Peace be with you.
Dear Steven, can’t the other Cardinals in Rome be considered as the Magisterium during an interrugnum? That is my first question. Anyway, apart from that,
SPERAY: There are no Cardinals!
>>>SPERAY: Everything new! Do you know what is new?
Ok. But I mean to say, one’s position must be logically falsifiable at least, you know. Just like you asked me, if I do what and what, will you accept Sedevacantism. Like that, and because there are many Sedevacantists who contradict each other about what we need to do, what is necessary, hypothetically, to get you to consider holding that the Vat II Church is the Catholic Church after all? For example, if you were convinced that the three heresies were not heresies or were not taught after all etc.
SPERAY: SURE.
>>>SPERAY: You must be able to distinguish … Therefore, there is nothing contradictory.
Private revelations and prophecies outside Scripture don’t have an assent of divine and Catholic faith, do they? Not to say I would disregard or fail to consider them, but they can’t be a part of the case against Rome for that reason.
SPERAY: You missed the point. Popes and saints have said that Rome will lose the faith. If that was contradictory as you said it was, then you have popes and saints contradicting the religion. Therefore, it is not contradictory to say the Rome will or has lost the faith. Do you understand? Finally, you actually have Scripture saying it which is why popes and saints believe it. So it is not merely private revelation but Holy Scripture.
>>>SPERAY: The Catholic Church as a whole is indefectible but not necessarily any particular church.
Are you sure? According to that same CE article on the Church “Only to One particular Church is indefectibility assured, viz. to the See of Rome. To Peter, and in him to all his successors in the chief pastorate, Christ committed the task of confirming his brethren in the Faith (Luke 22:32); and thus, to the Roman Church, as Cyprian says, “faithlessness cannot gain access” (Epistle 54).”
SPERAY: I’m not arguing that the See of Rome has defected. I arguing that what you call the See of Rome is not the See of Rome. Do you understand?
>>>SPERAY: It is true that the Magisterium can’t teach falsehood … Rome has in the past recognized antipopes who in fact can teach falsehood. Therefore, your argument here is false.
So you’re saying the college of Cardinals has no teaching authority unless the Pope is in his seat?
SPERAY: There are no Cardinals, but yes, the Cardinals are not infallible. Are you saying that they are and that you are bound to hold to all that they teach apart from the pope?
>>>SPERAY: JP2′s catechism has some errors. Vat2 has taught that man has a right to be wrong.
I think everyone agrees that there might have been some slight ambiguity in the wording, but it was never said that man has a moral right to be wrong, but only a civil right not be coerced into the Faith.
SPERAY: There is no ambiguity at all. They were very clear. In fact they were so clear that John Paul I (who was at the Council) stated after the council, ““the Church had always taught that only the truth had rights, but now the Council made it clear that error also has rights.”
>>>SPERAY: It possibly could. It depends on the circumstances. If you went to a pagan temple, and put on a pagan outfit, and lighted candles in a pagan ceremony like JP2 did, ABSOLUTELY!
Ok, fair enough. But let’s not go there just yet.
>>>SPERAY: Again, not the issue.
Ok. 🙂
>>>SPERAY: No. I have to explain what is not known by ignorant people to be Catholic doctrine and how the Vat2 church rejects it. If I used a logical sequence to explain why Arianism contradicts the Trinity, does that mean that Arianism is at best erroneous in theology and not heretical?
I mean many books have published an exhaustive list of Catholic dogmas. Arianism of course would directly contradict one of them, that is to say, it would be the exact negation of a dogma. Is there one such in Vat II?
SPERAY: YES. Have you looked at JP2’s rejection of the historic understanding of the Dogma Christ descents into hell? You can find it here https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/one-of-the-great-heresies-of-john-paul-ii-in-his-own-words/
>>>SPERAY: WRONG! The true Church IS the Catholic Church. It doesn’t merely subsists in it.
Sorry to sound pedantic, but the dictionary definition of subsists is “To exist; be.” I think it is valid theological phraseology like I said. Otherwise, explain, then, how others in good faith are united to her soul. Doesn’t that mean “elements of sanctification that are in themselves calls to Catholic unity are found outside her visible confines”?
SPERAY: Of course, it means “to exist: be” but it doesn’t mean “is”. Please read my explanation on this with Rev. Brian Harrison. In LG, the Church of Christ is distinguished from the Catholic Church. “Subsists” would mean that it merely exists within the Catholic Church, not necessarily “in full.” You seem to agree with Vat2 that the Church of Christ is found outside of the Catholic Church and is not really one and the same Church.
>>>SPERAY: I said created. Roncalli and Montini were Masons. They had no authority to call the council. It doesn’t matter if all the bishops signed it (which they didn’t) because a Council is only as good as it is ratified by a pope. Vat2 wasn’t ratified by any pope and therefore is not binding nor even Catholic. It is a Robber Council!
Ok, my bad. How credible is this accusation? What evidence do you offer to support it? Keep in mind that even earlier Popes themselves said that others had repeated slanderous accusations about their persons, so that alone is not enough.
SPERAY: I cover it all in my books. It’s credible!
Peace and grace.
>>>SPERAY: There are no Cardinals! … I’m not arguing that the See of Rome…but yes, the Cardinals are not infallible.
Don’t we look to Cardinals or the CDF, formerly the Holy Office, even when a Pope is dead for immediate doctrinal and disciplinary matters usually? This is not to say that they are infallible, but do they lose their authority even if there is no Pope at the time?
SPERAY: Cardinals don’t lose their authority when a pope dies. Only a pope can appoint Cardinals. Since there hasn’t been a pope since 1958, the Cardinals have become extinct.
>>>SPERAY: You missed the point. Popes and saints have said that Rome will lose the faith … So it is not merely private revelation but Holy Scripture.
Ok, well argued, though I would like to see one reference of a Pope or Saint saying so for myself, please. Still, it only means that I cannot say that Rome will never lose the Faith, and it would still be gravely sinful for someone to say that Rome has currently lost the Faith when in fact it had not, as Luther, say, did. So, then, I will concede this point and we can go on to arguing over whether Rome has actually lost the Faith right now.
SPERAY: I’ll give you one quote. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See, 1861, London: Burns and Lambert, pp. 88-90 “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.” Comment: Notice the date Cardinal Manning wrote this. It is not a novel position to hold that Rome will lose the faith but that it is the “universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church.” If something is universally taught by the Fathers of the Church, do you know what that means?
As for Scripture, do you men Rev 17? I thought the Protestants were the first to say that. Is there support in Catholic Tradition for such an interpretation?
SPERAY: Catholics have been teaching it for 2000 years.
>>>SPERAY: There is no ambiguity at all. They were very clear. In fact they were so clear that John Paul I
Ok, let’s take the Church policy of handing over heretics to be burned. Luther had said this was against the will of the Spirit and the bull Exsurge Domine had condemned it as an error. But later Catholic thought long before Vatican II seemed to be that even in hypothetical future Catholic kingdoms, that extremity would not be restored. Isn’t that an example of a progressive insight that man can have some civil rights? Or must we insist that burning heretics was right? I think it’s sufficient to say that it may have been right for that time, bu
SPERAY: Again, you miss the point. Vat2 is saying agreeing with Luther. If one has a right to be wrong, you can never burn heretics. Therefore, Vat2 is saying it was always wrong.
>>>SPERAY: YES. Have you looked at JP2′s rejection of the historic understanding of the Dogma Christ descents into hell?
It seems to me his teaching here was quite in line with that, have you looked at this? No it doesn’t say “limbo”, but it says he went down to the realm of the dead, not to deliver the damned but the souls of the just before Him.
SPERAY: JP2 is very clear that he means that one dies and is buried. That’s it. He uses all the right phrases and then explains them all incorrectly. He is not in line at all. As a matter of fact, he is word for word contrary to Pope St. Pius V.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p122a5p1.htm
>>>SPERAY: “Subsists” would mean that it merely exists within the Catholic Church, not necessarily “in full.”
I don’t think any of us say that it is wrong to say “IS” only that “subsists” is also valid. When Vat II expresses that the Church knows herself to be joined in many ways to Protestants and Orthodox, by that itself she implies that Protestants and Orthodox are not the Church.
SPERAY. They are not joined either. Subsists is not valid.
But do you agree or not with the earlier teaching that those outside the body(, now expressed as “the visible confines”,) may nonetheless be united to the soul(and thus now expressed as “joined to her in various ways”)?
No one denies that those joined merely in soul need to belong to the body of Christ, at least by a baptism of desire, before they die, to share in the general resurrection on the last day.
Speray: I write all about this in one of my books called “Baptism of Desire or Blood.” You have to be very careful how to word it. The 1949 letter is incorrectly written. It also isn’t official. It has no teaching authority at all!
Peace and grace.
I didn’t complete one part above 🙂
*right for that time, but it doesn’t mean that our understanding can’t change over time. As the Lord promised, the Spirit leads us into all truth gradually.
So, what I mean to say was wasn’t there a realization that however guilty people may have been against God it may suffice at different times to impose a spiritual penalty (like excommunication) and at others to require a physical one also? So, why can’t we go back now to merely imposing a spiritual penalty, as even some Saints once said was sufficient?
SPERAY: Again, you miss the point. Vat2 is implying that what the Church did at one time was wrong, unjust, and immoral.
>>>SPERAY: Cardinals don’t lose their authority when a pope dies. Only a pope can appoint Cardinals. Since there hasn’t been a pope since 1958, the Cardinals have become extinct.
Then it is logically impossible for Apostolic succession to continue, isn’t it?
SPERAY: No. I’m going to have to ask you to read my blog before answering each time, because I don’t want to repeat myself over and over. Read here https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/the-case-that-proves-church-laws-can%E2%80%99t-always-apply/
>>> If something is universally taught by the Fathers of the Church, do you know what that means?
Yes. But that doesn’t mean it is the current time. Also, he said Rome would drive away the Vicar of Christ, which is not the sedevacantist position.
SPERAY: I hate to have to say it, but you sound like a modernist yourself as you keep saying “current time” as if truth is not immutable. As for being driven away, in a sense, the vicar of Christ has been driven away. This is our position. Do you not accept the universal testimony of the Church Fathers?
>>>SPERAY: Again, you miss the point. Vat2 is saying agreeing with Luther. If one has a right to be wrong, you can never burn heretics. Therefore, Vat2 is saying it was always wrong.
But it’s only a civil right. Civil rights change over time. Where did the Church says anyone has a moral right to be wrong?
SPERAY: Then you have proven my point, because it is NOT a civil right. This is what the popes have said. Again, you have not read my piece very closely, have you? I gave you the quotes. You are agreeing that a man has a civil right to be morally wrong? Really? Prostitutes have a right to prostitute? Porn is a right? Really? And these are not as bad as false religions.
>>>SPERAY: JP2 is very clear that he means that one dies and is buried. That’s it.
Again, this is explicitly refuted in the Catechism.
SPERAY: You’re right, and JP2 rejects it! The Catechism was from 1994, and JP2’s writing was in 1999.
634 “The gospel was preached even to the dead.”
633″It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell.”
637 In his human soul united to his divine person, the dead Christ went down to the realm of the dead. He opened heaven’s gates for the just who had gone before him.
It’s surely one thing, Steven, for us to disagree when something said is heresy or not, but here that something is not said at all. I do not know the context in what the Holy Father said what you link, but here, in Rome’s official Catechism, which btw converts from Anglicanism assent to, she clearly teaches what you say we deny.
SPERAY: I didn’t say “YOU DENY” it, but JP2 does. Most all Vat2-ites rightly believe the truth but their satanic “pope” doesn’t! I gave you the full context and you don’t want to admit it as most all Vat2-ites because you know the consequences.
>>>Speray: I write all about this in one of my books called “Baptism of Desire or Blood.” You have to be very careful how to word it. The 1949 letter is incorrectly written. It also isn’t official. It has no teaching authority at all!
I’m not sure what 1949 is here. Do you mean Pope St.Pius Catechism?
SPERAY: No. You need to do some serious research on the subject. You could buy my book are read all about it. I give you all the quotes with documentation. I’m sure we would agree on the subject. It refutes Feeneyism.
(29th Question, Ninth Article)”If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith and if etc … such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation”
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIUSXCAT.htm
SPERAY: I cover this in my book. Please buy and read it!
Grace be with you.
Xavier, I apologize for not writing in a more charitable way. It’s not my way really. I like being blunt. You have been a great thus far.
>>>No. I’m going to have to ask you to read my blog before answering each time, because I don’t want to repeat myself over and over.
Ok, I went through it.
>>>SPERAY: I hate to have to say it, but you sound like a modernist yourself as you keep saying “current time” as if truth is not immutable.
But I didn’t say at all what you are implying. I said the foretold time may not be the current time, it could be some time in the future.
SPERAY: It doesn’t matter what time it is. The fact is that they all agree that it will happen. However, why do you now think it could be some time in the future when there is clear evidence that it is now? Even Protestants know that Rome today is not Rome before Vat2. They’re are two different religions. How do you tell between two different religions if they both have the same name? Different beliefs, different worship, etc. Right?
>>>As for being driven away, in a sense, the vicar of Christ has been driven away. This is our position. Do you not accept the universal testimony of the Church Fathers?
It’s a bit of a stretch, but yeah, ok. No question of me not accepting the Fathers.
>>>SPERAY: Then you have proven my point, because it is NOT a civil right. This is what the popes have said. Again, you have not read my piece very closely, have you?
I went over it again and my position is unchanged. It seems to me to be that your objection reduces to semantics. I answer that a thing is said to be a civil right in two ways. First, so as to mean “the government is bound to provide it”, like minimal health care, and second in such wise that “the government is not bound to coerce people from it” for example from parents teaching error to their children.
SPERAY: You didn’t answer the questions. Prostitutes have a right to prostitute? Porn is a right? Really? There is a difference between rights and privileges. The government may permit or tolerate something, but it that doesn’t give one the right to do it. The government is not bound to give false religions a right in the public forum. Btw, this is the issue. Not private. Coercing in not the issue either.
It is only in this second sense that the Church is here using it. Only as a legal construct, it is not inherent and God-given like a moral right. About the “in public”, note the all important words, WITHIN DUE LIMITS.
SPERAY: Let me give you the all important words from Vat2 that makes “within due limits” meaningless. Dignitatis Humanae # 4: “In addition, religious communities are entitled to teach and give witness to their faith publicly in speech and writing without hindrance.”
So, again, one never has a right to be wrong in public either morally or civil. I’m quite surprised that you are defending it.
One example. That St.Thomas said, in the light of continuing Tradition, that the children of Jews are not to be baptized against their will. Is that not an example of him recognizing that Jews have a “civil right” to teach Judaism to their children, which is clearly a moral wrong?
SPERAY: Again, coercing is not the issue, therefore your argument with St Thomas is moot. Jews do not have a civil right to practice their faith publicly in speech and writing without hindrance. Again, I gave you the papal quotes that condemn Vat2. You don’t address them. Why?
>>>SPERAY: You’re right, and JP2 rejects it! The Catechism was from 1994, and JP2′s writing was in 1999.
I find that really hard to believe, Steven. Didn’t he approve and commission it himself? And then the Holy Father changed his mind later on just like that? Really? Why didn’t he say the Catechism is outdated then, and should be updated? It is still used for converts last I heard.
SPERAY: I find it very hard to believe that you don’t want to admit that what JP2 teaches in 1989 is word for word contrary to the Catechism of Trent. Are you aware that the Catechism has changed on the Jews and their covenant? JP2 was already dead but the catechism was in serious error on the matter. Whatever the catechism states, JP2 clearly teaches to the contrary. Are you not going to admit this simple point?
One more thing. Your page says “audience in 1989” but now you say 1999? Which one is it?
SPERAY: 1989. Sorry for the confusion. My mind keeps saying 1999 for some reason and so I type it out so.
>>>SPERAY: I didn’t say “YOU DENY” it, but JP2 does. Most all Vat2-ites rightly believe the truth but their satanic “pope” doesn’t!
Sigh. Anyway, that would make the theory a whole lot less credible. If Zionists/Masons/Communists really had succeeded in getting someone to the highest levels of Vatican, I wonder why would they would be content to have most “Vat2ites rightly believe the truth”. That just makes it so much the less plausible that that is what happened!
SPERAY: Because this in not an issue one way or the other. Why would you think so? What Zionists/Masons/Communists have succeeded in doing is make YOU believe that one has a right to be wrong. You are actually arguing on their side! They have succeeded in making you believe that Rome is Catholic today. They have succeeded in making you believe truth yesterday doesn’t apply today.
>>>I gave you the full context and you don’t want to admit it as most all Vat2-ites because you know the consequences.
! There you are trying to divine my intentions again. You know, I was raised in a strict Catholic family. When I began to read the Bible, I thought I saw contradictions with Catholicism, the usual things about Mother Mary and all, and no one could answer me.
SPERAY: Then why don’t you admit how JP2’s 1989 teaching is heretical? Vat2-ites don’t give me an answer either. They just deny the obvious. I’m trying to get you to admit that JP2’s teaching a heresy? Will you do so? If not, why? Sorry, if I seem to know your intentions. Please don’t read my replies in the wrong way. I’m just blunt. Don’t mean to be mean-spirited.
Believe me, Protestantism was far more unpleasant than a Sedevacantist position would be, but I embraced it because I believed it was the Biblical truth. I refused to go to Catholic churches, going with my cousins instead and I would only be passively present at forced upon family Rosary sessions. I sought to make my mother “born again”, with success I now slightly repent. It is another matter that, by the grace of God, the more I read, the more I was permitted to see, the more I realized how wrong I was, and how marvellous was the Faith I had left.
SPERAY: I apologize for not writing in a more charitable way.
Talking with you was probably my first real look at Sedevacantism, after which I have gone into it some more. I’m confident where I stand, but I’m willing to consider any reasonable accusation against the man I believe to be Pope. And just because, as a matter of Christian charitableness, we don’t necessarily go around calling people, whether Protestants or Sedevacantists or Muslims Satanic, as you do us, doesn’t mean, dear Steven, that we don’t desire their, or for that matter, your conversion to what we know to be the truth as much, if not more, as you do ours to what you think to be so.
SPERAY: I didn’t call you satanic or even Vat2-ites. I do call JP2 and Ratzinger Satanic. I don’t make any apologies for saying so. They are evil! I hope you can see through them.
I’ll think about buying your book. Thanks for the offer. I’m sure it would be a good read, but it would probably be overkill for me at the moment. May grace always be with you.
SPERAY: You are more and welcome to continue to email me. I’ll try to be more charitable in the way I put things. I’m actually glad that you have continued this far!
>>>Xavier, I apologize for not writing in a more charitable way. It’s not my way really. I like being blunt. You have been a great thus far.
Steven, I didn’t mean to pass judgment on you. 🙂 Let me say, I commend your patience in replying to me, especially given that I am quite new to this, point by point. And also, I expect it mustn’t be the nicest thing in the world to be called names by random people who show up on your blog.
Anyway, what I said was regarding how we believe, especially post Vatican II, error should be approached. It doesn’t mean we have stopped preaching the faith or loving truth.
>>>SPERAY: It doesn’t matter what time it is. The fact is that they all agree that it will happen. However, why do you now think it could be some time in the future when there is clear evidence that it is now?
I think some of even the early Protestants and certainly the later ones had all sorts of fancies that the Pope was once true but then apostatised and would be AntiChrist till Christ smite him. Clearly, they also thought there was clear evidence that it was then.
SPERAY: The difference is that Protestants had no evidence.
>>>Even Protestants know that Rome today is not Rome before Vat2. They’re are two different religions. How do you tell between two different religions if they both have the same name? Different beliefs, different worship, etc. Right?
Sure. But let’s forget Protestants because they’ve been accusing us of changing and inventing things for the last 500 years.
SPERAY: Are you agreeing or denying that the Vat2 religion has different beliefs, worship service, etc?
The Church has the right not only to bind but also to loose. This is divine right, evident in Scripture. Therefore, one cannot use a change in a disciplinary norm to prove sedevacantism.
SPERAY: The Church does not have the right to make up evil disciplines. An evil change can be used to prove sedevacantism. Read my “WHY SEDEVACANTISM” again.
>>>SPERAY: You didn’t answer the questions. Prostitutes have a right to prostitute? Porn is a right? Really?There is a difference between rights and privileges.
So pornography and prostitution is a “privilege”? See, it’s about semantics. Since we’ve gone there, why don’t you let DH define its own terms?
SPERAY: Yes, it is a privilege in the fact that it can be tolerated which is what I mean. It is not a right and you have argued that man has a civil right but not a moral right to practice something. This is wrong. So let me ask you again, does man have a right to practice porn or prostitution in public within due limits or not?
2. …a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion… etc
SPERAY: I AGREE. This is not the part of Vat2 that is incorrect.
It says something similar later on. Also, there is always a clause.
>>>The government is not bound to give false religions a right in the public forum…Let me give you the all important words from Vat2 that makes “within due limits” meaningless.
Very shortly afterwards, the passage goes on to say, “Provided that the just demands of public order are met”, see, there’s always a clause and even after that it mentions the Supreme Being so it’s not faiths that do not acknowledge one God would even be included
SPERAY: So man has a right to porn and prostitution provided that the just demands of public order are met? The problem with Vat2 is that the Church has stated that it is wrong.
Clearly, The Church is not teaching that error has unrestrained rights in the public square. But you know what, we’re not living in Catholic kingdoms anymore. People need to wake up and realize that and engage the world as it is? Who do you think this was addressed to? Staunch Catholic rulers who wondered how best to deal with convicted heretics?
No! It was for formulating a consistent Church position in a world that is filled with Christian people who, whether under Muslims, Communists or secularists, often have their faith prejudiced against.
SPERAY: I didn’t say that Vat2 was giving error unrestrained rights in public, but it does give error rights nonetheless. It also doesn’t matter what governments are in place. ERROR NEVER HAS A RIGHT IN PUBLIC! I’m not even sure it has a right in private at times. Does Sodomy ever have right provided it is in private?
It is invoked in the CCC telling Christians have the right to seek Sundays to be holidays, it was mentioned by the Pope over a Pakistani women recently.
SPERAY: Truth and righteousness always has a right!
We can hardly maintain to Muslims that they ought not persecute Christians because Christianity is true, now can we?
SPERAY: This has nothing to do with the argument.
Rather, we must express it in such a way that even the secular and Muslim world would in some measure assent to, especially when it is to the advantage of the faith. And that is, I think, one of the accomplishments of Vatican II.
SPERAY: I agree that is must be done in a tactful way. We are to be cunning like serpents says the Lord, but again this is not the argument.
>>>SPERAY: I find it very hard to believe that you don’t want to admit that what JP2 teaches in 1989 is word for word contrary to the Catechism of Trent.
Even that portion says “those who in the days of Christ’s death and burial were already in the “realm of the dead” ”
I fail to see where the problem lies.
SPERAY: Because he explains that realm of the dead is just an expression for being dead and buried. There is no actual realm of the dead in JP2 teachings. It is merely a metaphor. Will you descend into hell when you die? JP2 says yes, because descend into hell just means being dead and buried. However, Christ actually went to an actual place. Please read my piece here https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/one-of-the-great-heresies-of-john-paul-ii-in-his-own-words/ and see my comments.
>>>Whatever the catechism states, JP2 clearly teaches to the contrary. Are you not going to admit this simple point?
Yes, I don’t “admit it”, because I don’t agree.
SPERAY: Well, try reading my piece first. It is so clear that my brother and his Doctor Vat2 priest refuse to answer it.
>>>SPERAY: I’m trying to get you to admit that JP2′s teaching a heresy? Will you do so? If not, why?
Please show me the negation of a dogma in any of his statements. Remember that any theologian has a right to his own style of expression, so if he did seem to teach something, we ought to clarify it with him, which I think we can do with the Catechism, rather than accuse him presumptuously.
SPERAY: Please read that piece. JP2 couldn’t have been more clear.
>>>SPERAY: I didn’t call you satanic or even Vat2-ites. I do call JP2 and Ratzinger Satanic. I don’t make any apologies for saying so. They are evil! I hope you can see through them.
Well, I disagree, but there it is. Anyway, this is another point. You can say this about our Popes or even about the Muslims. But what if a Pope were to make even a slightly offensive statement towards Islam? Thus, by his very position as a public figure, the Pope is put in an awkward position, and in a certain sense is held hostage to not say everything he may feel about it. It becomes all the more urgent to show measures of goodwill and require some reciprocation from their side.
SPERAY: Popes have indeed made offensive statements towards Islam. Several of them in fact. I give you the quotes on this blog.
Anyway, your statement is ironic because it reminds me of something St.Catherine of Sienna said. Something like “Even if a Pope were Satan incarnate, we would have to obey him”. Doesn’t that contradict sedevacantism, she was also a Doctor of the Church? So, if a doctor of the Church has expressed doubts about the tenability of the position, I think lay Catholics can do so too.
SPERAY: St Catherine was using hyperbole. “If” a pope, not an antipope. Popes can be evil but they cannot be apostates in their evil which is what I’m talking about. St. Catherine would never accept an antipope. Her words were only trying to convey that popes must be obeyed. I agree and could make the same statement. However, I would clarify my position so that one not confuse what I mean. I don’t believe she is a doctor of the Church. Antipope Paul VI declared her so. I do think she is one of the greatest women saints ever.
Anyway, I have another argument against this position, if you’ll bear with me. The Church has expressly and repeatedly stated that Vatican II cannot be interpreted contrary to earlier Councils. Therefore, those who insist on reading Vatican II like that are mistaken.
SPERAY: I understand what you are saying but Ratzinger has even called Vat2 a countersyllabus and does in fact go against previous Church teaching. Ratzinger is admitting so by implication.
Rather, we should try to harmonize them, as we do complicated theological questions or the Gospel accounts, or even the Old and New Testaments. I can say for myself that I can to some extent, even with my very much limited knowledge, reconcile the three points you mentioned to the satisfaction of my own mind. But let’s say I cannot. So what? Does that mean I should grant sedevacantism?
SPERAY: Not if you’re uncertain. I would want you absolutely positive about sedevacantism. You can have no doubt. However, you can have no doubt about the Vat2 religion either. There are other things you need to consider such as evil disciplines which the Vat2 practices and condemned by historic Catholic teaching. The Catholic Church has taught that disciplines are infallible, not just doctrines. You also should read about the sacraments. My book covers some of it. However, Fr Coomaraswamy wrote a book called “The Destruction of the Christian Tradition” which is a must read. I dare you to take it on. I was very instrumental in my complete conversion out of the Vat2 religion and into the historic Catholic Church.
No, because theologians have struggled with far graver questions than this, which have often gone unanswered for decades. This seems to demonstrate to me that we do not need at all to hold what you are suggesting.
SPERAY: I still offer the challenge to read my books and Fr. Coomaraswamy’s. You might have a different opinion then. We have only skimmed the surface.
Peace nad grace.
YOU ARE PERSISTENT AND I LOVE IT! But could you do me a favor from here on out? Let’s keep these replies shorter so that I’m not so bogged down. It takes huge amounts of time to answer each point you give. I like doing it, but I can’t spend hours answering everyone’s emails. You do it on my blog and so you get first priority. I will answer each point here this time and you pick one topic and we’ll go from there. This will allow me more time with my family and home life in general. So, here I go again…
>>>SPERAY: The difference is that Protestants had no evidence.There are other things you need to consider such as evil disciplines which the Vat2 practices and condemned by historic Catholic teaching. The Catholic Church has taught that disciplines are infallible, not just doctrines. Are you agreeing or denying that the Vat2 religion has different beliefs, worship service, etc? The Church does not have the right to make up evil disciplines. An evil change can be used to prove sedevacantism.
Well, they too argued from Scripture, sometimes the Fathers, about doctrinal corruption or at least negligence as well as clerical abuses and moral laxity. Such practical difficulties, which pertain to enforcement discipline, will always exist and need to be reformed within the boundaries established by the Church, with deferral to superiors.
SPERAY: Not the same. For example, 3 popes called altar girls an intrinsically evil practice. It has never been practiced for 2000 years, and then JP2 approves them. He said altar girls enriches the liturgy. So which is it? Evil as understood for 2000 years by the Church or non evil as seen by JP2’s statement? You can’t have it both ways.
I’m a layperson, so I’ll take it up with my parish council or priest at the most. Similar at the higher rung. It doesn’t matter how much I feel I am right. If the authorities decree otherwise, they must be obeyed on “discipline”, for this is how discipline is in fact preserved in the Church e.g. with regard to a private revelation, leaving the rest to the Holy Spirit, who is not weak to accomplish what He has promised.
SPERAY: I did take it up with them and even to the bishop. They all made up excuses and tried to dismiss my arguments. Anyway, they are not to be obeyed if they reject the historic faith. I rely on the Holy Spirit too. I do so by hearing the historic Catholic Faith and rejecting any and all that is contrary.
That is all the difference in the world. More, that is a the difference between a St.Francis of Assisi and a Martin Luther.
SPERAY: Vat2 agrees with Luther as I pointed out!
Still, if some one not a part of my Church alleges a given practice is evil, a freedom I as a Catholic do not ever have, I am willing to answer him from reason alone. There’s also another side to this, taht I’ll continue near the end.
So for that reason, I don’t see how a Catholic can use this to become a sedevacantist.
SPERAY: What do you do when popes of the past call something in your religion evil now? Do agree with your religion now and reject those popes as wrong?
>>>This is wrong. So let me ask you again, does man have a right to practice porn or prostitution in public within due limits or not?
“Pornography is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials. Prostitution does injury to the dignity of the person who engages in it … [and] is a social scourge.”
SPERAY: Practicing false religions is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of heretical and blasphemous materials. False religion injures the souls of the persons who engage in it… [and] is a social scourge. Yet, the Vat2 religion says it is a right in public.
It is always good and legitimate to push, in a non-violent Christian way, for the delegitimizing of such industries and practices, and this justly can be legally enforced, yes but Jews cannot be legally required to be baptised, or have their children so and thus can teach their children or other Jews, because that would rob them of their right to freely embrace the truth, and also probably by causing extreme resentment in them, scandalize and damage the Faith.
SPERAY: Of course, Jews cannot be legally required to be baptized, etc, but they also don’t have a right to practice their religion in public through speech and writing. They may be tolerated. They may have a right to practice their religion in private. The argument I’m laying out is that they don’t have a right in the public forum which Vat2 is giving them.
>>>SPERAY: I AGREE. This is not the part of Vat2 that is incorrect.
You missed the point. This is how the document defines its terms. The right consists solely in “immunity from coercion”. Since you have admitted they have that “right”, I don’t really see how it is that we disagree.
SPERAY: WRONG! I didn’t miss the point but you did. The document does not define it solely in “immunity from coercion” which is why I gave the other quote from Vat2. Dignitatis Humanae # 4: “In addition, religious communities are entitled to teach and give witness to their faith publicly in speech and writing without hindrance.” Do you see what Vat2 is saying here? They are not entitled. They may be permitted, but not entitled. This is the crucial distinction that I think you are missing.
>>>SPERAY: I agree that is must be done in a tactful way. We are to be cunning like serpents says the Lord, but again this is not the argument.
Sure, but if we are going to consider disciplinary effects as an argument, post-Vatican II, then this is the other side. Many things have become worse, yes, but there is also some cause for optimism. This same principle was stressed with great effect, now with Muslims, earlier with the Communists, and then with the common man, generating a wave of people power beginning in Pope John Paul II’s first trip to his native land.
SPERAY: I really don’t think your argument applies. We are talking about whether error has rights in the civil and public forum. Truth and righteousness always has the right in civil and public forum. What is your point with all this?
Again, there was unprecedented cooperation, which would have been nigh impossible before Vatican II, against a common foe at this time with Protestants like Ronald Reagan among others. Just a century ago, persecution of Catholics in your own land would not have been unthinkable.
SPERAY: Persecution of Catholics actually existed in my land a century ago. So what? No one had the right to do so. How is your arguments supporting the right for error to exist in the civil and public forum?
And Britain is another story, Margaret Thatcher had her role. But that a Bishop of Rome could praise St.Thomas More in the same hall he was condemned is stupendous. Again, 50 years on, things aren’t so bad.
SPERAY: Are you suggesting that Vat2’s teaching that error has civil rights has made the world better because Catholics aren’t condemned like before?
50 years after some of the great early Councils, with some of the greatest Doctors the Church has known, confusion and error still prevailed. More were needed. 50 years after Trent, the Reformation had continued to spread like wildfire. Give us time. There are many serious disciplinary problems, yes. We will sort them out.
SPERAY: Now you are confusing the subjects. Civil problems and Church disciplines are too completely different topics. NEVER has the Church had disciplinary problems in the sense that there was something wrong with the disciplines. Confusion and error has never prevailed in the Church. The Reformation had continued because people refuse to hear the truth. I submit that Vat2 has made things infinitely worse! With all due respect, you cannot see that your own religion is contrary to the historic Catholic religion. You think they are one and the same. That is how bad things are now. Those who call themselves Catholic do not know what is Catholic and what is not.
In my country, we have not experienced as much of a “sexual revolution” as there has been in the West, many priests themselves no longer believe or with sufficient grace to overcome temptation. Here, we have our own problems now and then, but still upright God-loving priests, who offer solemn Masses, not like how I hear many in the west have become.
SPERAY: You’re right! The West is awful! However, your Novus Ordo mass is not valid and neither are your priests. Your sacraments lack the correct forms that the Church has infallibly laid out. The book that I referred you to, “Destruction of the Christian Tradition” lays out this argument beautifully! Too much to deal with over email. You need to read the books.
>>>SPERAY: Because he explains that realm of the dead is just an expression for being dead and buried. There is no actual realm of the dead in JP2 teachings. It is merely a metaphor. Please read my piece here and see my comments.
I did read it, Steven. I think what the Holy Father is saying is a metaphor is “heart of the earth”. I don’t think we are required to believe hell is in the literal heart of the earth within the temporal and spatial realm at least.
SPERAY: No Xavier. He clearly says that descent into hell is merely the expression of dying and being buried. For example, look at this quote…
“During the three (incomplete) days between the moment when he “expired” (cf. Mk 15:37) and the resurrection, Jesus experienced the state of death”, that is, the , as in the case of all people. This is the primary meaning of the words “he descended into hell”; they are linked to what Jesus himself had foretold when, in reference to the story of Jonah. he had said: “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so ” (Mt 12:40).”
Will you descend into hell when you die, Xavier? JP2 says you will, but this is nonsense! JP2 continues over and over to explain everything as a metaphor for death and burial.
>>>SPERAY: Popes have indeed made offensive statements towards Islam. Several of them in fact. I give you the quotes on this blog.
That was before the media was as well-connected and as far-reaching as it is today. A misreporting of the context of Pope Benedict’s citing of an emperor on Islam did no favours to the faith or to anybody and caused militants to take several lives.
SPERAY: You must be prudent as was Pope Pius XII during Hitler’s time.
>>>SPERAY: St Catherine was using hyperbole. “If” a pope, not an antipope. Popes can be evil but they cannot be apostates in their evil which is what I’m talking about. St. Catherine would never accept an antipope.
Ok, I didn’t know when she had been declared a Doctor, so I guess you don’t accept it, but the above is your interpretation, and since no sedevacantist claims the charism of infallibility in such things, you must grant you might be mistaken here, especially when the plain text suggests otherwise.
SPERAY: I cannot be mistaken here because the Church through the doctrines and laws teach that popes cannot be heretics or apostates. St Catherine was merely saying that a pope must be obeyed.
“Satan incarnate” would certainly be an apostate or worse. If she did believe sedevacantism, we would expect her to have continued, “he can be freely disobeyed, and is in fact considered deposed or an antipope or never valid”. Or better yet “A Pope can never be Satan incarnate”.
SPERAY: I submit that she was merely using a figure of speech that a pope must be obeyed. You are right that a pope can never actually be Satan incarnate, but he can be like Satan incarnate insofar that he could be very bad such as being a lying drunk who likes having concubines in his home. Do you see what I mean and what I submit St. Catherine means?
>>>SPERAY: I understand what you are saying but Ratzinger has even called Vat2 a countersyllabus and does in fact go against previous Church teaching. Ratzinger is admitting so by implication.
“Countersyllabus” doesn’t mean it contradicts it. As Pope, he has expressly taught that we are one and the same Church, before and after. Harmonizing is something we can leave to theologians, expressly when the difficulties are hardly insurmountable.
SPERAY: Ratzinger says that the Syllabus is obsolete and therefore Vat2 is very much a contradiction of it. He thinks it can be since the Syllabus no longer applies. Because he has expressly teaches that we are one and the same Church before and after is so much a lie that I find it very hard that people buy into it with full knowledge. It is very obvious that there are two distinct religions.
>>>SPERAY: Not if you’re uncertain. I would want you absolutely positive about sedevacantism. You can have no doubt. However, you can have no doubt about the Vat2 religion either.
I don’t! I believe it with divine and Catholic Faith.
SPERAY: That’s impossible since Vat2 is contrary to the Catholic Faith. This is what I’m conveying to you.
>>>You also should read about the sacraments. My book covers some of it. However, Fr Coomaraswamy wrote a book called “The Destruction of the Christian Tradition” which is a must read. I dare you to take it on. It was very instrumental in my complete conversion out of the Vat2 religion and into the historic Catholic Church.
Is this Fr.Kumaraswamy an Indian?
SPERAY: Yes. He was an awesome theologian. He dialogued with Mother Theresa. I have it if you want me to send it to you.
Anyway, yeah, I will read books in time. About the sacraments, I presume the Holy Spirit leads the Church, as the faithful have always done in things they could never ever have hoped to understand the intricacies of, which is always the default position. If you have some particular arguments against the sacraments, I presume orders and the Eucharist, ie Holy Mass, I’ll be glad to hear them and offer my thoughts, for what they’re worth, as to why I am still in the “Vat II Church”.
SPERAY: Xavier, you have been one of the best men ever to challenge me with your sincerity. It took me a while to come to the position that I’m in and I have little doubt that you will follow in time. I would call you a Catholic and not a Vat2-ite insofar that it would appear that you are sincerely misinformed. I was too for 33 years of life. I still get corrected here and there. I misrepresented jurisdiction a few weeks ago and a gentlemen corrected me from Australia. I want to resolve all of this point by point but please pick one of the above and we can take it slowly.
Grace be with you.
All right, Steven, good idea. I also felt it was getting too long and being on too many topics for us to get anywhere.
Shall we start with Altar girls, then? Next we can go into the “descent into hell” statement. I’m not sure or very clear about this, but I think lectors who read from the Scripture and those who distributed Holy Communion were permitted to be women, at least nuns, even before Vatican II. Am I wrong?
SPERAY: I’m afraid so. Women have always been forbidden to be lectors. Scripture is clear that women are not to speak in the Churches and the Catholic Church has always followed the teaching precisely because of this. Rome first permitted the evil practice in 1970. I don’t know when in the last 50 years Rome first permitted women to distribute Communion. However, the Church has called the practice of “women serving the priest” EVIL! The Church also has made it clear that it has always forbidden it.
Regarding altar girls, this is my understanding of the current situation: Boys are still encouraged, girls are permitted, but usually only for a just cause, like there being a shortage of boys. In the case of girls, it is strongly emphasised that this is not a first step towards women’s ordination, and boys are still encouraged, since this is traditional, and also because this could foster their own vocations in later life.
SPERAY: The fact that altar girls are permitted at all and universally permitted at that is all that I need to prove that the Vat2 religion is not the Catholic religion since it impossible for the Catholic Church to universally permit an evil practice. As a matter of fact, this practice, along with women lectors, was the first thing that alerted me to Rome’s apostasy. Now, think hard about this. Is it a coincidence that Rome would permit condemned practices such as these after Vat2? After 2000 years of condemning them, they permit them and even call them good.
From my reading, what I understand is that earlier on, serving at the altar was already seen as the first step towards a person’s training in the seminary, sort of an unofficial contract that this person was due for ordination, and I submit that it was this the Popes called illicit, because of course the Church, following her Lord, has understood that it has no power to confer ordination on a girl or woman.
SPERAY: It is true that a pope cannot ordain a female to the priesthood since it would go against the Divine Law. He has no authority to do so. However, it is equally true that a pope does not have the authority to allow women to serve since the practice is intrinsically evil thus making it against Divine Law. There are many other practices that a pope has no authority in changing, such as changing the matter of the Eucharist, or the form (words) having with it a different meaning. The pope has supreme authority but that authority is still very limited. With that being said, JP2 has done what a pope can’t do by permitting altar girls and women lectors. Not only that, but the fact that he thought he could makes him a non-Catholic. He has no excuse for ignorance on the subject.
Peace and grace.
>>>SPERAY: I’m afraid so … The Church also has made it clear that it has always forbidden it. The fact that altar girls are permitted at all and universally permitted at that…
Consider, “And I commend to you Phebe, our sister, who is in the ministry of the Church, that is in Cenchrae: That you receive her in the Lord as becomes saints and that you assist her in whatsoever business she shall have need of you. For she also has assisted many, and myself also.”
The CathEn says the word used is diakonos and that deaconesses were quite common for many centuries in early Christianity, who while not receiving holy orders, had a ritual of initiation and were “guardians of the doors” following a Jewish custom.
Thus, all Catholics who would oppose women receiving holy orders into the deaconate can still accept women who perform some pastoral functions as deaconesses.
SPERAY: You’re arguments don’t follow because these women did not speak nor serve the masses. They’re primary role was in baptizing other women for the sake of modesty. Popes have condemned the practice of women serving in the sanctuary at mass.
Similar, lectors and acolytes were minor orders and in this sense, it was reserved to boys and could not be given to girls. Now, these orders are not conferred and so girls and boys, both as lay persons, may serve.
SPERAY: You’re not arguing with me, but the popes that made the condemnations. Even during those times, they could have just allowed women to serve without orders, right? There is nothing in the condemnations about minor orders, but rather the simple fact that women are not to serve. It would appear that you trying to justify an evil act by throwing in a non sequitur.
Scripture also mentions women praying and prophesying. So why should it be forbidden to them to read the word of God? Would we say that a woman cannot ever so much as come on the altar of the Lord when the Lord Himself deigned to enter the world through a Woman? Has the Church stated anything like this?
SPERAY: Have you not read Holy Scripture? “Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith. But if they would learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.” This is in the context of prophecy even. Now think about his very carefully. Women have never ever been allowed to be lectors but only now since 1970 they are permitted. You would argue that Scripture was wrong, the Church was wrong for 2000 years, but now they are right? As for Mary, she kept silent as well. She is the example.
>>>SPERAY: However, it is equally true that a pope does not have the authority to allow women to serve since the practice is intrinsically evil thus making it against Divine Law.
Also, what in case of necessity, since you say it is “intrinsically evil”. What of Masses said in convents before Vatican II, where few or no men and boys would attend? What is your position on that? If it is intrinsically evil, it cannot be permitted even in this scenario. That should show that it was not intrinsically evil but merely something the Church had bound, which the Church may freely loose when she sees fit.
SPERAY: My position is the same as the Catholic Church’s. Women are not to serve as they never have. You’re argument is false. Also, you seem to say here that the 2000 year practice and the condemnation of the popes are unjust and plain wrong, but now the VAt2 religion got it right. Is that what you are trying to do?
Grace be with you.
>>>Now think about his very carefully. Women have never ever been allowed to be lectors but only now since 1970 they are permitted. You would argue that Scripture was wrong, the Church was wrong for 2000 years, but now they are right? As for Mary, she kept silent as well. She is the example.
I’m sorry, Steven. I think we are at an impasse. I try to reconcile what I know the Church teaches today with what it has taught in the past, while you are determined to see a contradiction and accuse me of disbelieving in the latter. If I cannot manage to, then I would think the fault is probably with me, not with Rome. That is how Catholics far wiser than me have always behaved, on several issues they could not possibly hopes to have comprehended. Do you think lay Catholics could have argued successfully with Protestants from Scripture? Should they not simply have followed their Tradition of looking to living authority?
SPERAY: Like I’ve said a million times, to follow the Vat2 religion you have to reject the 2000 year history of the Catholic Church. You have to reject the simple teachings of Scripture and the popes.
I think even something bound by the Church in Scripture can be loosed by the Church after that. I don’t think Catholics are bound to abstain from the meat of strangled animals either. One slight thing, you didn’t answer my question of all-women masses at convents before Vatican II.
SPERAY: Then you are wrong, the Church cannot loose a natural law. The animal thing doesn’t qualify like women lectors, etc. I did answer your question, all-women mass didn’t have women serving or reading. They stood behind a wall. Your argument is false.
Vatican II had to do something, a Council wasn’t called just to pass the time, so I don’t think it is fair to make too big a deal of practices that have changed. I think altar servers are little compared to deaconesses. I’d never heard of them before this, but if the Church did it then, it’s good enough for me. And if the Church does it now, it’s good enough for me.
SPERAY: Vat2 had to do something? You mean that the Church was wrong for 2000 years and Vat2 had to change it. The Church never had altar servers. I already told you what deaconesses were for, but you don’t want to listen. You have to reject the teaching of the popes.
>>>Popes have condemned the practice of women serving in the sanctuary at mass.
The same 1911 CE article continues “According to the newly discovered “Testament of Our Lord” (c. 400), widows had a place in the sanctuary during the celebration of the liturgy, they stood at the anaphora behind the presbyters, they communicated after the deacons, and before the readers and subdeacons, and strange to say they had a charge of, or superintendence over the deaconesses. Further it is certain that a ritual was in use for the ordination of deaconesses by the laying on of hands which was closely modeled on the ritual for the ordination of a deacon.”
SPERAY: This says nothing of altar servers or lectors. And quite frankly, I would check to see if this is even correct for the CE has many errors. Even if it were correct, it doesn’t overrule the argument. You have to reject the popes.
I have seen Allatae Sunt and the condemnations of the Popes. I submit that what they are condemning the conferral of holy orders.
SPERAY: It doesn’t even say nor imply it. The title says, “Women Assisting at Mass” but you throw in conferral of holy orders so that you can have your pie and eat it too.
>>>There is nothing in the condemnations about minor orders, but rather the simple fact that women are not to serve.
Here it seems you are arguing from a negative. You’re not saying, “They explicitly condemned women being on the sanctuary for whatever reason”, but rather “There is nothing in…” etc.
SPERAY: No, it plainly states, “women assisting at mass”.
Again, I would think that this is because of how it was at the time. Women serving at the altar=women being ordained to the deaconate=condemnation. I agree that is my reading of AS, but I think it is at least consistent with the plain text.
SPERAY: Not even close!
You must at least grant that my position, not to leave the visible Church after at least an apparent council, is the default position and that the burden of proof must lie on the person saying that the visible Church has apostatised.
SPERAY: I have shown the proof but you want to believe it doesn’t exist with a non sequitur argument.
Now in return, I have some questions for you regarding the four marks of the true Church.
Forget apostolicity. You say the “Vat II Church” fell away in 1958. Who do you trace your origins to? The Church of Christ must at least show continuity from that date. Wiki says the movement started in 1968. This gap of ten years is a huge problem, if we are to say there was no Catholic Church at this time.
SPERAY: Wiki is dead wrong. There is no gap at all. I know of a Vatican insider that never accepted the election of Roncalli. However, even if there was a gap, Catholics can be in error on the subject as the Church has been in error before with other antipopes. You’re Vat2 religion began in the 1960’s, mine began with Christ since I belong to the Roman Catholic Church.
Now, to unity and universality. Forget hierarchy. Is there a method you have, not necessarily infallibly, but at least in practice, to settle disputes on faith, ie by a living authority, an arbiter? What do two sedevacantists who disagree do? Form two separate groups? Do you have a focus on world evangelization? How will you maintain unity even if sedevacantist churches expand?
SPERAY: Just as every long interregnum period. The Catholic Church went 3 and half years without a pope but it survived and that is how we do it now. The Great Schism last 50 years and it survived and you couldn’t tell who the pope was at that time. As a matter of fact, we still don’t know for sure. The official list gives the Roman line, but a good argument can show that it is not it, and the official list has changed over the years because of discrepancies.
Lastly, for all that the Church has been criticized of and despite her many sinful members, she still “lets her good works shine before men” in various ways throughout the world. What can sedevacantism show in comparison?
SPERAY: Sorry, but this is a lie. Your Vat2 church has false works not good ones. If anything is good, it comes from ignorant members whom I call “Catholics in error” which belong to my Church, but not the Vat2 the Church.
I ask all this not to be polemical, Steven, but because, as I’m sure you’ll agree, these marks of the true Church are a fundamental Catholic dogma.
SPERAY: I agree. There is another mark known as holiness. All teachings and practices must be holy, and the Vat2 church has evil teachings and practices: Women lectors and servers as one example which think is okay. Wrong forms in 5 sacraments in another. Error has rights in the civil and public forum which you have argued is true is another evil. Your defense of these things show no light to the world but rather complete darkness and how the Vat2 religion has darkened your mind.
May Jesus richly bless you.
>>>SPERAY: Like I’ve said a million times, to follow the Vat2 religion you have to reject the 2000 year history of the Catholic Church. You have to reject the simple teachings of Scripture and the popes.
But I don’t reject Scripture and I don’t reject the Popes. You’ve never told me why simple lay Catholics can’t take some things, even apparent contradictions, on Faith as Catholics have always done. I’m willing to consider what you say, but this is why I brought up the marks of the Church. When two people lay claim to something, it should be apparent to the simplest person where the true Church is.
SPERAY: But you do reject those papal teachings. It is evil for women to serve at the altar with the priest at the mass. You’re saying that it is not evil. And since the mark of holiness is that all teachings and practices must be holy, then it is very apparent that women serving the priest at mass is a mark of a false church. This is simple. I’ll give you another one concerning women below.
>>>SPERAY: Then you are wrong, the Church cannot loose a natural law. The animal thing doesn’t qualify like women lectors, etc.
See, this is your personal judgment, not the historic teaching of the Catholic Church.
Yes, The Church cannot loose the natural law. When the Church binds law for believers, we cannot disobey even if it is only Church law, and therefore to do so becomes evil.
So, my challenge is simple. Show me where the Church taught that this is an instance of natural law, as opposed to Church law, like the Church has shown the earlier one in Scripture was.
SPERAY: Women are to keep silent in the Churches and are not permitted to teach or have authority over men (I Tim. 2) because Adam was first, then Eve. This is a natural law argument that St Paul is demonstrating. What do you think St. Paul meant? I could also throw in head coverings which the Vat2 church ignores. St. Paul uses another natural law argument why women should have their heads covered. Perhaps you could address these two teachings…
Also, even the 1917 Code of Canon law allows for women serving in case of necessity, which further demonstrates it is not against natural law, even though it did say of course that women are not to approach the altar, although it is not clear that their being on the altar violates natural law.
SPERAY: Not at the altar! This is the key point in the papal condemnations.
If you have something that states so, I’ll be the first to grant I am wrong or at least don’t have an answer.
Also, women may be baptized in a Mass or at a Nuptial Mass, they may go on the Altar. It doesn’t matter if these are exceptional circumstances, because if it was allowed at all by the Church, it cannot be against the natural law.
SPERAY: We’re going to have to make distinctions because everything is getting lumped into one. Serving by way of Lectors, altar girls, baptisms, etc.
>>>I did answer your question, all-women mass didn’t have women serving or reading. They stood behind a wall. Your argument is false.
You mean they stood behind a wall and read? That is enough, isn’t it, if the objection here is to women speaking? If “women should remain silent” is interpreted as binding forever beyond the authority of the Church, women could not even say prayers or hymns. We hold it refers to ordained teaching authority.
SPERAY: What difference does it make if it is not at the altar with the priest? Women don’t serve in the sanctuary.
>>>SPERAY: Vat2 had to do something? You mean that the Church was wrong for 2000 years and Vat2 had to change it.
Maybe I should have been clearer. I meant to say that the Council was convened to address some issues and after those issues were addressed, some things will appear different. Even after Vatican I, “Old Catholics” said they did not like the new definitions and could be Catholic without accepting it.
SPERAY: Old Catholics rejected the infallibility of the pope which has always been believed. Vat2’s teaching that men can be wrong has never been taught.
>>>SPERAY: This says nothing of altar servers or lectors.
It says “widows had a place in the sanctuary during the liturgy”. This isn’t even theology, this is the description of a practice, so I would think the Encyclopedia would be ideal. Anyway, if you like, Steven, I can look for another source.
SPERAY: Did they serve a priest on the altar at mass?
>>>SPERAY: It doesn’t even say nor imply it. The title says, “Women Assisting at Mass” but you throw in conferral of holy orders so that you can have your pie and eat it too.
And in the same way some argue from St.Paul’s statement about Phoebe that she actually received holy orders. “who is in the ministry of the Church … For she also has assisted many, and myself also.”
SPERAY: The question is how? The popes have already said how not.
I don’t need to prove my position. I merely need to demonstrate consistency. It is upon the sedevacantist, I submit, that the burden of proof to demonstrate the contradiction must fall, just like it is with those who argue for contradictions in Holy Scripture.
SPERAY: There is no consistency in your arguments. You’re all over the place with women here doing this and women there doing that, but the condemnation was about women serving at the altar with the priest at mass. You have to reject the teaching of the popes that this is not evil.
>>>SPERAY: Wiki is dead wrong. There is no gap at all. I know of a Vatican insider that never accepted the election of Roncalli.
Was he a cardinal? When did he first publicly claim, or at least make known to anyone else, that he did not accept it? Why did he say nothing during the Pope’s reign?
SPERAY: No because it was a women. She made the claim before the election because it was set up and she exposed it, she made it known to everyone, and she never accepted it. She did before and after and never accepted the election of Roncalli.
>>>However, even if there was a gap, Catholics can be in error on the subject as the Church has been in error before with other antipopes.
Never can the whole Church be in error, as would have been the case here.
SPERAY: WRONG. Pope Paul IV implied that the whole Church could be in error on this point. History has shown that it actually happened before. I’m writing a book about it now.
You are arguing that not only the bishops from many nations in an Ecumenical Council fell into heresy all at once, but that the whole Church did so.
SPERAY: I’m not arguing that at all. Not all bishops the bishops accepted Vat2. Many Catholics were unaware of what Vat2 taught. So you have misunderstood my position.
Think about this for a moment, Steven. How many Councils have transpired before this, and of how few do we know all we would like to about the surroundings and of all who participated.
If the protection of the Holy Ghost is not assured by divine Providence, even here, especially since you yourself say the Church ahs never defined the length of an interregnum, who knows for how long we could have been in error, with a true “remnant Church” somewhere hidden.
SPERAY: The Church has taught when we are assured by the Holy Ghost. The Church hasn’t defined the length of an interregnum. Are you saying it has? What the Church has taught is that a heretic is automatically outside of the Church without any further declaration and that heretic only has to appear so in the external forum for any Catholic to know.
>>>SPERAY: Just as every long interregnum period. The Catholic Church went 3 and half years without a pope but it survived and that is how we do it now. The Great Schism last 50 years and it survived and you couldn’t tell who the pope was at that time.
There was never a sharp question of doctrinal or disciplinary difference in any of those scenarios now, was there?
SPERAY: Not the issue. You brought up the issue of no pope and I gave you the answer.
>>>SPERAY: Sorry, but this is a lie. Your Vat2 church has false works not good ones. If anything is good, it comes from ignorant members whom I call “Catholics in error” which belong to my Church, but not the Vat2 the Church.
The works are demonstrated even for unbelievers, like the Lord said the mark of unity would be. Of course you will claim that those who appear to do good either don’t belong to my Church or don’t really do so, but the same could be made by any other group.
SPERAY: I don’t know what you are talking about or how it applies to our exchange. Perhaps you could elaborate.
>>>Wrong forms in 5 sacraments in another. Error has rights in the civil and public forum which you have argued is true is another evil. Your defense of these things show no light to the world but rather complete darkness and how the Vat2 religion has darkened your mind.
We can come to these if you want. You seem to have irreversibly made up your mind. My mind is enlightened by faith, but it is not closed to reason. I submit, with respect, that it is you and other sedevacantists and “traditionalists”, not Vatican II, that has erred. Grace be with you, Steven.
SPERAY: You seem to have irreversibly made up your mind, too. My mind is enlightened by faith which brought me to this position. I can reason, too. Yes, we can come to these issues. So far, you claim error has rights in publicly, women serving on the altar at mass is not evil, JP2 and Ratzinger entering mosques, and pagan temple wearing their outfits and participating in their ceremonies are not acts of apostasy, etc. I believe you have made some bad arguments but are trying to save what it is left in your religion. You appear to be of goodwill even though you have misunderstood greatly the teachings and practices of the last 5 antipopes.
>>>SPERAY: We’re going to have to make distinctions because everything is getting lumped into one. Serving by way of Lectors, altar girls, baptisms, etc.
You say there is no consistency in what I’m saying but perhaps I did not make myself clear because you aren’t arguing against what I meant. My point here is if A alone and B alone is not against natural law, then A and B together can’t be against it either.
In short,
1. Women may serve during Mass
2. Women may be on the altar during Mass
3. Therefore women may serve on the Altar during Mass.
I think you don’t deny 1, and CCL 1917 permits it though restricts 2, and unless you deny the argument is formally valid, you must deny 2 and call that evil. But 2 happens during marriages and baptism. So please clarify which you are condemning and your response.
Like you said, it is better if we take it one at a time.
SPERAY: I laid out what qualified as practices against the natural law in my last reply. Then again, what I mean by the natural law and what you mean might differ. So lets use the phrase evil. I’m using the word to refer to something that is morally wrong. If something is evil now, could it be good later? If so, give me an example. Do morals change?
Women are to keep silent in the Churches and are not permitted to teach or have authority over men (I Tim. 2, I Cor 14) because Adam was first, then Eve. St Paul is using a natural law argument to explain why women are not to teach or have authority over man. This teaching of St. Paul transcends time and culture because it is built into creation. To reject this teaching of St. Paul and do otherwise would be evil now and forever. Perhaps you could tell me how this teaching applies in both the world and the Church.
Altar girls are what the popes are condemning and calling evil since an altar girl would imply one who serves a priest at the altar during the mass. They are not saying it is evil because of some disobedience to a church law but rather that it is evil in and of itself. You have argued that they were referring to some type of orders, but then say how women once received orders and so the church can change the laws with the power of binding and loosening. You also have argued that orders for altar servers are not needed today and so the teaching of the popes don’t apply. Then you have argued that women have served on the altar during Baptisms and therefore can serve at mass. However, you don’t find a hint about orders but rather the term “women” because as you see from the teaching of God and the Church, women are not equal to men in order of creation. Equal in dignity but not authority. Women are to have their heads covered and not teach. They have never been allowed to serve the priest at mass as altar servers.
They most certainly can have other roles at mass. They can have other roles at other functions such as Baptisms and why not? Baptizing other women for modesty sake and of course infants, Even a godmother serves to some extent. These roles you keep using to explain why altar girls are okay. However, the popes called this particular practice evil, but you keep saying it is not evil by using those other examples of different but similar practices.
Are altar girls an evil practice or not? The Church says they are and the practice for 2000 years indicates that it is.
Perhaps you can give me an example of something that was evil in and of itself at one time but not now or how the Church with the power of binding and loosening can loosen something evil and make it good.
If we follow your logic, the Church with its power of loosening could allow women to become priests someday. After all, they once were deaconesses, baptized on the altar, serve the mass from afar, and now in your religion serve the mass on the altar and even read the Holy Scriptures which teach men how to live. Whatever arguments you lay out against women priests now, you church could make an excuse why it is okay. You, of course, would follow such a change, right? You say, that will never happen, but just wait and see. You’re arguing in defense of such a change indirectly, and I’ll bet your religion will have women priests within 2 decades if Christ don’t come back by then.
>>>I laid out what qualified as practices against the natural law in my last reply. Then again, what I mean by the natural law and what you mean might differ.
This isn’t about that, Steven. I’m saying neither 1 nor 2 is against natural law, (we both agree what that is,) which does not change, but only a precept of Church law, which does change. I am the first to say that our Mother, the Church, cannot loose temporally what God, our Father has bound eternally ie natural or Divine Law.
Are you saying that two practices that are in and of themselves morally neutral, like above, can together be evil? Surely, that is logically contradictory. Can you give me an example, if you are saying so?
SPERAY: I’m not saying that. Are you saying altar girls are not evil after 3 popes said it was?
Trying to confer holy orders on a woman is intrinsically evil, against natural law, precisely because of the reason you cite, which you argue convincingly and to which I already assent. But it refers only to actual offices of ordained authority within the Church, otherwise a mother would have no authority over her son, nor hold any post of authority in the civil state, which is evidently not true.
SPERAY: So, you agree that the Church doesn’t have the power to loosen something evil?
If the Church under Pope Benedict does this, I’ll be the first to grant sedevacantism, which even now I grant is possible in theory, though think improbable, as a position must be immediately taken. I am supremely confident it will never happen, as Pope John Paul II affirmatively said and so does the current Holy Father who even excommunicated bishops for this or something.
SPERAY: Your Church already has done this many times, not only with altar girls, but the sacraments themselves.
>>>So lets use the phrase evil. I’m using the word to refer to something that is morally wrong. If something is evil now, could it be good later? If so, give me an example. Do morals change?
“Evil” is meaningful only with reference to a law. Many things evil under the Old Law for true believers are not so under the New and Eternal Law for the same true believers now. Some things even written in the New Testament were merely put forward for a time. Eating the meat of strangled animals, I think it was, would have been evil at the time for certain reasons, and above all for disobeying the Apostles. But not at all evil for all time, as the Church later authorititavely understood and rescinded.
SPERAY: You misunderstand here. Eating the wrong animals in the OT was wrong because of disobedience, not because something was wrong with eating the animals themselves. Something evil is always evil. Disobedience to lawful authority is always evil, but disobedience itself is not evil. We are called to be disobedient under certain circumstances.
>>>Altar girls are what the popes are condemning and calling evil since an altar girl would imply one who serves a priest at the altar during the mass. They are not saying it is evil because of some disobedience to a church law but rather that it is evil in and of itself.
Can you give me the exact quote of “evil in and of itself” or its equivalent please, Steven? Again, demonstrate this beyond doubt and if I or anyone I ask cannot answer I’ll be the first to change my position. Will you change yours likewise, if you believe all such practices and doctrines can be reconciled?
SPERAY: There is no quote “evil in and of itself” because it is implied and clearly so. Pope Gelasius called the practice evil which was introduced in his time. He stated, “We have heard with sorrow of the great contempt [mépris] with which the sacred mysteries have been treated. It has reached the point where women have been encouraged to serve at the altar, and to carry out roles that are not suited to their sex, having been assigned exclusively to those of masculine gender.” If something is not suited because of one’s sex then it is part of the natural law. Never has women been allowed to do so.
But I guess in a certain way I’m already in a lose-lose situation here just like if I argue for Biblical inerrancy because my opponent will always have other “contradictions” to throw at me. 🙂 But in each case faith gives me certainty.
SPERAY: You are in a lose-lose situation because you can’t defend this one position of your religion. You contradict yourself and the history of the Catholic Church. If you are certain that you are right after this reply, then there is no hope for you. You continue…
Anyway, coming back, From Allatae Sunt: The “evil practice” is defined first as “women serving the priest at the celebration of mass”. If this invalidates 1983 by being intrinsically evil, it does so too to 1917, because no mention of Altar. The next is: “Women should not dare to serve at the altar; they should be altogether refused this ministry.” which the Pope then, Benedict XIV forbade “in the same words”
Which to me seems reasonable, given the use of ministry, and the practice at the time, that it refers to an ordained office, not a lay women, as a modern altar girl is.
SPERAY: You’re dead wrong! Allatae Sunt continues with Innocent IV immediately after the quote from Pope Gelasius (whom I just quoted “serve at the altar” “not suited” because of her “sex”) strictly forbade women serving the altar. The flow of what Pope Gelasius teaches with Pope Innocents is precisely the same. Then follows the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Canon 813, §2: “A woman may not be a minister of the Mass, except when no male is available and for a just cause, and under the condition that she make the responses from a distance, not under any circumstances approaching the altar” and all of these quotes and teachings that I have provided shows that this is the constant teaching and practice of the Church. This would constitute the Tradition of the Church which you must believe with Divine Faith. It is repeated over and over, but your modernist masonic religion will not stand for it. Your religion clearly has as agenda with all of the satanic novelties such as altar girls, no head coverings, women lectors, etc.
>>>You have argued that they were referring to some type of orders, but then say how women once received orders and so the church can change the laws with the power of binding and loosening.
I’ve never said women can receive the sacrament of holy orders or actual ordination. Without doubt, they cannot.
>>>You’re arguing in defense of such a change indirectly, and I’ll bet your religion will have women priests within 2 decades if Christ don’t come back by then.
We never will, Steven. Like the earlier Orthodox schism, you have called us heretics and apostates so often that you have begun to believe it, with new cries of what is wrong as the days go by.
SPERAY: Your religion has already created altar girls which has never been seen in the history of the Church. This mere fact alone goes against the constant practice of the Church. You can’t see that it is wrong is very bad and you even defend it with what you say gives you certainty. I feel greatly sorry for you.
We’ve remained where we always stood: You left, you come back. We are the same Church of the Popes. It is you who have gone down a mistaken road. Schism is a crying evil, a scandalous and lamentable spectacle to an unbelieving world. May the Lord heal it.
SPERAY: Again, your religion has never stood where you are now. How can you say such a thing after I just showed you how your religion is completely novel with women doing things (without head coverings I might add) never before seen in 2000 years? I left your new religion of Rome created in the 1960’s because it is so obviously not the the true Catholic Church. I proven it with the mark of holiness that your religion lacks. You are not the same Church of the Popes. This is the lie your religion has blinded you into believing. I have not been mistaken but you have. Yes, your schism is evil and scandalous. I do belong to that Catholic Church now a remnant as foretold and hoping that you will now admit your error in rejecting the true popes and the Catholic Church who have called the practice of altar girls evil. The Bible states, “Woe to you that call evil good and good evil, that put darkness for light and light for darkness.” (Is 5:20) JP2 calls the evil practice good and therefore woe unto him. Are you in union with him who calls evil good? If so, then woe unto you, too!
Grace be with you, Steven.
Perhaps there is no point in us continuing then, Steven. If you call altar girls intrinsically evil, then it is you who by extension call the practice of the Church, either one of woman servers or women on the altar, both of which the Church accepted before Vatican II, logically by extension you call one of these evil. It is only evil when it is forbidden by Church law.
SPERAY: Like all Vat2-ites, you confuse the issues and ignore or defend the problem. Women servers on the altar is what is wrong and you keep going on about different things. Women serving from afar (merely doing the responses) is not the same as serving at the altar (moving the lectionary, etc) and women on the altar were not serving at the mass. There is no logical extension to anything you’re trying to put forth. It is the constant teaching and practice of the Church which has always called the practice of altar girls evil but you with JP2 call good. Woe unto you! Altar boys are an extension to the priest who acts in the person of Christ. Altar girls must be forbidden because they cannot act as an extension to the priest acting in the person of Christ.
This “traditionalist” and sedevacantist issues are so tragic in that they divide those who, had they remained in the Church, would have stood up to those on the left who want to push their own agenda.
SPERAY: Again, your religion is a new religion. You are the one who will answer to God for calling evil good. What is tragic is that you continue to support a satanic religion.
You say we can’t see it, but I submit that it is you folks who cannot see how it is your continuing in this way outside that perpetuates the liberalization some want to pursue.
SPERAY: It is your religion that wants to be perpetuate radical liberalism which it has successfully done with you defending the practice.
You commit the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and attribute everything wrong in the world today to Vatican II. You say Vatican II caused the crisis, but perhaps we could say it was the response to Vatican II on both right and left that is part of the crisis.
SPERAY: You simply don’t know what you are talking about now.
We were told to pray much for the Holy Father, to practice virtue, constant prayer, and meaningful penance. It is through that that we will conquer, It is a revival of heart and conscience that we need, not an agitation not by forming another ‘church’ on a trumped up pretense.
SPERAY: THERE IS NO HOLY FATHER! YOUR ‘POPE’ IS A DEVIL APOSTATE. WE HAVE NOT FORMED ANOTHER CHURCH, BUT YOU HAVE DEFENDED ANOTHER CHURCH FORMED IN THE 1960’S WITH VAT2.
Anything we do to try to accomodate what you ask like the Latin Mass, you will call a trap, any discussion with ‘traditionalists’ by the Church is nigh impossible.
SPERAY: Again, you don’t know what you are talking about. Your novus ordo mass is the abomination of desolation which is invalid because the words of Christ have been intentionally altered.
Those whom you cannot convince because your position is wrong, you will say are blinded.
SPERAY: You do the same and if you’re not blinded than you are evil!
It is so remniscent of the Orthodox issue, every passing decade they had new qualms, every trumped up issue was a deal-breker. It has gone to such an extent that the world is not even scandalized any more by such a schism, just bored, confirming their own prejudices against religion.
SPERAY: This reply of yours only proves my point because you didn’t deal with the issues that I brought up but rather gave all kinds of non-sequiturs and when I exposed them you do this. You said you will give in if I showed you how altar girls are evil in and of themselves with the rest of Pope Gelasius’ statement but you obviously reject him too.
Maybe we should stop now, Steven. We are unlikely to concur. May the good God lead all to the fulness of his truth.
SPERAY: Yes, please don’t email me again unless you admit your error.
please accept my subscription to this site
You cant count the number of service men and woman in the mid east now and before now that kept a picture of there kids and what ever in there wallet to look at now and then.
Yet now the church is accused of idol worship because of a statue of Mary or of our lord Jesus in the church. What’s next. The cross. ? Churches that fell away now used the first commandment as a tool to accuse the church of idol worship. Even when I was only 7 years old when I went to a catholic school we was told its ok to adore jesus by looking at a picture or a statue in reverences to our lord him self. And is not adoring just the picture or the statue. And that brings us back to service men with pictures of there family in there wallet. If you look for the ten commandments on the internet most results will show that the first and 2nd commandment was removed from the commandments.. And I view of this it looks like to me the church is being willfully attacked bypassing the reasons for the pictures and statues in the church. And what does Vatican two do.. Comply with this and have the churches remove them from the church.. I sent a email to the pope warning that the only true church created by Christ is beginning to fall away like the other churches did after one time all was whole.. I am not alone in this other people see it to.
http://www.apostasyalert.org/bible_under_attack.htm
And we are forced to commit a heresy by accusing Vatican two wrong. Or quietly hold our peace and follow the flow while keeping what was removed by Vatican two within our selves ..
Before the Vatican two movement the roman catholic church was not allowed to mix beliefs with other churches. Or comply with the fallen away churches within the catholic church. And was deemed the only true apostolic church. The only true unchanged word of god in the Latin vulgate bible. The only big change was language where there are now versions in English. The king James bible removed the 7 apoc books from its bible and later added them. There are words in the king James bible that are not gods words such as words removed and replaced and formatting gods words to say something in a different way. Protestants say the king James bible is not a catholic bible while the Vatican says it is good reading and was accepted as church reading. Yet we are told there is no change in church scripture.. Note that all the churches strayed from the roman church.. See
http://www.drbo.org/chapter/73001.htm
And now the Vatican two is doing what it calls reaching out. By straying it self. Making it acceptable to the churches that strayed. If I am wrong antwhere here do someone fill me in and tell me how I am wrong.
My mind is open and ready. At this time when I asked my church for more understanding of Vatican two there was no reply after several contacts with my churh in fact I was completely ignored. So.. Anyone?
Dear Xavier,
I’m glad to hear from you and I’ll answer everything below. Do me a favor in the future. Please keep to one subject at a time. I like to answer questions, but I have to spend time with the family too. This is a large plate you’ve fed me. LOL.
To make it easier to follow, I will place X: before your writings and mine will follow SS:
X:As you wished, I didn’t email you again until now. I’d let this conversation go, but I continued to think about it a little.
X: But I’ve done a lot of research for my own satisfaction over the past few months, studied the text of the Extraordinary Form, seen videos of it, and while appreciating its beauty, am unconvinced that it is the only acceptable form. I’ve observed the differences, read Conciliar decrees and recent Vatican statements, acquainted myself with sedevacantist arguments, read about prophecies, and the like, generally tossed the issue in my head for a long time. It has played on my mind, but I believe the claim that the Holy See is vacant is inconclusive.
SS: The new mass is Protestant. It looks just like Luther’s and Cramner’s masses. No liturgy in Catholic history resembles it. It is a complete break with history!!!!!
X: I can understand if you wouldn’t want to spend more time on the issue, but given that you are one of the foremost defenders of sedevacantism I’ve heard of, I just have some questions for you, Steven, if you are willing, further to our discussion above. You may direct me to articles you have written if you wish. If you do not want to, I’ll accept that, and ask them instead to others. These are my honest questions.
SS: I have no problem answering you and having a dialogue. I actually find it fun and it is good exercise for me.
X: 1. Is a consecration with the words “for all” invalid?
SS: I believe so because it has a different meaning than “for many” as the Catechism of Trent points out. Pope St. Pius V states that the form cannot have a different meaning than Christ’s.
X: Does that not deny the dogma that Christ shed His blood for all?
SS: The Catechism of Trent answers this. It states: For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His Blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind has received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race.
X: Is it not rigid to insist that the blood of the Covenant cannot be said to be shed for all?
SS: It would be incorrect to do so since Christ did not mean it to be as taught and practice by the Catechism and the whole history of the Church. Again, the Catechism of Trent: When therefore (our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews and Gentiles. With reason, therefore, were the words ‘for all’ no used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation.”
X: 2. Doesn’t the Church of Christ subsist even where there is one soul of good faith, for if it did not, that person could not be saved?
SS: Absolutely not. Good faith is not enough to be a member of the church. You must be baptized. Baptism of Desire means that one of good faith is brought into the Church at death. If the Church existed with non-baptized, then Baptism of Desire is not needed.
X: So all the statement involves is the admission that some outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church belong to her, which again only means that the Church has an invisible aspect. Even the Bible, an element of grace and sanctification, could be said to belong to the Catholic Church alone
SS: The word “Subsist” is too ambiguous to place definite meanings. It can mean several things, but the fact is, Paul VI, JP2, and Benedict XVI believes that it means that the Church of Christ subsists elsewhere. In other words, the Church of Christ encompasses other heretical and schismatic churches, but that the Catholic Church has the fullness of the truth while the others don’t. These 3 men address pastors from non-Catholic Churches as pastors of the Church of Christ. Read my “Why Sedevacantism” and see those actual quotes. Do you believe that non-Catholic pastors are pastors in the Church of Christ? In other words, the Church of Christ is not really one and the same Catholic Church, but rather, the Church of Christ is bigger than the Catholic Church. Also, your above statement is incorrect. If you’re outside the visible church then you are outside the Church. Perhaps, you mean that there are people out there that really are in the visible Church but in all appearances are outside the Church. In other words, a validly baptized person who attends an Anglican Church is really a Catholic but doesn’t know it fully. Example would be a child who has never rejected Catholicism but attends a non-Catholic service with his parents. As for the bible, it is true that the Bible is an element of the Catholic Church alone as are all the sacraments which are found in some non-Catholic religions. However, to hold the “subsist” just means that elements of the Catholic Church are found outside, doesn’t follow what Paul VI, JP2, and Benedict have taught and practiced. But like a said, the word “subsists” is too ambiguous and the Catholic Church cannot teach such ambiguity officially. In light of the Vat2 religion, “subsists” is heretical in practice.
X: 3. The Bible maintains it is possible to worship God, but in vain, according to the traditions of men. This worship is given but not accepted. Is this not an apt description of Muslims. For they acknowledge the God of Abraham, but follow the teaching of Mohammed, and so worship him in vain. Is that not what the Second Vatican Council said?
SS: No, Vat2 taught in LG 16 “But the plan of salvation also embraces those who acknowledge the Creator, and among these the Muslims are first; they profess to hold the faith of Abraham and along with us they worship the one merciful God who will judge mankind on the last day.”
SS: This is false since Jesus is the God who will judge us on the last day and Muslims reject Christ as God. This means that this statement in LG implies that the rejection of Christ is not a rejection of the one true God.
SS: Vat2 in Nostra aetate states: 3. “The Church also looks upon Muslims with respect. They worship the one God living and subsistent, merciful and mighty, creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to humanity and to whose decrees, even the hidden ones, they seek to submit themselves whole-heartedly, just as Abraham, to whom the Islamic faith readily relates itself, submitted to God…Hence they have regard for the moral life and worship God in prayer, almsgiving and fasting.”
SS: The problem is that it doesn’t matter what the claim Muslims hold to profess, but what they actually profess. They reject Christ and the Trinity and therefore do not “actually” hold to the faith of Abraham. They reject the same God we worship.
SS: St John in chapter 8 writes about Jesus condemning those who claim to hold the faith of Abraham. Jesus says their father is the devil because they do not believe the truth of the Gospel. The Muslims reject the Gospels which means they are in the same boat as the Jews whom Christ condemns.
X: 4. I have come to the conclusion that the SVC did not say, and the Catechism affirms again, that there is no “right to be wrong” or a “right to err” since a right is a moral, God-given claim. It merely and correctly said that all persons have a right to freely seek the truth, this is a natural right, and this right is the basis for religious liberty.
SS: Vat2 in DH states, “2. “This Vatican synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. Such freedom consists in this, that all should have such immunity from coercion by individuals, or by groups, or by any human power, that no one should be force to act against his conscience in religious matters, NOR PREVENTED FROM ACTING ACCORDING TO HIS CONSCIENCE, WHETHER IN PRIVATE OR IN PUBLIC, WITHIN DUE LIMITS.” 2. “Therefore this right to non-interference persists EVEN IN THOSE WHO DO NOT CARRY OUT THEIR OBLIGATIONS OF SEEKING THE TRUTH AND STANDING BY IT; and the exercise of this right should not be curtailed, as long as due public order is preserved.” # 4: “In addition, religious communities are ENTITLED TO TEACH AND GIVE WITNESS TO THEIR FAITH PUBLICLY IN SPEECH AND WRITING WITHOUT HINDRANCE.”
SS: So, you can see that you don’t even have to seek the truth, you have a right to be wrong. Get it? Vat2 is implying that you have a right to profess your heresy in public through speech or writing, since “religious communities” implies non-catholicism. You have a right to be wrong. Get it? These statements are contrary to the historic faith. Again, see my “Why Sedevacantism” and read how the Church had already condemned these statements of Vat2.
X: They also have, within reason, the right to act in accordance with the measure of truth they know, and it would be wrong for a man to neglect the duties imposed by his conscience which he believes to be the will of God, like praying five times a day, even though, in actual fact, God has commanded no such thing.
SS: Sorry, but not in public. The Church has made this clear in the past. The Catholic Church has even declared that heretics can be burned for heresy, which meansVat2 is against previous official teachings. Are you aware of that?
X: Nor would it be right, say, to force a person to eat meat against his conscience, when he believes it is forbidden by God, though it is not so. I think St.Paul would agree with that.
SS: I agree also. You cannot force Catholicism on someone, but non-Catholics also don’t have a right to practice their religion in public. The Church can tolerated it if She so wishes, but toleration is not a right. As you implied, error has no rights. Do you understand now?
X: From: “that all men should be at once impelled by nature … provided that just public order be observed.”
SS: Who defines public order? The Church does and has burned heretics because heresy causes public order not be observed.
X: 5. Does not the fact that the Blessed Virgin said that the consecration will be done, but late, because it must be done by the Holy Father, her constant dictates to pray for him, and that a *period* of peace, surely not the eternal reign of Christ, prove that the sedevacantism you seem to personally espouse, that the Lord will return in this generation, impossible?
SS: Pope Pius XII consecrated specifically Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary on July 7, 1952, fulfilling Our Lady’s promise. She never promised he would do it with all the bishops but that he would do it none-the-less. Consequently, Russia converted out of its Communist ways ending the persecution on her Christians and there was a certain period of peace. The nations that were annihilated into the Soviet Union have regained their sovereignty. So you’re argument is moot.
X: 6. If something is intrinsically evil, it cannot, by very definition, be conditional to circumstance. Would you not agree? In the case we discussed above, please specify what is it that is so? If female servers are intrinsically evil, this would be so, even if they remained far from the Altar. Thus, it seems to be evil based on circumstance and conditional to it being proscribed by legitimate authority.
SS: Women cannot serve AT the altar. This is the crux of the issue. Altar girls on the altar is intrinsically evil. We all serve the priest to some extent but not at the altar. Do you understand? At the altar is the issue. The Church has made this abundantly clear and today’s altar servers in Vat2 Churches proves they are not Catholic Churches.
X: 7. Henry Cardinal Manning said, “It is a treason and a heresy to appeal to
antiquity to refuse the Living Voice of the Church, our Mother. Heaven takes
many things into consideration we can have no awareness of, like the number of those in good faith, the best approach toward them, and the like, and makes it known to us through the Church. We cannot second guess this path. Is it not at least theoretically possible that the number of those in good faith might have increased now from what it was in the past? No past decree can change this possibility. Nor can it be claimed that it is impossible to know this. That is why the living voice of the Magisterium must be regarded as indefectible in every age.
SS: I agree! We are not to refuse to listen to the Church. The question however is which church is speaking…the Catholic Church or the counterfeit catholic church? The same Cardinal Manning also 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.”
SS: How will you know? How will you make that decision? Do you believe this statement?
X: 8. Ecumenism in the sense of the SVC refers to discussions
between other Christians confessions and the Catholic Church, that bridges may be built, and that our separated brethren return to full ecclesial communion with us, it being restored in unity and in truth.
SS: Full ecclesial communion as if they are partially in communion? Sorry, but heresy completely separates one from communion with the church and Vat2 denies this by way of practice. All non-catholic religions have some truth; even pagans. That doesn’t mean they are all partially in communion. There is no such thing a partially in communion. You’re either in communion or you’re not.
X: Why is this wrong? I quote the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, peer reviewed, expressive of some the best scholars of the time.
SS: The Encyclopedia has many errors and I don’t put any stock in its theology. 1911 was precisely when Pope St. Pius X was condemning modernism and no better place to do it than in an encyclopedia. The imprimaturs and such are meaningless as far as I’m concerned, unless, Pope Pius X did it himself. He didn’t! However, I’ll consider your quote below…
X: “If, then, we limit the application of the term Christendom to this, its most authentic expression, the unity of Christendom is not a lost ideal to be recovered, but a stupendous reality which has always been in stable possession.
X: Still, in another and broader sense of the term, which is also the more usual and is followed in the present article, Christendom includes not merely the Catholic Church, but, together with it, the many other religious communions which have either directly or indirectly, separated from it”
SS: Separated or partially separated?
X: The Church is more concerned with corporate reunion,
especially where the Eastern Churches are concerned, which include nearly 300 million souls, which is why she goes in for Ecumenism. Do you deny that this can be better accomplished by untrained laymen and individual conversions?
SS: It’s a lost cause as far a Rome is concerned, and the real Catholic Church is a remnant.
X: Already the Orthodox concede that the Church of Rome presides in love, and that the Bishop of Rome was the protos and has a true primacy, though they do not agree on how it is to be worked out. Yet, it is only the logical extension of this, an implication that will be more fully received in time, by the grace of God, that Rome has never erred, which is all they need to accept to heal the schism.
SS: Please visit and watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sfsajNRQvQ&feature=related and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H81i-BE2wvs
X: 9. I admit the possibility of a Roman antipope, but I deny that we can judge a Pope. To judge is the action of a superior, and moreover the Pope is a Vicar of God.
SS: I agree, but can you judge an antipope to be an antipope? How so?
X: To even presume to judge him would be circular, because it would already presume what needs to be proven, namely that he is a heretic. We could not judge him unless he were a heretic, but we cannot know he is a heretic unless we pass judgment on him.
SS: Wrong! All the popes and saints have made it clear that you can judge such a person. A heretic is AUTOMATICALLY not Catholic and could not be pope, but how would you know without making a judgment. Jesus states in Matt 7:15-20, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits…the bad tree bears evil fruit…Thus you will know them by their fruits.” Unless, you can make judgments on men, this verse is meaningless. You must be able to judge men to know when to beware of them. You are suggesting that you cannot follow Christ’s command because to do so would cause you to have to judge someone. Understand why your statement is incorrect?
X: Further, we cannot judge the one God. However, we can consistently judge between two different claimants to be God, such as Our Lord Jesus Christ and several others. I would say the same applies, regarding multiple claimants to the Papacy, who holds on earth the place of God in Christ, but we cannot judge the single person anymore than we can judge the single God.
SS: So you believe Michael is a true pope too? After all, he claims to be the true pope, he has followers. You can’t judge him to be an antipope? Why?
X: Even in an interregnum the visibility of the Church, the necessity of her living voice, continues.
SS: Right on! We are in a very long interregnum.
X: We are, and ought to be and remain, in communion with the highest Cardinal or Bishop of the Church, who may already be said to be the next successor of St.Peter in the same way that a catechumen be said to be a Christian, insofar as he is the principle of unity at the moment. Confession of sins, believed to be a power of the Keys, continues even during interregnums. This shows the Keys reside in the Church, even if their full power is not possessed by any singular person.
SS: I agree! I am with the highest bishops in the land and they can be pope someday.
X: To separate from the Roman pontiff and those subject to him would be schism.
SS: I agree! We just don’t have one right now.
X: He is ordinarily the principle of unity. Schism is not even a legal construct, but a state of mind. If there is no visible principle of unity, whether singular or multiple, schism is impossible. Presuming they are right, if two sedevacantists separate from each other for some silly personal, political squabble, who is in schism from the Church and who is in communion with her? Both hold the same Faith, but there is no point of reference.
SS: Au contraire, mon frère. The point of reference is doctrines of the faith. Where is your point of reference during an interregnum?
X: 10. The same procedure followed in the past should be followed now. A future Pope may pass judgment on a current one.
SS: Wrong in the sense that you mean. I destroy why in Objection and Answer #25 in my book, “The Greatest Conspiracy Ever” which you need to read!
X: The Princes of the Church, the Cardinals, should be exclusively responsible for calling any of the Pope’s words into question, as it was in the past, the rest of us always giving him in our minds the protection of presumed innocence. Even if he has sinned in the past, it is not impossible that he has repented of it, and that this has been accepted by heaven. So long as this is even possible, we cannot be sedevacantists for then we would fall headlong into schism.
SS: Wrong. First of all, there are no valid cardinals and the election of a pope would necessarily fall under the next bishops as Divine Law gives us. Sinning is not the issue. Heresy and schism are. As long as you follow Ratzinger as pope, you must reject several doctrines which place you in heresy and since he is not pope, united to him would automatically place you in schism, even if materially, as I believe many are. Your position comes from the false understanding of judging a heretic to be a heretic. You must follow Christ and judge the obvious which is Ratzinger is not Catholic and therefore not pope.
X: For we know by nature the body cannot possess a mind of its own, unless it is separated from the head.
SS: Christ is always the Head. During interregnums, the Church is not headless.
X: To even presume to pass judgment would be to reason with a separate mind.
SS: To even presume not to be able to pass judgment would be calling Jesus an idiot and separating yourself from Him. Jesus said to pass judgment by implication.
X: And, in fact, our body obeys our head even before we consciously realize it. This should be our model. Moreover, the Pope should be given the chance to clarify, as the case you mentioned, where the Catechism repudiates any former error that the Holy Father allegedly flirted with, regarding the descent to hell. Every point of dogma is reasserted.
SS: Allegedly? You don’t see the obvious heresy he was spouting? He was a devil!
X: Tertullian is an example of a once Catholic bishop, extremely knowledgeable and brilliant in his own right, for whom, being personally harsh, perhaps giving in to pride, the kindness of the Church was difficult to accept. He and his ilk resisted penance and the like as an innovation. Is it not the case that too many factors are at play in individuals like him even today? They could be mistaken on the same grounds.
SS: Tertullian separated himself from the Church. Ratzinger has made it clear that his Vat2 religion is not the historic Catholic religion. Different teachings, different worship, abominable practices. It’s so plain to me. So obvious. They don’t even accept Mortalium Animos by Pope Pius XI which was a mere few years before Vat2. Go read that document and see if you can square it with the Assisi Events or the worshipping in each other’s churches.
X: God bless, Steven.
SS: God bless, Xavier
PS: Please stick to one or two topics at a time and we’ll go from there.
Please take as much time as you need and don’t feel rushed in any way. Thanks.
Dear Xavier,
Please read carefully all my replies. I’ll explain it as simply and thorough as I can. Forgive my typos. I’m rushing through it.
X: Ok, thanks for the responses, Steven. We’ll start with the question of the Mass, the Roman Rite in its Ordinary Form.
SS: I believe so because it has a different meaning than “for many” as the Catechism of Trent points out. Pope St. Pius V states that the form cannot have a different meaning than Christ’s.
X:I’m aware there is a great multiplicity of opinions among the Doctors on what exactly constitutes the form, but I want to argue, from Scripture and reason, that the form is simply “This is My body” and “This is My blood”.
SS: There are no opinions among the Doctors on what exactly constitutes the form since the Church declares what the form is. Perhaps, you mean what constitutes the absolutely necessary parts of the form. Yes, the parts you give are absolutely necessary. The Catechism actually states that “For Many” is part of the form. Also, the Church at Florence and Pope St. Pius V has declared that the form in the West is, “FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS.” In the new rite, modernist Roman has declared that the form is: “This is my body. And: TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, THIS IS THE CUP OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT. IT WILL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR ALL MEN SO THAT SINS ARE FORGIVEN. DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.” No one can argue that this is not the form without contradicting the authorities of each church. The Catholic Church may add, remove, or change parts of the form, but it cannot change it to mean something other than what Christ intended. A priest could sinfully do it on his own authority and still have a valid consecration. However, if he changed the meaning, the sacrament is invalid, so said Pope St. Pius V in De Defectibus.
X:This is because when God said “Let there be light” there was light. In the same way, it is inconceivable when He says “This is My blood” it does not already become His blood, for God cannot say something without it actually coming to pass. This was the case at the Last Supper and the same power He gave to His priests. St. Paul also does not relate the form “for many” in his account.
SS: St. Paul didn’t have to because the Church tells us what the form is and what makes it valid or invalid. If a priest left out “for many” but also left out “for all” you wouldn’t hear any sedevacantist argue that the mass was invalid. It would be illicit, but not necessary invalid. “For all” changes the meaning, because as the Church taught, in her catechism, Christ didn’t mean for all, but only for those who believed. See the problem? You’re argument is saying that as long as the priest says those essential words, “This is my Body, This is my Blood” you have a valid sacrament regardless of faulty words later. However, this is false. Let me give you an example. Let’s suppose over the chalice the priest said only, “For this is the Chalice of My Blood…but only as a symbol and not actually.” Would you really argue the Blood of Christ was actually made present after this particular form? Of course not, because the form had words which changed the overall meaning and because the added words demonstrated the wrong intention of the priest. Remember, correct intention is necessary and the words reflect this point. How about over the Chalice, a priest said, This is my Blood…which is shed for men only, but not women.” Would you argue that this would be a valid sacrament? You couldn’t logically, since the meaning changed and Christ’s intention is not present.
X: In this regard, I want to cite,
X: “The Mass of St. Hippolytus, which dates from the 3rd century, does not use the phrase for many, but “This is my body, which is broken for you”, and “This is my Blood which is shed for you”. The following recognized Oriental Liturgies do not include “for many” in the consecration of the chalice: Catholic Ethiopian Rite, “Take, drink, this is my blood which is shed for you for the remission of sins.” (From King, Archdale A., Rites of Eastern Christendom, Catholic Book Agency, Rome, 1947. Vol. 1, pp. 641-642).” From: http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html#IV.%20Is%20%E2%80%9CFor%20All%E2%80%9D%20an%20invalid%20translation%20of%20%E2%80%9CPro%20Vobis%20et%20Pro%20Multis%E2%80%9D?
SS: I’ve already answered this. The form given above doesn’t change the meaning of Christ’s intention. I’ll do you one better. If the priest said on own authority, “for all who believe” or “for all in communion with us” I would not argue that this is invalid. Illicit and sinful for the priest? Yes, but still valid. Why? Because these words would not necessarily contradict Christ’s intention. Are you getting my point? The link you give above comes from one who is not paying attention. They just want their valid mass regardless. Just a little info for you: St. Hippolytus was a schismatic and antipope when he wrote his liturgy, so his example doesn’t help your cause one bit. Not only that, but the Vat2 church drastically altered the very orthodox parts of it to fall in line with the Protestant liturgies.
X: Everything both Our Lord or the Church says after that would seem to be explanatory and not vital to the consecration itself, then, I would think. Scripture itself uses “for all” in some places and “for many” in others, as Trent explains, the difference is between its actual value, and the fruit it will procure. But it is theologically defensible to say that Christ’s blood was shed for all, which is all the Ordinary Form does.
SS: You’ve just contradicted Trent. The form is about the Chalice and to whom can receive, not the all the world. The new rite is wrong, and the reason why they changed it in the first place was because they didn’t like how the Church has always understood the words “for many.” The wanted it for all. Is the Chalice for all? NO! It is only for those who believe.
X: Also, coming to the text, I think it is quite clear that it maintains quite ardently the Catholic doctrine that the eternal sacrifice is re-presented during the Holy Mass. Pope Paul VI even wrote an Encyclical reproving the contrary errors. The following prayers used in the Ordinary Form, many quite ancient, express quite clearly, I think, the Catholic Faith.
SS: Moot point. The words “For all” reflect a heretical understanding of the Eucharist. It’s that simple!
X: “Father, calling to mind the death your Son endured for our salvation, his glorious resurrection and ascension into heaven, and ready to greet him when he comes again, we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice.
X: Look with favor on your Church’s offering, and see the Victim whose death has reconciled us to yourself. Grant that we, who are nourished by his body and blood, may be filled with his Holy Spirit, and become one body, one spirit in Christ.
X: Lord, may this sacrifice, which has made our peace with you, advance the peace and salvation of all the world.” Etc
SS: Too bad, he allowed the heretical words, “For all” to be used. Not everything else in the new mass is so orthodox. You also find many Protestant phrases there too. I’m almost positive there is a Masonic phrase in the new rite, too. I’ll look into it. However, most of the new mass is not Catholic at all, but rather Protestant. You need to read what changed, and why. The book “The Problems with the New Mass” by the late Rama Coomaraswamy is excellent.
God bless.
Dear Xavier,
My replies below…
X: Right. I want to note one thing. The actual words in the Latin text of the Ordinary Form is “pro multis” which literally means “for many”. So should that not suffice?
SS: Yes, the Latin is correct when Rome does it. I think Portugal and Poland also have the correct words. I’m not arguing against the right words. I’m arguing against the words “Pro Ominibus” which translates into “For All.” In Mexico, the right words would be “Para Muchos” but they use “para todos” which means “for all.” So yes, pro multis suffices in Rome. That’s not the argument.
X: But the Church has said “for all” is permissible, which is being disputed.
SS: Wrong. The Catholic Church has not approved it. The Vat2 religion has. The Catholic Church condemned it 500 yrs ago when Protestants tried to use “for all.”
X: It seems the Holy See clarified the question, so there can be no question of heresy or ambiguity: “The many for whom Christ died is without limit; it is equivalent to saying “Christ has died for all.”
SS: This is contrary to the historic teaching that you find right in the Catechism of Trent. As a matter of fact, you find saints and theologians affirming it. “The words pro vobis et pro multis (for you and for many) are used to distinguish the virtue of the Blood of Christ from its fruits: for the Blood of Our Savior is of sufficient value to save all men but its fruits are applied only to a certain number and not to all, and this is their own fault… This is the explanation of St. Thomas, as quoted by [Pope] Benedict XIV.” (St. Alphonsus De Liguori, Treatise on The Holy Eucharist, Redemptorist Fathers, 1934, p. 44) The great 18th century theologian Fr. Martinus von Cochem O.S.F wrote in his book “The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass Explained” p. 111: “Consequently, the Precious Blood of Christ is in real fact shed in the Mass “for you and for many”; that is, for you who are attending and attentive, and for the many who are absent; for those who assisting if they could do so and who therefore desire a memento in it. These are the “many” for the remission of whose sins Christ’s Blood is shed in the Mass.”
X: The words of Saint Augustine are apposite: “Those who say either that the price is so small that it has purchased only Africans are ungrateful for the price they cost; those who say that they are so important that has been given for them alone are proud” [Enarr. in Ps. 95, 5].
b. The teaching of the (Tridentine) Catechism is in no way superseded: the distinction that Christ’s death is sufficient for all but efficacious for many remains valid.”
SS: What you are quoting above is from the 1970 query known as Notitiae 6. Let me quote it in full for you and then answer it all. “In certain vernacular versions of the text for consecrating the wine, the words pro multis are translated thus: English, for all; Spanish, por todos, Italian, per tuti……Query:
a. Is there a sufficient reason for introducing this variant and if so, what is it?
b. Is the pertinent traditional teaching in the Catechism of the Council of Trent to be considered superseded?
c. Are all other versions of the biblical passage in question to be regarded as less accurate?
d. Did something inaccurate and needing correction or emendation in fact slip in when the approval was given for such a version?
Reply:
a. According to exegetes [experts] the Aramaic word translated in Latin by pro multis has its meaning “for all;” the many for whom Christ died is without limit; it is equivalent to saying Christ has died for all. The words of Saint Augustine are apposite [being of striking appropriateness and pertinence]: “See what he gave and you will discover what he bought. The price is Christ’s. What is it worth but the whole world? What, but all peoples? Those who say either that the price is so small that it has purchased only Africans are ungrateful for the price they cost; those who say that they are so important that has been given for them alone are proud” [Enarr. in Ps. 95, 5].
b. The teaching of the Catechism (Trent’s Catechism) is in no way superseded: the distinction that Christ’s blood is sufficient for all but efficacious for many remains valid.
c. In the approval of this vernacular variant in the liturgical text nothing inaccurate has slipped in that requires correction or emendation.”
SS: It was the Freemason Annabale Bugnini who was then the Secretary of Divine Worship who answered it. It was he who concocted the New Mass to begin with. This is the same man whom in his first version of the New Mass left out the words of Consecration altogether and was told by Paul VI to change it. Fr. Malachi Martin said the freemason Bugnini was a very wicked individual, an agent of Lucifer. His intention for the New Mass “was to make any Protestant, any Jew, or any partaker feel right at home.” This being said, the following responses will expose the lies and nonsense of the three answers Bugnini gives in the 1970 query:
a. Contrary to the reply, the Aramaic word does not have as its meaning “for all.” Never in history or in Scripture do we see this in the Consecration. According to Fr. Malachi Martin, doctor and the premier expert in ancient Semitic Languages, states that there are two Aramaic words for “all” and two for “many.” The words Christ used are not the ones that apply to “all” which of course, corresponds and confirms Trent’s Catechism. If the meaning were the same then the Catechism of Trent is in error for it says just the opposite. Also, St. Augustine never said that the Consecration of the Chalice is for all, which is the point of the matter. The Secretary is taking St. Augustine out of context and then used to justify the lie.
b. We already know that the Catechism of Trent is right and valid. The secretary doesn’t want to say the Catechism is wrong but he wants his way also. However, if the change of “many” can be changed to “all” then the Catechism is incorrect in its statement. It’s that simple. You can’t have it both ways as the secretary is trying to do.
c. This is an amazing statement by the secretary. The Catechism already answered this question hundreds of years ago and now the secretary is contradicting it. If nothing inaccurate slipped in then the Catechism and St. Alphonsus are incorrect because they are saying the word “all” is inaccurate because the chalice is for the fruit of Christ’s passion, and not for all mankind. The secretary implies in his first answer that it is for all mankind which contrary to the Catechism. Please reread the Catechism and St. Alphonsus and see for yourself how the secretary contradicts them. The problem is the secretary wants to have it both ways. Annabale Bugnini’s statement flies right in the face of the historical understanding.
SS: The Catholic Church may add, remove, or change parts of the form, but it cannot change it to mean something other than what Christ intended. However, if he changed the meaning, the sacrament is invalid, so said Pope St. Pius V in De Defectibus.
X: Absolutely, so where is the meaning changed? I read the bull you mentioned and I wholeheartedly agree with what the Pope taught. I deny the meaning is changed.
SS: Then you deny the Catechism and whole history of the Church that believed that “For All” WAS NOT THE INTENTION OF CHRIST. You have simply taken the word of the Freemason Bugnini who contradicts himself and the Catechism.
X: Also, many of St.Thomas’ replies in Summa Theologica are simply “sufficeth the custom of the churches” or something of the sort. So we can’t ever hold a position which would render the ancient Eastern rites recognized by the Church even at that time as invalid.
SS: I never said they were invalid. I already explained this in full in my last reply. None of the Eastern rites use “For All.”
>>>SS: St. Paul didn’t have to because the Church tells us what the form is and what makes it valid or invalid.
X: But what of the New Testament churches in Biblical times, such as in Corinth, I think it was?
SS: I already explained this too. As long as the meaning stays intact, there is no problem whether with wrong words, omitted words, or added words. Anyway, can you be sure that St. Paul was not using a short expression for the form rather than giving the whole form? Regardless, what he gives does not imply “For All” which is the crux of the issue. The Catholic Church already told us so 500 years ago.
Ss:>>>If a priest left out “for many” but also left out “for all” you wouldn’t hear any sedevacantist argue that the mass was invalid.
X: I disagree with this reasoning, we’ll continue this below, but if so, then numerous Masses in the Ordinary Form are valid. They do use “for many”.
SS: You missed my point. If they use “for many” they are okay. If they don’t use either “for many” or “for all”, you might also be okay. Follow me?
Ss:>>>It would be illicit, but not necessary invalid. “For all” changes the meaning, because as the Church taught, in her catechism, Christ didn’t mean for all, but only for those who believed. See the problem?
X: The text does not say that all will receive the fruit of redemption. Even Scripture says, God wills all men to be saved, so we may say likewise that all men are lovingly invited by the Father here as well, though they need the proper dispositions. All men are invited to be saved, and all are invited to the Lord’s Supper.
SS: Again, you missed my point and you’re arguing against the Catechism of Trent. All are not invited to the Lord’s Supper, but only those who believe. God wills all men to be saved, all men are invited to be saved, but you can’t receive from the Cup until you are saved (meaning baptized and belief.) You have to get this straight! The New Mass is contrary to the historic faith and you’re argumentation is proving why it is: because you believe what it implies and it’s heretical.
SS:>>>Let me give you an example.
X: No need. I agree to the principle laid out by the Pope St.Pius, “If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament.”
X: But I insist that in the change the same meaning is conveyed.
SS: Not according to the Catechism of Trent. “For all” is not what Christ intended. It’s that simple! Bugnini’s explanation is ridiculous.
X: What is the difference in meaning conveyed? Universalism? Is that what you accuse us of?
SS: According to the Catechism and the affirmation of St. Alphonsus Liguori, the difference being conveyed is that Christ’s Chalice is for those who believe ONLY because the fruits of Christ shedding of blood can only be applied to the faithful, whereas “For all” conveys, as you heretically explained above, the virtues of Christ’s shedding of blood are applied as the fruits. You must agree with the Church that virtues and fruits must be distinguished. “For all” conveys and includes both, but “for many” only conveys and includes the fruits. “For all” is heretical for this very reason.
>>>SS: I’ve already answered this. The form given above doesn’t change the meaning of Christ’s intention. I’ll do you one better. If the priest said on own authority, “for all who believe” or “for all in communion with us” I would not argue that this is invalid.
X: But neither do we! Would anyone claim St.Paul did not reflect God’s intention not to save unbelievers in the Bible? Of course not. It is the same.
SS: No it’s not. You can agree with me because you also include everyone else anyway, when you use “for all.” What I’m saying means only the fruits, and you include fruits with the virtues. St. Paul was not reflecting God’s intention to allow the cup to be given to all.
SS: >>>Just a little info for you: St. Hippolytus was a schismatic and antipope when he wrote his liturgy, so his example doesn’t help your cause one bit.
X: I believe his liturgy is still widely used, though, which would mean it was subsequently approved, like he later was beatified. But ok.
SS: It doesn’t matter, since his liturgy didn’t reflect “for all” but only those who believed.
SS:>>>Not only that, but the Vat2 church drastically altered the very orthodox parts of it to fall in line with the Protestant liturgies.
X: I disagree. And there’s an easy way to confirm it. Please ask some believing Protestants to use the Ordinary Form of the Roman rite in their services. Not one will do so. There are too many references to exactly the doctrine they deny, that the Holy Mass is a sacrifice.
SS: I was speaking about other things in the liturgy.
>>>SS: You’ve just contradicted Trent.
X: But Trent never said the Church couldn’t decide to approve a liturgy that used “for all”.
SS: Yes it did. Since the Church explained that “for all” is not Christ’s intention and meaning, and St. Pius V said that words that meant something different than the intention of Christ and the Church’s (as “for all” does), then no sacrament. The Church can’t approve an invalid sacrament!
SS:>>>The form is about the Chalice and to whom can receive, not the all the world.
X: But this is not the form itself.
SS: The Church said so, and we also have St. Thomas Aquinas that stated, “I answer that, there is a twofold opinion regarding this form. Some have maintained that the words ‘This is the chalice of My blood belong to the substance of the form, but not those words which follow. Now this seems incorrect, because the words which follow them are determinations of the predicate, that is, of Christ’s blood: consequently they belong to the integrity of it’s (i.e., the form’s) recitation.”
X: It is explaining for whom Christ’s blood was shed. Even though it is in the context of those invited, no one is excluded, he only needs the correct disposition, which is here the Faith. So it is permissible to say “for all”. Permissible, not ideal. But valid.
SS: Sorry, but you also need Baptism, not just the faith. However, you say no one is excluded, and then imply that those who don’t have the faith are excluded. Which is it? Your own explanation is faulty and contradictory.
SS:>>>The wanted it for all.
X: But they used “pro multis”
SS: What? We’re talking about “pro ominibus” which is used nearly everywhere. Pro multis is fine, so let’s not keep going over that point.
>>>SS: Moot point. The words “For all” reflect a heretical understanding of the Eucharist. It’s that simple!
X: The Church has clarified this in her living Voice. No such “misunderstanding” exists and the Church reaffirms it is efficacious for many.
SS: The counterfeit church tried to clarify it, but I have shown why it’s a ridiculous explanation. Not only that, but to say efficacious for many is not the argument. You’re giving a contradiction as the Catechism of Trent clearly teaches that “for all” does not mean “for many.” Modernist Rome and you are trying to deny the Catechism of Trent and the whole history of the Church and tell us that it means the same thing. It doesn’t!
>>>SS: Too bad, he allowed the heretical words, “For all” to be used. Not everything else in the new mass is so orthodox.
X: I’ve read a critique of Kumaraswamy’s work. I disagree with him. I have seen stinging “traditionalist” critiques of the OF. But many miss the point. They talk of clown Masses, they talk of Protestants at the SVC, sundry abuses, this and that. They do not consider the clarity with which the doctrine is expressed in the various Eucharistic prayers.
SS: Coomaraswamy addressed the parts of the mass. He gives facts which you can’t disagree with. So far, you have spent much time, trying to tell us what modernist Rome is telling us which is heretical. Besides, even when the correct words are done in the new mass and it’s valid, it’s still evil! It’s not Catholic at all!
X: Epiclesis
EP1: Bless and approve our offering; make it acceptable to you, and offering in spirit and in truth. Let is become for us the body and blood of Jesus Christ, your only Son, our Lord.
EP 4: Father may this Holy Spirit sanctify these offerings. Let them become the body + and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord as we celebrate the great mystery which he left us as an everlasting covenant.
EP 2: And so, Father, we bring you these gifts. We ask you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit, that they may become the body + and blood of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at whose command we celebrate this eucharist.
Can anyone say the reality is not taught with overwhelming clarity?
SS: The Catechism of Trent clearly tells us “for all” is not what Christ intended. You reject the Catechism of Trent and the whole history of the Church on this point and follow the Vat2 church’s contradictory explanation. The Protestants wanted “for all” and Modernist Masonic Rome approved it. Sorry, but you lose!
Dear Xavier,
My replies below…
X: Steven, I read your posts in full, but I disagree.
SS: I gave you facts, but that’s okay, you can disagree with me and be wrong if you want to be. You’re not just disagreeing with me though, but with the historic faith and specifically the Catechism of Trent!
X: My argument is based on these premises.
SS: Your premises are Protestant.
X: 1. All men are invited to final salvation.
SS: Has nothing to do with the consecrational form. The Church has taught that Christ didn’t mean “for all” and you reject it!
X: 2. Those invited to share in the fruit of Christ’s passion are the same as those invited to final salvation
SS: You’re statement is totally contrary to the Catechism of Trent! The fruits are for ONLY those who are in union with Christ.
X: 3. Therefore, all men are invited to the Last Supper.
SS: You’re simply wrong! Not all men are invited, but only those who are baptized, believe, and are united to Christ. This is the teaching of the Church. Your teaching is Protestant and your statement reflects the very reason why the Vat2’s “For all” is heretical.
X: 1 is Scriptural.
SS: Wrong! You’re statement is anti-scriptural and anti-Catholic.
X: 2 is obviously true.
SS: Obviously false.
X: 3 follows from 1 and 2.
SS: Under your false premise.
X: It merely means that nobody is willingly excluded from the many, except by his own fault. In both cases, he needs to believe and be baptized.
SS: You just contradicted yourself again. You say nobody is excluded, then you say that those who don’t believe are excluded. Which is it? See the difference?
X: St.Paul said it was God’s intention to save all men.
SS: Has nothing to do with the conscecrational form.
X: Will anyone argue that it is not Christ’s intention that all men receive the fruit of its Passion?
SS: Yes, the Church has taught that Christ’s intention is not for all. Go read the Catechism.
X: The difference is in the antecedent and the consequent, and the sufficiency and the efficacy. Both usages are valid.
SS: Clearly contradictory, as the Catechism states you must distinguish the virtues from the fruits. You don’t and neither does your Vat2 religion.
X: Re:Trent and the Doctors
The Church was correct and had good reason when she used “for many” and she is correct and has good reason when she uses “for all”.
SS: Neither Trent nor any doctor has said so.
X: Re: Pro Multis
I don’t think the Latin text ever uses “pro omnibus”. Can you show me a reference?
SS: I never said it did. “For all” is translated pro omnibus, not pro multis.
X: According to Wiki, the CDF said in 1974 “For all is not so much a translation as “an explanation of the sort that belongs properly to catechesis”.
SS: The explanation is heretical and ridiculous as I’ve demonstrated.
X: So the Church herself prefers “for many”, but has declared there is no doubt in the validity of Masses that use “for all”.
SS: Wrong. Only your Vat2 religion says so. The Catholic Church has taught that Christ didn’t intend to use “for all.”
X: Now, in order to accuse Rome today of error, you must be absolutely sure that it is invalid, which you cannot be, because Rome never taught so in the past.
SS: Rome has implied it with the Catechism and De Defectibus, and moreover, the whole history of the Church that never used it. “For all” is a break with Catholicism.
X: All Rome taught was that “there was good reason not to use for all” which we can agree with. These good reasons may simply have been to avoid misunderstanding at a time when more direct conversation with all the faithful was more difficult. But she never bound herself by her own authority for all time to come that she could not by her own authority approve of “for all”. She has clarified in what sense it is meant.
SS: Wrong again. You represent Rome which said, When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews and Gentiles. With reason, therefore, were the words ‘for all’ not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are ALONE SPOKEN OF, and to the ELECT ONLY did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation.”
X: Re: Masons
Some historians believe pagans inflitrated and changed the visible Church. Some say the Masons did the same recently. I hold it impossible in both cases for the same reason. All considered, which is more reasonable, that Masons actually usurped the institution of the Church, or that they made Catholics who would otherwise have been faithful believe that they had?
SS: Another topic which I’ve covered extensively in my books. Go read them.
X: Re: Martin
In the same vein, Martin took too many conflicting positions for me to agree with him. He seemed to give credence to the Siri thesis,
SS: He never believed in the Siri thesis which said Siri was the true pope. He was an expert in languages. He spoke 17 of them and was called to translate the Dead Sea Scrolls. He knows better than anyone on the issue of words and he said “For all” invalidates the sacrament because it is contrary to the meaning of Christ’s words. Think about this for a minute. Modernist Rome has allowed the changing of Christ’s very words. HOW SICK IS THAT? The fact that you or anyone would defend it is really disturbing. Valid or invalid, it is EVIL!
X: seemed to have died in full communion with the Church,
SS: He did, but not in your Vat2 church. He died holding to the sedevacantist position and rejecting Vat2. I know several of his personal friends.
X: seemed to be okay with limited forms of sedevacantism etc.
SS: He went through a tough time trying to figure it out. He didn’t want to believe Rome was without a pope, but when JP2 told him that his (JP2’s) faith was not the historic faith, Martin became a sedevacantist. But then again, you won’t believe it, because it crushes your position and therefore you would consider Fr Malachi a liar. Fr. Malachi stated that he believed Rome was possessed by the devil. That’s saying something from an expert exorcist like him.
X: Though I don’t necessarily deny everything he said, I don’t think he is credible enough to base my faith on.
SS: When you want to believe in something so badly, nothing will convince you otherwise. You obviously believe Rome is Catholic no matter what. But I can tell you that I spent my whole life attending the new mass. I went 15 years going to daily mass. In the navy, I spent my lunch (without eating) running on foot across base to assist and serve daily mass, which caused me to have a severe case of jock itch, athletes’ foot, etc because I couldn’t shower for another 4 hours later. I suffered greatly so that I could attend and serve daily mass. You can’t accuse me of wanting to believe Rome has apostatize. Btw, whether the new mass is valid or not has no effect on the position of sedevacantism. Even if Rome continued with the Mass of St. Pius V, sedevacantism would still be valid.
X: Re: Liturgy
Oh? Which parts? The Liturgy teaches us of the glory of God, the beatific vision, the intercession the Saints, we pray for the dead and many other specifically Catholic things few Protestants I know will approve of.
SS: If you actually read Coomaraswamy’s book, you would have seen them. He’s laid out the facts beautifully, but since you don’t know what they are, then you’re telling me that you really haven’t studied his work. But I’ll give you a few obvious things anyway: The table is used in place of an altar. Why? To water down the faith, to emphasize the communion meal rather than the sacrifice. This was one of the Protestant Cramner’s first innovations 500 yrs ago, Women lectors and servers (found in the abomination of desolation) are now used which is condemned in Scripture and the entire history of the church, Facing the people to emphasize the people rather than God, 80% of the mass was deleted in forming the new mass, All the prayers at the foot of the altar are gone including Psalm 42, The First Eucharistic prayer which is the longest in the new mass has omitted 6 major prayers, Many of the genuflections, signs of the cross, etc are gone, The numerous references to Mary, Michael, John the Baptist, Apostles, etc are gone. Protestants can attend the new mass and not be offended because they can hear the words you cited and understand them to mean what they believe. Even the matter of the bread is incorrect in many new masses. It must be natural water and wheat baked in fire either leavened or unleavened, but you will find in the new mass bread with honey, baking soda, and butter. Guess what? The matter used here invalidates the Eucharist. I’ve just skimmed the surface of the iceberg. The liturgy is a complete break with history!
X: The Church is supremely wise.
SS: Yes it is, but not the Vat2 Church. It is satanic!
X: It is not my job to scrutinize what exactly are the reasons she does something.
SS: I’m not scrutinizing the Catholic Church, but rather the counterfeit church of Rome.
X: It is enough for Catholics to know our Mother has excellent reasons for what she does.
SS: You accept your religion founded in the 1960’s without question.
X: Maybe Protestants thought they could change our doctrine, and triumph over us, too bad, but in that very plan, perhaps the truth of Catholic doctrine will become clear to them, and it is they who will experience a change of heart, in the course of time.
SS: Modernist Rome has changed several doctrines for the Protestants, and the other religions of the world. The new mass is an actual change of practice to water down the faith for Protestants.
X: The schisms and heresies of millenia will not disappear overnight. Many excellent books on the Mass have been written by recent converts from Protestantism.
SS: Rome is in schism and heresy now. That’s for sure and any honest Catholic can see it. My wife has a cousin who has been a Baptist pastor for over 40 years. He told me a couple of years ago that Vat2 was the greatest thing to ever happen to Catholic Church. He said he can accept the changes brought about from the council because, as he said, the Catholic Church is now closer to them, not because they had to change, but because Rome did. It’s never a good thing when a Protestant praises your changes to fit closer to them.
X: God bless, Steven.
SS: I’ll be looking forward to your next reply.
Dear Xavier,
My replies below…
X: Re:Intention
The entire difference is between the antecedent and consequent intention of Christ. Both intentions may accurately be said to be the intention of God, which suffices to establish my point. St.Thomas Aquinas explains this in reconciling the apparently contradictory positions taken by St.Augustine and St.John Damascene.
“Antecedent will is that by which God wills all to be saved; but when all the circumstances of this or that individual are considered, it is found to be good that all men should be saved; for it is good that he who prepares himself, and consents to it, should be saved; but not he who is unwilling and resists, etc. And this is called the consequent will, because it presupposes a foreknowledge of a man’s deeds, not as a cause of the act of will, but as a reason for the thing willed and determined.”
What is your take on this?
SS: A non-sequitur. We can all agree that God wishes all men to be saved. Has nothing to do with the consecrational form. Let’s cut to the chase. Is the Chalice “for all” or is it only for those who are united to Christ (the elect)?
X: Re:Martin
But exactly the same could be said of Martin. Maybe (I don’t believe it, but just saying) he was the Masonic infiltrator who wanted to cause confusion and played a sort of double bluff.
SS: No, you couldn’t say it at all. Fr Malachi Martin was a genuine person who wanted the truth. It took JP2 to personally tell Fr. Malachi by implication that Rome is a different religion today than in the past before Fr. Malachi finally realized that Rome had lost the faith. Go to the comment section on my blog after “The Gates of Hell and Sedevacantism” and read about Fr. Malachi.
X: Re: Doesn’t matter
I don’t understand when you say even a valid Mass would not affect sedevacantism. I thought this was the strongest argument. What exactly, if not this, is it that primary or major factor that convinces you of sedevacantism?
SS: My dear, Xavier, I don’t why this myth keeps surfacing. The new mass is simply a bad fruit that comes from a bad tree. The strongest argument for sedevacantism is the fact the Rome is not Catholic as a whole with antipopes who reject the historic faith. Modernism!
X: Re: Still evil
It is not still evil. It would have been evil only if the priest had changed the words of his own authority.
SS: You really believe that a pope or the Church can change the words of Christ intentionally? How about the matter? How about the intention? How about the minister? You know very well that you can’t change Christ’s very words anymore than you can change the matter to potato chips and cola.
X: Re: Ordinary vs Extraordinary
If you insist on pitting the two against each other, I know priests who have said the entire Mass in the EF would be finished very rapidly sometimes in earlier days. We could argue that evil or slothful priests or “infiltrators” if this form had continued exclusively may deliberately or for some other reason leave out, or say wrongly, the silent prayers and few would know.
SS: A red herring. We know bad priests have said the mass irreverently. If any mass was said by priests in such a hurry that doubt was created whether valid or not proves my point, not yours. My mass can be invalid, too, when such conditions are present. However, the fact that you speak of one mass (what you call ordinary) and another mass (what you call extraordinary) demonstrates that you have two distinctive rites. Read my Against “Catholic Apologetics International” to see why you can’t have two distinct rites. They are two different rites, so please don’t give me the ole Sungenis’ they are really the same rite. They are not.
X: Re: Altar and table
It is both. An Altar of Sacrifice and a Table where we eat of one bread, so that we are one body, as St.Paul said. The one is impossible without the other. Both aspects are sufficiently clarified. In fact, many Popes have celebrated the Ordinary Form versus Deum also. Some have said the text itself presupposes such an orientation. Regardless, there is nothing wrong in versus populum.
Sedevacantist critiques of the Mass sometimes become like Protestant critiques of indulgences. That is, the focus is primarily on the abuses themselves.
SS: You missed my point again. You asked which parts changed, and I gave it to you. It’s not about one thing changing but the fact that the whole thing itself changed.
X: Re:Saints
Anamnesis: “May he make us an everlasting gift to you and enable us to share in the inheritance of your saints, with Mary, the virgin Mother of God, with the apostles, the martyrs, and all your saints, on whose constant intercession we rely for help.”
Even the Epiclesis and the “I confess” involve the invocation of the Blessed ever Virgin Mary, and all the Angels and Saints to pray for us. What you are implying is the Church should never ever change any single word in the liturgy which it did even before the Second Vatican Council.
SS: Sure, things in the liturgy can change, but you have an entirely new liturgy. See the difference? A word here or there, and prayer here or there overtime are organic changes which is fine and normal. What you have is not an organic change but a revolution, not to mention, that it is a new rite. Not only with the liturgy, but Vat2 called for MAJOR changes to all 7 sacraments which came to pass. A new religion altogether is what came from Vat2.
X: Re: Matter
I don’t know about this. I’ll look at canon law. And past decrees. I only read a brief critique of Kumaraswamy’s work from EWTN. He said things that seemed plainly false in things I knew about, like intercession and sacrifice, which was why I didn’t probe further in things I didn’t know about, and which I admit I don’t.
SS: Fair enough.
X: Anyway, such things can always be alleged in every age so that conscientious scruples would wrack every believer’s mind making assent impossible ever. That is why the Church has a principle called “Ecclesia supplet” or something meaning the Church would supply.
SS: Doesn’t apply with incorrect matter. This is a major problem!
X: Re:Martin
I do think that he most probably was a sedevacantist. If you have confirmatory evidence, that makes it more probable. But it doesn’t affect my position.
SS: The fact is you must consider him a liar because he made it quite clear to us that JP2 admitted what you deny. Yet, what JP2 admitted changed Fr. Malachi’s life and position who died holding it.
X: Re: Rome
You put words in my mouth. I never said Rome will be Catholic no matter what. But can you, on the other hand deny, that once orthodox Catholics, like Tertullian, who knew the necessity of Apostolic succession, knew the Catholic Church was the treu Church, have believed Rome to have made “innovations” and gone astray into schism when in fact it had not?
SS: Are you denying the new mass is not an innovation? Rome will lose the faith according to the “universal testimony of the early church fathers.” How will you be able to know when it happens? What clues? What would you need to see?
X: Can you be absolutely sure that sedevacantism today is not in a similar boat?
SS: I would gladly lay my life down for it. So yes. I’m sure. I love my wife and children very much and are leading them down the same path as I. The question you must ask is are you absolutely sure that I’m wrong? 100% positive?
X: Even the attempted excommunications Dioscorus and Caerularius thought to bring about, and the youtube link you gave of former Byzantine Catholics, would probably come under the same category. I admit an antipope can be in Rome as Novatian was.
SS: Can be or could be now?
X: But even in the “first ages of the Church”, as Cardinal Manning said, the faithful knew of St.Peter, St.Linus etc, didn’t they? Yes, the faithful can be utterly reduced in number, to a handful, to being in catacombs, but only in a Catholic notion of the apostasy, not in a Protestant or a Mormon notion. This is why he condemned as evil, a treason and a heresy, he called it, the very notion of an appeal to antiquity.
SS: The Catholic notion is that Rome will lose the faith as they are testified to. I have several other prophecies from later saints that say the same thing. An appeal to antiquity is why I hold to the sedevacant position.
X: Re: Your experience
Well, Steven, I never accused you of wanting to believe anything. I know people don’t arrive at such positions without difficulty. But that doesn’t mean they are right. I think it was courageous of you to take the stand you did, because it must have been hard on you, but I still believe you were mistaken in doing so.
SS: Fair enough.
X: I do not know why this happens. I don’t claim to, nor do I need to. But I would say, like Tertullian, sometimes individuals can hold to erroneous positions.
SS: Agreed. I will say this about you. Thus far, you have been most gracious and appear to me to be of goodwill even though I think you are severely wrong.
X: Re: Protestants
The Church may have once made Christianity very attractive to local cultures and pagan nations by borrowing and fostering non-essentials, but I trust she did not neglect or deny anything essential.
SS: What do you think of these teachings? Pope Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis (# 26), Sept. 8, 1907, On the Worship of Modernists: “The chief stimulus in the domain of worship consists in the need of adapting itself to the uses and customs of peoples, as well as the need of availing itself of the value which certain acts have acquired by long usage.”
Or
Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28. 1794, # 33: “The proposition of the synod by which it shows itself eager to remove the cause through which, in part, there has been induced a forgetfulness of the principles relating to the order of the liturgy, ‘by recalling it (the liturgy) to a greater simplicity of rites, by expressing it in the vernacular language, by uttering it in a loud voice…’” – Condemned as rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favorable to the charges of heretics against it.”
Just curious…
X: I know some historians claim differently, I also know I am no historian, and though I have put some little thought into specifics, I do this primarily based on Christ’s promise. The like thing applies with Protestants, I would say.
SS: Christ’s promise is why I hold to the sedevacant position as you will read in that section “The Gates of Hell and Sedevacantism.”
God bless.
Dear Xavier,
My replies…
X: Re:Intention
But it is not a non-sequitur. Christ intends antecedently to save all men, so the Church’s phrasing today does reflect His intention. Both the antecedent or the consequent intention may accurately be said to be the intention of Christ.
SS: To save all men is not about the consecrational form, and you didn’t answer my question. Is the Chalice “for all” or is it only for those who are united to Christ (the elect)?
X: Re:Martin
But surely these Masons or whoever or not fools. They’re not going to do something and then tell the world about it. A spy whom no one suspects is a good double agent. Just saying…
SS: The problem is Vat2 and the religion are Masonic and Martin was against it. And you’re helping my position, not yours. John XXIII and Montini were Masons.
X: Re: Historic faith
Can you give the exact quote, even on Martin’s witness, that the Holy Father said? I think it would have been his interpretation anyway.
SS: Yes, I can and have already done so, but I can see that it doesn’t matter what he said for you’re not going to accept anything he says anyway. He could be that double agent. I’m not going to continue with Fr. Malachi Martin. It would be a waste of time.
X: I agree Rome can’t contradict the historic Faith just like I agree Rome can’t contradict the Bible. But I disagree with both Protestantism and sedevacantism because I disagree with their understanding of the historic Faith and the Bible.
SS: Give a specific understanding about the historic faith I’ve got wrong.
X: The Magisterium doesn’t have absolute authority to do anything it likes.
SS: What difference does that make to you when you can’t judge it anyway? Not your job, remember?
X: But some questions, on which nothing dogmatic has been said in the past, are complex enough to leave to her resolution. Usury and absolute pacifism for example are instances where the Church took positions that seemed apposite at different times.
This is the key factor in determining it. I deny sedevacantism a fortiori. You are trying to undermine a more certain proposition with a less certain one. If, hypothetically speaking, Rome denied a dogma, which is an absolutely certain proposition, I would agree to break communion with her on that same basis. But Rome has not done so.
SS: How would you tell if it did?
X: Re: Word
This reminds me of the Greek schismatics. They attacked Catholics because there was an Ecumenical Council which said not to add to the Creed composed at Nicaea. It is the same here.
SS: The problem with this argument is that the Creed comes from the Church. They are not the words of Christ.
X: No, the Church can’t change the matter, the form or the intention. Agree.
SS: But it can change the words of Christ?
X: Re: matter
This also reminds me of the “azymite” accusation they threw against Catholics. Would you not agree that was an unworthy exaggeration of a trifle? Caerularius even trampled the Holy Eucharist according to New Advent, because he didn’t believe it was consecrated, because it was in azyme bread.
Anyway, I read this on EWTN regarding honey which you mentioned eariler.
[48.] The Eucharistic bread must be “unleavened, purely of wheat, and recently made.” … It is a grave abuse to introduce other substances, such as fruit or sugar or honey, into the bread for confecting the Eucharist.
The Church has never said there cannot be abuses within her fold, and said indeed, that there have been, for instance with indulgences, though they themselves remain dogma.
SS: I know that your Vat2 Church doesn’t allow it. The problem is that the abuse is not controlled or fixed. It continues on. Some parishes have had the problem for 30 years. Rome must know about it as I do. Have they fixed it? Why or why not?
X: Re: Ordinary vs Extraordinary
I glanced through the debate you mentioned. I didn’t understand what constitutes a new rite. You said the fact that the old form was not abolished proves the new form is a new rite in the sense you mean?
I would say they are two different Missals of the same rite. Have there never been two Missals simultaneously used before, even in the Roman rite? It is a “new rite” only in the sense that any of the changes made by earlier Popes are. We ordinarily follow the Missal of Pope Paul VI and in some places the extraordinary form according to an earlier Missal is used. Reform continuously happened even before the Second Vatican Council.
The Church was interested in more active participation. “Understanding of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is royally dressed”
SS: You have a completely revolutionized mass which is clearly distinct from the true mass, and you’re going to say that they really are the same mass but changed. Nothing would constitute a new mass as long as you say it not a new mass. Right? The new mass is not Catholic, doesn’t resemble anything in the history of Catholicism. It’s a complete novelty! Are you denying the new mass is not an innovation?
X: Re:Saints
>>>”SS: Sure, things in the liturgy can change, but you have an entirely new liturgy. See the difference? A word here or there, and prayer here or there overtime are organic changes which is fine and normal. What you have is not an organic change but a revolution, not to mention, that it is a new rite.”
But who determines how many words can change here and there and not? It was an organic change, but a more extensive one.
SS: The new mass was an organic change, but a more extensive one? Are you kidding me? LOL. You’re killing me! Tell me what you think about this… http://www.cfnews.org/kramer.htm from one of your own.
X: Re: Sacraments
Again, like with the Creed, like with other things, the Church has authority here to determine what is essential and what is not. So this cannot be used an argument against the Church today. See, I am not saying the Church has unhindered authority. But it does have more authority than a layman. An example: A judge doesn’t have authority to kill a man unjustly. But he does have more authority than an individual to sentence another to death.
SS: You’re missing it all. You had a complete revolution where literally everything changed overnight.
Re: Rome
What Cardinal Manning said is a fully Catholic notion. That is why he is careful to add “Drive away the Vicar of Christ”. We agree with the plain text of his words.
SS: Let’s don’t pull things out of context. 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.”
SS: Driven away can mean exactly what we’re saying.
Re: Certainty
But how can you be certain of it? It seems at best a doubtful theological position. Many entertained it as a hypothetical question, I also do, but I think St.Bonaventure it was who said something like the sweet Providence of God will not allow it. So it seems at best doubtful. But like I said, against the stronger motive, I will consider it even today.
SS: I think my website and books speak plainly enough.
X: Re: Appeal to antiquity.
But it is condemned as a treason and a heresy, not praised.
SS: We’re talking about something that is completely novel.
X: Re: Prophesy
Just curious, Saint John Bosco said something like there being an Ecumenical Council in this century, chaos in the Church, until twin pillars of Eucharistic and Marian devotion are restored, which we agree with. What do you make of it?
SS: Just a dream.
X: Also, I think your explanation of Fatima is impossible. In 1953, the triumph of the Immaculate Heart was ensured, a period of peace was given, Russia did not spread her errors round the world? Some Saints have said there will be a French king and a great flourishing of vocations and converts. Only then will the apostasy and AntiChrist come. I think the former period is “the period of peace”
SS: My explanation is right on. Russia did spread her errors because it came too late. You’re right about the French king and such. I think they are wrong!
>>>SS: What do you think of these teachings?
X: I hold the primacy of the living voice of the Church and I recognize these are not teachings that were claimed to hold indefinitely for all time. What the Church hands down to us we obey.
SS: How do you recognize these are not teachings that were claimed to hold indefinitely? Because your Vat2 church clearly contradicts them? You answered in my favor. Thank you!
>>>SS: Christ’s promise is why I hold to the sedevacant position as you will read in that section “The Gates of Hell and Sedevacantism.”
X: I read it. My question is where the indefectibility of the Church resides during an interrugnum. I have read Catholic apologists today and the answers they give seem insufficient to me. But I also disagree with the sedevacantist position. Does it reside with private individuals? I think it requires more deliberation and reflection before I take a stand one way or the other.
SS: Define what you mean by indefectibility.
X: I’ll just say this, the comparison with an interregnum is obviously flawed. During one, every Church is always in communion with the Roman Church.
SS: Are you sure before I answer this one?
X: She still teaches definitively and authoratitively, still settles local disputes, still clarifies questions through the CDF. But in the case you are talking about, we would have to break communion with her.
SS: We’re in a special case. Are you suggesting that it’s not possible?
X: St.Cyprian describes Rome as the principal Church whence episcopal unity has its rise. I believe a Council described it as the head of all churches. My speculation is that the indefectibility lies with the Roman clergy taken collectively, even if there are no Cardinals or Bishops, it would possibly be with Roman priests possibly ordained directly by a Pontiff, who would then be the principle of unity for the rest of the faithful. I don’t know, this is just theological hypotheses.
SS: How would you understand the universal testimony that ROME loses the faith in light with what you just stated?
God bless.
Dear Xavier,
My replies…
X: Re: Consecrational form
The consequent intention of Christ is that the chalice be for the many and the antecedent intention is that it be for all. This is because Christ wills antecedently that all men be saved.
What is important is that the words reflect the intention of Christ; within this limit, the Church has freedom. The Church cannot change the words so that the intention is not reflected.
SS: Ah, you’re still not answering the question because you know what is really important. Is the Chalice for all, or is it for those united to Christ only? Why? The catechism states, “With reason, therefore, were the words ‘for all’ not used.” What reason? Because as the Church teaches, “When He [Christ] added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews and Gentiles.” Therefore, there is no antecedent. You are saying that he wished to be understood to mean both the elect and everyone else; two different intentions. That is a complete novelty introduced by Protestants and now you’re defending it against the historic Catholic Faith. Again, your religion changes the very words of Christ at the most solemn moment in history and then creates an explanation for the change by placing God’s will to save all men (antecedent, which explains the virtue of Christ’s shedding of blood) in place of Christ’s only words and intention (fruits). You also must make the distinction between the words and the intention. This is why the Church teaches that you must have the right words, too, not just the right intention. You’re arguing about intentions so that words can fit them. Sorry, but the words of Christ cannot be changed. You already admitted that the Church can’t change the words in the Bible. Why? You can’t alter the Word of God, of course. However, Christ is the Word of God and His words are the words of God and therefore you can’t change them either, just because you want to justify a novelty. It appears to me that you’re going to accept whatever your religion tells you no matter what.
X: Re:Masons
I think the Masons themselves said they wanted to destroy public faith in the institution of the Church. Well, what better way to do that than cast doubt on the visible Papacy?
SS: I’ll tell you a better way. To infiltrate the Church so that you will accept one of them as pope and defend him against anyone like me who tells you to reject such a person. That’s how.
X: Re: Specific
I think of sedevacantism as I do of Tertullian or the Greeks. It is not that they necessarily believed something wrong. It was that they unjustly accused us of innovations or of falling from Catholic orthodoxy.
Re: How would I tell?
I believe there is compilation of “Dogmas of the Catholic Faith” that predates the Second Vatican Council. One of them must be denied by Rome. We assent to them all.
SS: Not true. I’ve already showed you how JP2 rejects Christ’s descent into hell. He is most clear about that. Rome rejects that the Church of Christ is one, the only, and same as the Catholic Church. Paul VI, JP2, and Ratzinger prove it when they concelebrate with heretics and schismatics while they address those heretical/schismatical pastors as pastors in the Church of Christ. The Vat2 religion believes that the Church of Christ is not fully united or Catholic. In other words, Christ’s prayer that the Church be one has failed and has been failing for many years. Vat2 and family hold that one may reject Christ as God and still worship the true God who will judge man on the last day. This is not only wrong, it’s stupid. My Muslim friends have admitted more that once that we do not worship the same God. I could go on and on…
X: Creed:
Nonetheless, it was binding on everyone to confess it. But don’t you agree that canon was not binding on all time? How do you tell? And of course you and I will agree on this, but the Greeks then and the Orthodox today deny it.
Re: Abuses
Why did the abuse of indulgences go on for as long as it did? And what did that prove? God never said there won’t be abuses.
SS: What abuses of indulgences? I think they were a myth. Of course, there will always be abuses, but not the kind where whole parishes have invalid matter for the Eucharist with Rome doing nothing about it.
Re: Rite and organic change
From Wiki:
* To the single Canon of the previous edition (which, with minor alterations, was preserved as the “First Eucharistic Prayer or Roman Canon”) were added three alternative Eucharistic Prayers, and the number of prefaces was increased.
* The rites of the Ordinary of the Mass (in Latin, Ordo Missae) – that is, the largely unvarying part of the liturgy – were “simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance.”
etc
So it is only an addition of a few prayers, a removing of few repetitions etc. It is not, as you say, as if the whole rite changed. A new rite would be when the prior rite is completely set aside, and we begin to compose a new one, not when it is modified, as was here the case, and was the case before the SVC as well, though on a smaller scale.
SS: Wiki was talking about one canon. I’m talking about an entire liturgy. Yes, the whole rite changed! Listen, if you’re going to argue that there were minor changes here and there, and that was it, this discussion is over. I’m not going to argue with someone whose denies that there was a complete overhaul of the mass. It’s not debatable. They are two distinct rites. It’s as simple as that.
X: I disagree with CFN and other traditionalists. I really love the EF of the Mass, would want and hope that some abuses in the OF be corrected, but I don’t accept what they say about the Popes or the Council.
SS: Then our discussion is futile. You’ve made up your mind. Yes, I’ve made up my mind, too. I was where you are and understand the issues. The fact that you’re saying the Church can change the words of Christ at the most solemn moment in history, that the new mass is basically the same rite as the true mass, agree that Muslims worship the one true God that will judge us on the last day, man has a right to worship in error in public and spread it by word or writing, etc., etc., etc., only tells me that you really don’t understand the issues, don’t want to accept the facts, and don’t believe in the Catholic Faith. You can explain yourself to God as I will. I’m not going to continue any further until you concede to something I’ve stated above. If you buy my books or read my materials closer, you’ll see that I’ve already addressed St. Malachy’s prophecies about popes, the antichrist, and everything else you say below. Why should I spend countless hours answering what I’ve spent countless hours writing about so that I don’t repeat myself over and over? Anyway, I don’t want to come off as rude or uncharitable, so please don’t take it that way. If you were my own brother, I wouldn’t say it any differently. I’m being honest ole me.
X: Think, just for a second, that those other prophesies were right. And that the world almost would convert to the Faith. That a great Council heralding the new era was convened. What would the enemy do? Cause such confusion and chaos, discord and doubt, within and without, traditionalists and liberals, etc etc for at least 50 to 100 years afterward, as long as he could. It is at least possible that this was intended, and at least some prophesies give me grounds to believe this.
>>>SS: Driven away can mean exactly what we’re saying.
Perhaps, but it can mean what we say as well. So if it is open to interpretation, how do we know?
I think the last Pope when AntiChrist will be reigning in a revived Roman empire will be like St.Peter. He will be underground, he may or may not be in Rome, we may not where he is. But we will know who he is.
X: Re: Prophesy
So how do we know which prophesies to trust and which not to? St.Malachy also made two prophesies, one about the Popes, and one about Ireland.
But Mother Mary said that “Russia will be converted. A period of peace will be given to the world”. The Lord wanted all the Bishops to join in, and that the world and the Church to see an evident victory and credit this to the Blessed Virgin, but if you are right, a mere 6 years after this, nothing of the sort happened, instead the great apostasy began.
Re: Which holds indefinitely?
How do you recognize the canon on the Nicene Creed didn’t hold indefinitely? Because the Church later said so? Then thank you!
Re: “Define what you mean by indefectibility.”
I’m talking now of a “normal” interregnum, where everyone knows where the Church is. Now, the Church is still indefectible yes? So where does its indefectibility reside? I think the Pope also functions as ArchBishop in his local Archdiocese in Rome. So I would hazard a guess that it does in these clergy.
After all, the Roman Church is the head of all churches, and the head is the principle of unity for the body. But it is not the land of course that is spoken of. So the Roman clergy may be driven to some other country, but I would think the indefectibility continues in them.
>>>SS: Are you sure before I answer this one?
Yes, it is what St.Ignatius said. “The Church which presides in love”. St.Irenaeus: “With which every Church must always agree”. St.Cyprian: “The Principal Church from which the unity of the priesthood stems” etc
Re: Special case
Would you agree that in this special case, a universal schism is impossible even for a second? So, if a Pope is uncanonically elected, or if he does become a heretic and lose his office, in such a way that communion with him would be schism, it should be evident immediately at least to someone. But this was not the case in 1959, was it? In this case, this or these Bishops or priests who first spotted it would be the new principle of unity, to be together or individually the people we must remain in communion with, and the means by which the unity of the Church is maintained.
Is it really conceivable that those of such eminent holiness, admired even today by sedevacantists, like Padre Pio, Fulton Sheen etc etc would have failed to warn us if it was so? Would not the Spirit have instantly stirred them up? If Pope John was in schism, then so were they.
It’s not a light thing, surely. God will not leave that in doubt. If an antipope or a Pope who has lost his office is accepted by the whole Church, or not repudiated, even for a second, the whole Church will be in schism, which is impossible. But if a true Pope is doubted, or refused subjection under any pretext whatsoever, this again itself would qualify as schism.
>>>SS: How would you understand the universal testimony that ROME loses the faith in light with what you just stated?
Because AntiChrist will reign in Rome. The clergy and perhaps the Vicar of Christ will be driven away.
Well, if we truly have reached an impasse, Steven, I’ll be glad to leave it at that. May the good God lead us all to the whole truth and to final salvation in His everlasting kingdom. Fare thee well.
Has it come down to an impasse? No concession anywhere?
Steven, it was you who seemed to indicate throughout your last post that you were tired of this discussion and wanted out of it now. For example, ” … this discussion is over. I’m not going to argue with someone …”
Just so you know, I have wrestled with this and like issues more than you think, turning and tossing it over in my head even to the neglect of my other duties. Like you said, I don’t take it uncharitable in any way. But it was mainly this and other such statements, that made me think that I should leave this well enough alone now. Let it be.
Dear Xavier,
I’m just not going to argue whether the new mass is a minor change of the same old mass. It’s not up for discussion since it obviously is not some minor change.
I would like to hear any comments you have on my reply over the “for all” vs “for many” argument. Do you concede that it is at least contrary to historic Catholic teaching, if not invalid wording?
If we have come to an impasse on this point, then perhaps we can move on to another. I don’t mind going from one subject to another provided that we keep it to one point at a time so it doesn’t get out of hand.
God bless,
Steven
I don’t think you have it correct. Christ has always been adiment about 3 teachings. 1) the authenticity of the presence of Christ’s body and blood in the host 2) that we must honour our heavenly mother 3) obey the vicor which is Christs representative on earth. To not follow the teachings of the church puts you in grave danger. Whatever a pope says binds us in this world and the next. If there is something Christ is not happy with in His church only He can take the necessary steps yo correct it.
Dear Diana,
Thank you for your comments. Let’s go over them and let’s see where we end up.
1. I agree with you here. Why do you think that I don’t believe in the authenticity of the Real Presence of Christ’s Body and Blood? I do believe in it and always have. The issue I’ve been arguing is whether Christ becomes present when the very Words of Christ have been altered to something other than what Christ said and meant. I say no, and that you must not alter the very Words of Christ or else Christ will not become present. The words found in the new mass “For All” is not what Christ said and meant and therefore, the new mass is invalid for that reason. Do you think otherwise? If so, why?
2. I agree 100% with you here.
3. I agree that we must honor Christ’s vicar on earth and obey his teachings for salvation. However, I argue that we don’t have a vicar of Christ (pope) as of now. The Chair of Peter is temporarily vacant while antipopes falsely claim it. The Church cannot have official teachings that Christ would be unhappy about, so your argument would not apply with teachings.
Sincerely,
Steven
Dear Xavier,
My replies below…
X: Ok, Steven, fair enough. The difficulty is that our disagreement resolves around some basic issues, and most things keep coming back to that. But anyway, we shall proceed as you like.
SS: 1. I would like to hear any comments you have on my reply over the “for all” vs “for many” argument.
Quote:”SS: Ah, you’re still not answering the question because you know what is really important. Is the Chalice for all, or is it for those united to Christ only?
X: My answer was, The consequent intention of Christ is that the chalice be for the many and the antecedent intention is that it be for all.
So I think I did answer it. Anyway to elaborate,
The antecedent will of Christ is all-encompassing. He excludes no one wilfully here for if He did then He their Creator would will that they be damned even causally prior, as the Angelic Doctor teaches, to any of their actions, which is inadmissible, and moreover contrary to Scripture. So, by this will, He does indeed will that the Chalice of salvation be for all, because this is prior to their own faults.
But the will that takes into account His foreknowledge of man’s sinful will, and is causally consequent to this, is the will by which Christ wills that the Chalice be for the many only for it takes the sins of unbelief and other mortal sins and grave faults of man into account and is a consequence of this so that it is by virtue of their own faults only that they are excluded.
SS: You didn’t deal with my whole quote which already answers all of this. What you are saying is novel. So let me quote it again, “The catechism states, “With reason, therefore, were the words ‘for all’ not used.” What reason? Because as the Church teaches, “When He [Christ] added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews and Gentiles.” Therefore, there is no antecedent. You are saying that he wished to be understood to mean both the elect and everyone else; two different intentions. That is a complete novelty introduced by Protestants and now you’re defending it against the historic Catholic Faith. Again, your religion changes the very words of Christ at the most solemn moment in history and then creates an explanation for the change by placing God’s will to save all men (antecedent, which explains the virtue of Christ’s shedding of blood) in place of Christ’s only words and intention (fruits). You also must make the distinction between the words and the intention. This is why the Church teaches that you must have the right words, too, not just the right intention. You’re arguing about intentions so that words can fit them. Sorry, but the words of Christ cannot be changed. You already admitted that the Church can’t change the words in the Bible. Why? You can’t alter the Word of God, of course. However, Christ is the Word of God and His words are the words of God and therefore you can’t change them either, just because you want to justify a novelty. It appears to me that you’re going to accept whatever your religion tells you no matter what.”
SS: 2. Do you concede that it is at least contrary to historic Catholic teaching, if not invalid wording?
X: I disagree with the implication here, because it is the same argument made by the Greeks, and is really proximate to schism because it neglects the living and growing nature of Tradition, which is why Cardinal Manning called the appeal to antiquity both a treason and a heresy.
SS: Your argument doesn’t apply because “For All” has already been condemned, unlike the Filioque. You won’t find prior to the Filioque insertion a condemnation. As for Cardinal Manning, he himself appealed to antiquity when he showed why Rome will lose the Faith. Appealing to antiquity to reject authentic developed doctrine would be a treason and a heresy, but not if you do so to reject erroneous practice and doctrine. There is a false appealing and a true appealing to antiquity. You are appealing to antiquity on the Greeks false rejection of the Filioque to justify “For All” in the consecration. This is what Cardinal Manning was condemning.
X: I like the way New Advent puts it in its “Filioque” article, which you will surely agree with, and which serves as a historical precedent to us from the action of the Church.
” It is true that these councils had forbidden to introduce another faith or another Creed, and had imposed the penalty of deposition on bishops and clerics, and of excommunication on monks and laymen for transgressing this law; but the councils had not forbidden to explain the same faith or to propose the same Creed in a clearer way. Besides, the conciliar decrees affected individual transgressors, as is plain from the sanction added; they did not bind the Church as a body. Finally, the Councils of Lyons and Florence did not require the Greeks to insert the Filioque into the Creed, but only to accept the Catholic doctrine of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost. ”
SS: As I noted, this argument doesn’t apply.
X: I’ll just note that Quo Primum adds such sanctions on priests including a fine. The other analogies are easy to make.
You said earlier something like, the Church can change the words of the Creed but not the word of Christ. But this stance fails for 2 reasons.
SS: I didn’t say anything like this. I said that you can’t change the very words of Christ in the Form to mean something other than what He meant.
X: 1. First, because in this regard the actions of the Church on earth themselves are the action of Christ in heaven.
SS: Yes, but not the actions of a counterfeit church.
X: 2. Certain liturgies omit the “for many” wholly as we discussed above. This is a fact. Now, if it is permissible not to mention it at all, it cannot be unlawful to express that portion differently.
SS: I’m not aware of any liturgies that omit “for many” but it wouldn’t matter anyway, because an omission is not the same as a change. It is unlawful to change the words of Christ with a novel understanding with a different meaning.
God bless.
Dear Xavier,
Before I get started in replying to your comment, I want to say that I’m defending the Words of Christ which you argue can be changed into other words that give a different meaning than what Christ used and meant at the Last Supper according to the Catechism of Trent.
My replies below…
X: Steven, I just read your post on Pope Benedict’s ‘for all’ for background and some other writings on this issue.
I want to point out some things before going into the response.
1. There are Biblical texts that say things like “many” were created when it is clear that all were, and moreover Christ says in a Eucharistic context He will give His flesh for the life of the world. So it is impossible to contend that these words are impermissible unless you want to say the same thing of Scripture. We agree they must be correctly intended by the priest, but this proves the words themselves are not in error.
SS: Wrong. The Biblical text at the Last Supper doesn’t do so. Also, the intention of the priest is to be the same as Christ and the Church with the Words Christ used. He didn’t use “for all” nor did He intend to use them according to the Catechism. “For all” is a novelty never before seen in the history of the Church.
2. This is the relevant portion from De Defectibus: “If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin.” So it is permissible to say the same thing using different words so long as the same meaning can be conveyed. The sin part is plainly attached to the individual transgressor.
SS: Agreed, but the meaning is partly conveyed in the right words.
3. It seems you are accusing us of teaching what we do not teach or believing what we do not believe, whether universalism or something else. The priest and the Church today knows and teaches that not all will be saved. So there is no defect of intention in the mind of the Church today, nor in those orthodox Catholic priests in communion with Rome who conform to it.
SS: I’m not accusing you of universalism.
>>>Therefore, there is no antecedent. You are saying that he wished to be understood to mean both the elect and everyone else; two different intentions.
X: Does God will that all men be saved or does He will that unbelievers be lost? Answer. He does both. You are attempting to force a contradiction where none exists. The antecedent intention may accurately be called the intention of Christ, which suffices.
SS: You missed the point. Christ didn’t use “For all” and therefore, you can’t place false words in the mouth of Christ that give an added intention.
>>>That is a complete novelty introduced by Protestants and now you’re defending it against the historic Catholic Faith.
X: Your accusation is no different from saying St.Paul taught universalism, as claimed the Origenists. He didn’t, and we don’t either.
SS: You didn’t understand me. My accusation is against placing other words in the mouth of Christ as you are defending as okay
.
>>>Again, your religion changes the very words of Christ at the most solemn moment
X: Then so did either one of St.Paul, Matthew or Luke, not to mention the countless liturgies of the East that do not mention “for many”. This argument fails, and you do not see why. It cannot be impermissible to forego what it
SS: Wrong! None of them placed false words in the mouth of Christ. Your argument fails because it’s not true and you don’t see why.
>>>This is why the Church teaches that you must have the right words,too, not just the right intention. You’re arguing about intentions so that words can fit them. Sorry, but the words of Christ cannot be changed.
X: No, absolutely not. The Church taught and teaches to this day that there are many combinations of the right words. De defectibus mentions that the sacrament would be valid even for a priest who presumed to change the words illicitly himself.
SS: Combination of right words is not the argument. You’re arguing that wrong words are really right words.
X: There is no single “right words” as if one liturgy existed throughout the Church or that the Gospel writers who record it differently omitted something. There are many combinations of the right words that can accurately be said to reflect the intention of Christ
SS: You’re not arguing with me. You’re arguing with the Church which already told us what they are in the Catechism of Trent. Also, omission of words is not the same as changing them. It could have the same effect, but not necessarily. If I told you how I went to a ball game, ate popcorn, and later spoke to the coach about how the team should have played, and you retold the story leaving out the part about speaking to the coach about how the team should have played, you wouldn’t necessarily be changing the story. You just didn’t tell the whole story. However, if you retold the story, and changed the part about speaking to the coach and said that I spoke to the team. Your retelling of the story would be a lie. You could justify it by saying that I did speak to the team through the coach but it would still be wrong. My antecedent intention may have been that the team should have played differently, but that intention would not be present in the words that I used. Your antecedent intention explanation fits your usage “for all” but that was not what Christ actually said. At the consecration, when the priest is saying “for all” the priest is lying about what Christ actually stated. When the priest uses other words that Christ didn’t use at all such as “mystery of faith” those added words are not pretended to be the words Christ used. The Church admits to adding them for other reasons (which are explained in the catechism). However, the words “for all” are pretended to be the ones Christ used at the Eucharist. This is so contrary to the truth that Rome is now going to change them back to “for many” this Nov. in the new missal.
>>> It appears to me that you’re going to accept whatever your religion tells you no matter what.”
X: I already told you I believe the Church has authority more than laymen or priests, but not unhindered authority, but of course I can’t change what appears to you as what. This is why I think our discussion has reached an impasse.
SS: But you can’t tell me what unhindered is. This is the crux of the issue. You say it doesn’t have unhindered authority, but when an antipope says something unhindered, you say that you don’t have the authority to say it is unhindered. Listen, if Rome changed the words to “for none” you would still justify it. After all, “for none” would reflect God’s antecedent will to mean that it wasn’t for angels or demons. You would use all the same arguments against me that you have used to justify “for all” because they would fit “for none” as well.
>>>As for Cardinal Manning, he himself appealed to antiquity when he showed why Rome will lose the Faith.
X: Which is what I believe will happen at the time of AntiChrist. But on good authority do I believe in the triumph of the Immaculate Heart, the conversion of Russia and a near-universal restoration, in what has been called both the Age of Mary and the Age of the Church, will happen first. So we do hold that AntiChrist will drive away the Vicar of Christ and Rome return to its ancient paganism, and the Church return to how it was in the days of the Apostles, in catacombs.
SS: You need to read my book about antichrist.
>>>Appealing to antiquity to reject authentic developed doctrine would be a treason and a heresy,
X: And who is to say this is not what sedevacantists are doing, as did Tertullian, knowing the Catholic Church was the true Church, knowing of the Chair of Peter in Rome etc. He was sufficiently intelligent, he also believed it was “obvious” that Rome was licensing an innovation. You see it is possible to be led astray however knowledgeable we may be.
SS: So far you have not even come close in demonstrating that we have. I have shown you time again that Rome has innovated many things, some of which have been outright condemned by Rome. As for Tertullian, he became a Montanist. Yes, it’s possible to be led astray, but which one of us has? How do you tell? What do we go by?
God bless!
>>>You didn’t deal with my whole quote which already answers all of this. What you are saying is novel. So let me quote it again, “The catechism states, “With reason, therefore, were the words ‘for all’ not used.” What reason? Because as the Church teaches, “When He [Christ] added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews and Gentiles.”
Though I did read this and take it into account above, but anyway, to this I respond
1. The Church was right in condeming the Protestant usage of the word.
2. The Church was always right in maintaining what she did.
3. As in the case of usury and absolute pacifism, this may not always be immediately understood by all of the faithful and there is no need.
4. The Church’s usage has no heretical intentions like universalism attached.
We also mean the remainder of the elect. And we wish to be understood as saying so, as indeed we are by Catholics in communion with Rome, but unfortunately we are maligned by sedevacantists as if we did not wish to be understood so.
Correction
*It cannot be impermissible to say differently what it is permissible to forego altogether. (“for many”) If we “changed the words of Christ” so did the Catholic East, and St.Paul as well.
Dear Xavier,
My replies below…
X: Hi, Steven. Couple of things.
1. Are you saying St.John 6 is not about the Last Supper? It is strikingly Eucharistic.
SS: John 6 is not the issue.
2. Yes, the fruits of Christ’s passion are for the elect only. But of course not all those who partake of the Sacrament will be numbered among the elect.
SS: I agree, that’s my point.
X: Trent also “furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, it may ordain,–or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circumstances, times, and places.”
This being established, it should suffice to show that
1. The intention of the priest and the mind of the Church is not universalism
SS: Never said it was.
2. The words can be said to express the intention of Christ.
1 is I think conceded by you. 2 is true like I said, antecedently.
And antecedently is sufficient for Christ and not in your example because Christ is omniscient and took everything into account. This form brings out the purity of His intention and reminds properly disposed men of their own wicked fault in being excluded, not because the Redeemer was too poor.
SS: THE WORDS ARE WRONG!
>>>SS: You missed the point. Christ didn’t use “For all” and therefore, you can’t place false words in the mouth of Christ that give an added intention.
X: The Church said she has the right to do such things. Who are we to say otherwise? Therefore this argument fails.
SS: WRONG! The Church has said that She does not have the right to do such things. You’re argument fails! Where does the Church say that She can place false words in the mouth of Christ?
>>>SS: Wrong! None of them placed false words in the mouth of Christ. Your argument fails because it’s not true and you don’t see why.
X: All of them used different forms, which the Catholic Church joined together, as she deemed fit, and said she had and has the right and duty to do according only to her judgment.
SS: NONE OF THEM PLACED FALSE WORDS IN THE MOUTH OF CHRIST! You’re arguing that the Church has the right to place words in the mouth of Christ that He never used!
>>>SS: Combination of right words is not the argument. You’re arguing that wrong words are really right words.
X: You’re arguing that a correct combination is really wrong, and I’m arguing that it is not.
>>>SS: You’re not arguing with me. You’re arguing with the Church which already told us what they are in the Catechism of Trent.
X: I agree with Trent. You need to establish the premise, The Catholic Church cannot use the words “for all”, if she deems it to the profit of the faithful at some particular time and place, judgment on this matter reserved to her and her alone. This is really what is contradictory to what Trent said the Church can always do and has always done.
SS: You don’t agree with Trent! Christ didn’t use the words “for all” and for good reason, and you’re saying that because He may have intended them antecedently, the words can be used! This is wrong!!!!! The Church never allowed it, Protestants wanted it, you now have with it with your new age religion which capitulated to the Protestants.
>>>Also, omission of words is not the same as changing them.
X: An omission is a change. If liturgies that have omitted it are not guilty of “changing the words of Christ”, then neither are we. All that matters is whether the existing words express the reality.
SS: It is not a change in the words of Christ! “For all” is a big gigantic lie and you’re defending it. Also, you also didn’t quote me in full. I qualified my statement with “necessarily” and with an explanation. You took my out of context.
>>> Your antecedent intention explanation fits your usage “for all” but that was not what Christ actually said. At the consecration, when the priest is saying “for all” the priest is lying about what Christ actually stated.
X: Not at all. We could say, the priest is merely using some of Christ’s words and then some the Catholic Church, in her judgment, has added, namely “for all” having judged it fit to explain the power of Christ’s Passion, or that those excluded are so not because of Christ’s unwillingness, but their own fault.
SS: You could say such things, but adding ‘for all’ is not what Christ said is it?
>>> However, the words “for all” are pretended to be the ones Christ used at the Eucharist. This is so contrary to the truth that Rome is now going to change them back to “for many” this Nov. in the new missal.
X: Like I said, the Church qualifies the statements of Christ with her explanations and interpretations to the faithful. In the event of confusion spread by others, she may deem fit to clarify in her living Voice, or to respond suitably otherwise that occasions used by others for it may be mitigated.
SS: Then why change it back to “for many” if there is nothing wrong with “for all” the past 40 years. Sorry, but you’re justifying a lie of Rome!
>>>SS: But you can’t tell me what unhindered is
.
X: I think it was St.Ignatius who said something like “We must convince ourselves that black is white if the Magisterium of the Church required us so”. I’ve seen this quoted by Protestants who think it fanatical, but I see wisdom behind it.
SS: If St. Ignatius said it, he was terribly wrong. I’d like to see the quote in full. You’re now arguing that wrong is right if the Magisterium says so.
X: So Catholics today are absolutely consistent, and indeed doing what Catholics have always done, in maintaining what they do, it’s not necessary, it’s never been necessary for all and each of the faithful to know how to refute every error, I fancy many Catholics would not have known to refute Protestantism at the time, though many do today. Should they have accepted Protestant arguments from Scripture they may not have been able to see through?
SS: You’re arguing against historic Catholicism, like Protestantism.
X: And trusting in the only visible Magisterium has never, ever led Catholics to error.
SS: Agreed!
X: Yet, we cannot be sedevacantists unless we pass judgment on her, and say she is false and not the true Magisterium, which seems to me, as the Fathers said, to be the beginning of all error and separation without exception.
SS: Your own argument would have trapped you in accepting antipopes in the past with this false logic. I mentioned this in my reply to Salza. Go back and reread it.
X: But forget all that. Let me, for the sake of this discussion, say this, even though I think it is an exalted view of my own judgment, that I will only henceforth consider my own reasoning and intellect and not appeal to any authority at all, even legitimate ones. Only remember the burden of proof is on you to produce the contradiction, and as for me, I will try to reconcile it by my own thinking.
SS: You’re absolutely on the right trail now!
X: We do what the Doctors did.
SS: No you don’t. The Doctors are on my side, not yours. You would not be able to follow them for they all said that a pope who becomes a heretic automatically loses his office, yet your own logic will not allow you to realize when such a case could happen. You would have to accept the antipope as you do now.
X: We consider it hypothetically, but we have reason to doubt such a situation could really occur.
SS: Based on what? There have already been examples in history that foreshadow sedevacantism today.
X: If someone were to say “For none”, we agree this would be an invalid consecration.
SS: Not if we base it on your own arguments. Wouldn’t you agree that Christ didn’t intend that his shedding of blood was for angel or demons? This is part of his antecedent will, right?
X: This would be impossible to defend, and we would agree, after mature and sufficient deliberation, hypothetically, the Church cannot do this.
SS: Why? You said that the Church could do this. The Church has a right to change the words of Christ according to you. Since He didn’t mean to shed his blood for angels and demons, then “for none” would correctly apply if the Church explained herself for the change. THIS IS YOUR ARGUMENT!
X: Can you prove, hypothetically, that the Catholic Church cannot ever deem it expedient, to use “for all”? Never did the Church say so, nor I think, can that be proven.
SS: I already have proven it, but you refuse to hear it.
X: This admits of a defense, but the other “for none” does not.
SS: You’re contradicting yourself. Can you prove, hypothetically, that the Catholic Church cannot ever deem it expedient, to use “for none”? Never did the Church say so, nor I think, can that be proven (your words.) Let’s hear you tell me why you can’t use “for none.”
Dear Xavier,
My replies below…
X: Hi. The posts above are too verbose so I’ll just respond without copying it.
In John 6, Our Lord does say He will give His flesh for the “life of the world”. Will you accuse Him of error or a “big gigantic lie” as you accuse us?
SS: No, because He didn’t say this at the Last Supper which is what we’re talking about. The Catechism had already explained the difference between the virtues and fruits.
X: Why didn’t He say, “for many of the world” or for “some of the world”
It isn’t your point because you seem to think that those who partake of the chalice are the same as the elect.
SS: No. The words Christ used at the Last Supper is the issue which the Catechism explains all the details that you ignore.
X: “For you” and “For many” are found in two different Gospel accounts, St. Matthew and St.Luke. The Catholic Church taught that these were joined together by her authority. Who gave the Catholic Church the right to do such things? Christ, of course.
SS: No contradiction, since He said them both. Christ did not say that He gave the Catholic Church authority to change the words. By the way, you didn’t give me that teaching of the Church that says Christ gave the Church authority to change the words of Christ.
X: So, if she joins the two accounts if she deems it right, and takes one Gospel account and omits the other in some of her Eastern rites, then she has the right to take one Gospel account, and qualify this with her explanation since this fully comes under “their substance being untouched, it may ordain,–or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive” which is the Tridentine teaching.
SS: Again, omission is not the same as changing the words. I’ve already explained this in detail but you keep ignoring it because you have to justify a lie.
X: I never said the Church has the right to place words in the mouth of Christ. She has the right to change and ordain things in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance alone remaining untouched, which includes explanations and emphasis.
SS: “For all” is putting false words in the mouth of Christ.
X: Re: Obedience to the Magisterium
St.Ignatius said, “What seems to me white, I will believe black if the hierarchical Church so defines it.” It is very wise because it is a humble and accurate reflection on one’s own judgment, the very basis of the “obedience of faith” and that very singular error at the root of the multitude of Protestant denominations today.
SS: Okay, this is not the same as what you stated earlier.
X: Re: Antipope
Like I said, choosing between two claimants emerging from a Papal election is substantially different from rejecting the sole one, just like being an atheist is different from rejecting one particular claimant as a god, say Sai Baba or someone else you may know like Osho.
So I would not have accepted antipopes at all, since I would only have gone back to their elections, which is a crucial and determining factor, as the Saints did. St.Bernard I think mentioned something to that effect regarding Pope Innocent, it might have been. I can’t recall the details at all now but I saw a video about it, and will read up on it if you want us to go there.
SS: Benedict X was an antipope whom the whole Church recognized for 9 months. However, your argument about going back the elections, what is the crucial and determining factor? We’ve had true popes who were unlawfully elected, not elected at all, and elected by the minority rather than the majority. So what how would you tell what to go by?
X: Re: For none
I answered why “for none” is invalid. It doesn’t fit the 2nd condition I gave above, namely it doesn’t reflect the intention of Christ, so it would change the substance of the sacrament.
SS: Did Christ intend to shed His blood for men and angels and demons?
X: If the Church wants to say, blood shed for men, not for angels, or something like that, this would not change the substance, and so she has the right to because this is an orthodox explanation pertaining to “the dispensation of the sacraments for the profit of the faithful”.
SS: You said the Church had the authority to change the words and if She so deems and to give Her explanation, who are you to judge it? Why would “For None” with the explanation that Christ meant not for angels and demons and the “For You” covered everyone else, change the substance? After all, if Christ said “for you and for all” you have a certain flaw, because if you say “for all” there would be no need for saying “for you” since the “for you” would be covered in the words “for all.” The “for all” could include more than just men, right? Therefore, based on your own argument, “for none” could work.
X: “For none” and “for men, not angels” are in no way equivalent.
SS: “For all” and “for Many” is no way equivalent.
X: Many Saints say something like Angels would envy men only about the Holy Eucharist, so the Church can incorporate that into the liturgy if she deems fit, though I doubt she will.
SS: Now you say they could incorporate it?
X: Re: This Nov.
For the same reason she didn’t necessitate that the Greeks insert into the Creed “and from the Son”, a Catholic dogma they were nonetheless bound to believe. So that those not in full communion may lose an occasion for their schism.
SS: So let’s man-please. That’s the spirit, right?
Dear Xavier,
My replies…
X: It doesn’t matter if He didn’t say it at the Last Supper. He said it about His flesh.
SS: It does matter because the words at the Last Supper is what is being repeated, not to mention that we are dealing with two different aspects of Christ’s sacrifice.
X: How can it be okay? You would say, “It’s obvious that this is white. So I can’t accept the Church’s judgment that it is in fact black”
SS: No, obvious is not the same as “seems” is it? If something is obviously false, then the Church can’t call it true.
X: The whole Church cannot recognize an antipope, in the sense you mean, even for a second because the whole Church cannot be in heresy or in schism.
SS: Sorry, but it has. Not only that, Rome has been in schism in history. I wrote a book about it. It’s called Papal Anomalies and their Implications.
X: How is it man-pleasing when the Church did this at Florence? Are you condemning that?
SS: Don’t know what you are talking about. I’m talking about man-pleasing in the sense that you don’t first try to please God.
I will answer in more detail later about the words later, just popped by and saw this.
Dear Xavier,
My reply…
SS: >>>the words at the Last Supper is what is being repeated, not to mention that we are dealing with two different aspects of Christ’s sacrifice.
X: The idea that John 6 is not a discourse on the Last Supper and the Holy Mass is a Protestant one, not at all Catholic.
SS: I never said or implied it.
X: Of course it is about two different aspects, and the point is that either aspect can be emphasised. We are not arguing “for many” is invalid. We are saying “for all” is perfectly appropriate, which you are denying, and therefore indirectly accusing Christ of error, since He said “for the world”. It is either orthodox to speak this way or it is not. You’re not arguing with us or even with the Church, but with Christ.
SS: It is not orthodox to take something Christ said somewhere and place it somewhere else where He spoke something else. Your arguing against Christ and the Church and are siding with modernists and the Protestants.
>>>No, obvious is not the same as “seems” is it?
X: Obvious or seems according to who?
SS: If something is obvious, then it implies that it is so much a fact that it is plain to see. If something just seems, then it may not be a fact at all.
X: It only “seems obvious” to you.
SS: The phrase, “seems obvious” still means seems. It is not necessarily a fact. If something “IS” obvious, then it already denotes a fact. You initially misquoted St. Ignatius.
X: Are you saying you will not submit your judgment to the Church if she disagrees with you? Where is obedience then, is this not an extolling of one’s own judgment? Only because it is in fact white does the Church call it white, and we conclude it is black only because of our own erroneous reasoning.
SS: Not only did you misquote St. Ignatius, you misapplied his quote. We submit judgment to the Church, but we don’t submit judgment to error. You have concluded that an error came from the Church and that the error is really true. The Church cannot do what you misquoted St. Ignatius initially, which is, “We must convince ourselves that black is white if the Magisterium of the Church required us so.” The Church cannot say black is white. I could take your argument to mean that you’re admitting that the Church is saying that a falsehood is really true, but I know that you don’t mean it that way.
>>>I wrote a book about it. It’s called Papal Anomalies and their Implications.
X: Such Papal anomalies as the one you mentioned would imply that the faithful were not in schism at the time, because the whole Church cannot be. You need situations where either side anathematized each other, as it is today.
SS: The whole of the faithful could be materially in schism. Rome did so at one time, perhaps, even formally so.
X: The city of Rome is useless of course, by itself, and I never said otherwise.
SS: Agreed!
>>>Don’t know what you are talking about.
X: And yet you made the accusation of man-pleasing when I only recited what the Church did at the time, with the Creed in the East and the Filioque. This is clearly an instance of seeing a malicious intention where there was none! And not only that, it was an Ecumenical Council.
SS: I was responding to your implication. Your saying that Rome is going back to “for many” so that people like me won’t be in schism? But this is not true. Rome has implied that “for all” is a bad translation and not for what you have been arguing for. Man-pleasing rather that God-pleasing is what Rome is doing. They should be telling the truth and the whole true on this matter.
Dear Xavier,
My replies…
>>>SS: I never said or implied it.
X: You called the words “for all” heretical. In light of Christ’s statement, do you want to revise that judgment?
SS: I did not call the words “for all” heretical in light of the Christ’s statement in John 6. You completely misrepresented what I said. I never said or implied that John 6 was not a discourse of the Last Supper. I said “for all” is heretical based on what Christ actually stated and meant with his words “for many” at the Last Supper.
>>>SS: It is not orthodox to take something Christ said somewhere and place it somewhere else where He spoke something else.
X: Sure, it is, when the Magisterium of the Church has clarified that it is actually, I quote, “an explanation of the sort that properly belongs to catechesis”
SS: Who wrote that “an explanation of the sort that properly belongs to catechesis” meaning that it can change the words of Christ?
>>>SS: The phrase, “seems obvious” still means seems. It is not necessarily a fact. If something “IS” obvious, then it already denotes a fact. You initially misquoted St. Ignatius.
X: True, I did. But I said I was quoting off-hand, and from memory.
>>>The Church cannot say black is white. I could take your argument to mean that you’re admitting that the Church is saying that a falsehood is really true, but I know that you don’t mean it that way.
X: Agreed, my mistake. I should have been clearer.
>>>SS: The whole of the faithful could be materially in schism. Rome did so at one time, perhaps, even formally so.
X: I disagree. It would seem to be an insult to Christ and His Church and His promise to say that she could ever fall into schism or heresy, even materially. It would mean the gates of hell have prevailed and it would be grievous in God’s sight, even if He does not impute the offense to the material adherents of the schism.
SS: I would not be an insult to Christ and His Church and His promise. The Church doesn’t know everything and it can be mistaken about things not formally taught. It’s happened over and over again. As for accepting an antipope, the whole Church did so (more than once). It’s a fact.
>>>SS: I was responding to your implication. Your saying that Rome is going back to “for many” so that people like me won’t be in schism? But this is not true. Rome has implied that “for all” is a bad translation and not for what you have been arguing for. Man-pleasing rather that God-pleasing is what Rome is doing. They should be telling the truth and the whole true on this matter.
Rome has said “it is an explanation of the sort that properly belongs to catechesis”. It is an orthodox explanation, which suffices. Since it belongs to catechesis, the Church has decided to take it up there, especially since many have used it as a reason and still do to remain apart from the bosom of the Church.
Dear Xavier,
My reply…
Steven,
>>>SS: I did not call the words “for all” heretical in light of the Christ’s statement in John 6. You completely misrepresented what I said.
X: No, I don’t think I did. You said “Too bad, he allowed the heretical words, “For all” to be used”. I merely asked whether you maintain this or not, and if you do, how you reconcile this with Christ’s words.
SS: I’ve already reconciled it. Go back and read it. At this point, you’re arguing for the sake of it. I’m having to repeat myself.
>>>I never said or implied that John 6 was not a discourse of the Last Supper. I said “for all” is heretical based on what Christ actually stated and meant with his words “for many” at the Last Supper.
X: If the Church can join together two passages in St.Matthew and St.Luke, then it is not “heretical” for her to two do so with St.Matthew and St.John either.
SS: You misunderstand heretical and now are misapplying it. Virtues and Fruits is the reason for the different writings. Christ used words identifying only the fruits at the Last Supper. HE DID NOT USE THE WORDS “FOR ALL”. The passages in Matthew and Luke are speaking about what Christ said at the event and they don’t contradict each other as I’ve explained. John 6 happened a year or so before the Last Supper and Christ was speaking about the virtues, etc. The Catechism of Trent explains it. Christ used “for many” for a reason at the Last Supper. You are arguing that His reason is superfluous. Isn’t that true? Why did Rome change Christ’s words or do away with them and filling them with words He never spoke? Are you and Rome suggesting that Christ didn’t really mean what he said or that it would have been better if He used “For all”? Don’t you see how scandalous it is? It’s a gigantic lie as I’ve explained before.
X: And yes, it is an explanation. Otherwise, it was “heretical” for the Church to add “the mystery of Faith” in there as well.
SS: Again, you misunderstand and misapply heretical. It can’t be heretical because it is not denying anything. We’re talking about a narrative as a narrator would interject something into the story to clarify or explain. The narrator isn’t changing the actual story. You want the actual Words of Christ AT the Last Supper to be altered to mean something that Christ didn’t say or mean AT the Last Supper. Again, when Christ said “for many” AT the Last Supper, He had a very specific reason.
>>>Who wrote that “an explanation of the sort that properly belongs to catechesis” meaning that it can change the words of Christ?
X: Rome did. It means nothing of that sort. It means it is an explanation like “the mystery of Faith” was.
SS: When did Rome teach it? Where specifically?
>>>It’s happened over and over again. As for accepting an antipope, the whole Church did so (more than once). It’s a fact.
X: I’m not denying the “anomaly” itself but the implication you draw from it. I deny that the election of an antipope means that the faithful are in material schism. No, they are not. To say the Church could be in material schism is incorrect.
SS: I don’t think you understand what we’re talking about here. What do you think it means?
Dear Xavier,
My replies below…
>>>SS: I’ve already reconciled it. Go back and read it. At this point, you’re arguing for the sake of it. I’m having to repeat myself.
X: I’m arguing for the sake of it? Listen, I only asked you a question about what you said. I had to repeat myself because you misrepresented my question.
SS: I’ve already explained it over and over. I never misrepresented anything. You’re not reading my replies very closely.
>>>SS: You misunderstand heretical and now are misapplying it.
X: No, I don’t. That’s why I put it in quotes. I was using your argument.
SS: You were comparing apples to oranges and misrepresented and misapplied my argument.
>>>Virtues and Fruits is the reason for the different writings. Christ used words identifying only the fruits at the Last Supper. HE DID NOT USE THE WORDS “FOR ALL”.
X: And we’re not saying He did.
SS: You’re not reading my replies very closely. Perhaps, you have already made up your mind and will not actually read what I wrote. I stated, “Why did Rome change Christ’s words OR DO AWAY WITH THEM AND FILLING THEM WITH WORDS HE NEVER SPOKE? Are you and Rome suggesting that Christ didn’t really mean what he said or that it would have been better if He used “For all”? Don’t you see how scandalous it is? It’s a gigantic lie as I’ve explained before.” So I’m admitting that you are not saying that Rome is saying the Christ said “for all” at the Last Supper. You can’t because it’s simply false anyway.
>>>The passages in Matthew and Luke are speaking about what Christ said at the event and they don’t contradict each other as I’ve explained. John 6 happened a year or so before the Last Supper and Christ was speaking about the virtues, etc.
X: And “for all” again is an explanation about the fruits, nor are we claiming it was the actual words at the Last Supper.
SS: You mean virtues, since “for many” is about the fruits, not “for all.” The fact is your leaders thought they knew better than Jesus and removed His actual words and replaced them with what they think Jesus should have said since it more accurately represents what they think should have been said at the Last Supper and at Mass. In other words, the meaning Jesus wanted instilled at the Last Supper because He used “for many” is not what Modernist Masonic Rome wants to hear at Mass. “For many” has been used for 1940 years and only in the last 40 years have they changed it. Funny how that works, eh?
>>>The Catechism of Trent explains it. Christ used “for many” for a reason at the Last Supper. You are arguing that His reason is superfluous. Isn’t that true?
X: Trent immediately goes on to quote the Apostle showing this was not about the Last Supper alone. Everywhere many occurs in Scripture it is about the fruits, and everywhere all occurs it is about the virtue. What is your authority for saying the Mass cannot emphasise either aspect, virtues or fruit?
SS: My authority comes from Pope St. Pius V, whom you agreed with, said that you aren’t to change the meaning of the Form. “For all” clearly changes the meaning of the form as you have admitted by saying that Christ’s antecedent intention is in the words “for all.” However, since Christ didn’t use “for all” His expressed intent, because He used “for many” and not “for all” was about the fruits. This is the point you won’t admit, because you can’t do so without condemning the religion you think is the true Catholic one. Therefore, you justify the change and then give an explanation that still condemns your religion. You simply lose this argument!
>>>Why did Rome change Christ’s words or do away with them and filling them with words He never spoke?
X: Rome has said the validity of the Masses is not in dispute, nor the orthodoxy of the explanation, but a more faithful translation of the Latin original is nonetheless possible.
SS: A more faithful translation? You simply don’t know what you are talking about. Rome has admitted that “for all” is not a faithful translation which is why they are changing it back to “for many” this fall.
>>>Are you and Rome suggesting that Christ didn’t really mean what he said or that it would have been better if He used “For all”?
X: Of course not, that is an unjust accusation. We are merely saying the Masses are valid and it must be understand in accord with the mind of the Church as “an explanation etc”
SS: Unjust accusation? You have given me nothing to think differently. I still accuse your new-age religion of unjustly changing the Words of Christ with an explanation that condemns themselves all the more.
>>>Again, when Christ said “for many” AT the Last Supper, He had a very specific reason.
X: And likewise when He said “for the world” He had a very specific reason. Virtues and fruits, and either one can be emphasised.
SS: Yes, but that was not at the Last Supper now was it? So you continue to condemn yourself and your religion for replacing Christ’s specific reason for using “for many” with words that don’t reflect it.
>>>SS: When did Rome teach it? Where specifically?
X: On 17 Oct 2006, the Congregation for Divine Worship said so, and set about 5 years for the more faithful translation to come into effect, which will be this Nov.
SS: I first stated, “It is not orthodox to take something Christ said somewhere and place it somewhere else where He spoke something else. And you replied, “Sure, it is, when the Magisterium of the Church has clarified that it is actually, I quote, “an explanation of the sort that properly belongs to catechesis.” I then asked, “Who wrote that “an explanation of the sort that properly belongs to catechesis” meaning that it can change the words of Christ?…when and where specifically?” AND low and behold you give me the CDW of 2006 to justify their wrong doing. This is really amazing to me! You give me a defense from the source that is guilty to begin with. Think about how you are arguing with me. I say Modernist Rome is doing something wrong and contrary to the Church, and you argue that Rome has taught that’s okay and the Rome you’re referring to is the same Modernist Rome that is doing the wrong and then justifying it. You see, as long as your religion says it’s okay, you believe it. Therefore, you will justify anything they justify. Don’t you see the flaw in your argumentation? Will you concede that you can’t argue this way? I don’t want to sound rude or arrogant, but you have to see that why this is wrong.
>>>SS: I don’t think you understand what we’re talking about here. What do you think it means?
X: Different theological solutions have been offered to the question. I would merely hold a theological solution that compromised the Church, by saying she could be in material schism, to be inadmissible. I would say the faithful are not in schism at all, even if the election is invalid.
SS: You didn’t answer the question, but it doesn’t really matter. It’s another topic for another day. This reply has gotten way to long already. Would you agree with me on this point?
Dear Xavier,
X: Hi. Yes, correction: I meant *not an explanation about the fruits
Just a word: “The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments pointed out that “for all” is not a literal translation of “pro multis”, nor of the words “περὶ πολλῶν” in Matthew 26:28 or “ὑπὲρ πολλῶν” in Mark 14:24. “For all”, it said, is not so much a translation as “an explanation of the sort that belongs properly to catechesis”.
I’m not saying, Rome is right because Rome says so, as you make it out. I’m merely clarifying what is the mind of the Church today first, and then pointing out that it is not heretical nor contrary to the historic Faith.
SS: Wait a second. You based the orthodoxy of changing the form based on the CDW teachings. I stated that it was not orthodox, you said it was because the Church clarified it, I said where and when, and you give me something from modernist Rome. So you are saying Rome is right because Rome says so, or else you wouldn’t have gone down this route with me asking about the orthodoxy of it all.
>>>“Why did Rome change Christ’s words OR DO AWAY WITH THEM AND FILLING THEM WITH WORDS HE NEVER SPOKE?
X: Firstly, Rome didn’t do away with it in the Latin.
SS: Never said it did. I’ve been clear about this, so why bring it up, again?
X: When “for all” was used, and the question was asked, is it valid. Rome said, Yes it is, and is to be understood as an explanation but “for many” is still a more faithful translation.
SS: I’ve clearly shown why Rome’s explanation is false and ridiculous.
X: Second, it simply isn’t true that “He never spoke” it.
SS: He never spoke it AT THE LAST SUPPER. I’ve been very clear about everything that I’ve been saying and you keep twisting my words. Why do you keep doing this?
X: Christ did say He will give His flesh for the life of the world. See, this is why we’re not going to agree. You say that we can’t say what Christ said about His flesh, just because He didn’t say it at the Last Supper. While I think we may reasonably doubt your claim.
SS: We’re not going to agree because Rome has already taught that you must have the right words with the right intention. “For all” are not the words spoken at the Last Supper because Christ specifically had his reason for using “for many” which are the right words and the right intention. I’ve was perfectly clear about this in my last response to you.
>>>However, since Christ didn’t use “for all” His expressed intent, because He used “for many” and not “for all” was about the fruits. This is the point you won’t admit, because you can’t do so without condemning the religion you think is the true Catholic one.
X: Christ expressed both intentions in the Gospel about the Eucharist.
SS: NOT AT THE LAST SUPPER WHICH IS THE ISSUE AT HAND!
X: In the one place He emphasized the virtues and in the other the fruits.
SS: Christ only emphasized one of them at the Last Supper. Your religion is not happy with the one that He chose to use.
X: This is Our Lord’s own Eucharistic sermon about His flesh. Would any man say it was an unworthy explanation? Would any one say it cannot be incorporated into the Mass?
SS: Yes, it cannot be incorporated at the consecration because that is not what Christ said and meant AT THE LAST SUPPER. He was very specific and your religion has allowed a doing away with those words and intention in over 95% of all masses.
X: It is an explanation, that is all, like “the mystery of Faith” was, to be understood according to the mind of the Church today.
SS: Again, you’re comparing apples with oranges. I’ve explained the difference in past replies.
>>>This reply has gotten way to long already. Would you agree with me on this point?
X: Yes, I do.
SS: One good thing about all of this is that no stone will be left unturned. I think all of them have been unturned now. I don’t know where else we can go. It doesn’t look like you’re going to budge, and I will never capitulate to changing or doing away with those crucial words of Our Lord at the consecration, especially in light of the fact that the Catholic Church has never done so with Rome only doing it 1940 years after the Last Supper.
Well, yes, it’s been an interesting and, in many ways, enlightening, discussion. we do seem to have touched on every facet almost. But it doesn’t look like we’re going to agree. So, what now? Perhaps we should stop. May the good Lord lead us all to truth and salvation.
Dear Xavier,
I can only say BRAVO for your persistence.
Let me ask you a hypothetical question…
If Ratzinger declared that he does not believe in some dogma of the Church such as Transubstantiation, would you recognize him as pope? Why or why not?
God bless!
Steven
Likewise, Steven, I commend you for your patience. Anyway, my answer to your question is yes, the Pope is only a servant of Christian truth, not its master. He cannot deny the dogma of transubstantiation. This would cause him to lose his office.
Wait as second. Yes, you would recognize him as pope, but he would have still lost his office? Did you mean no rather that yes?
Let me ask you in a different way.
If Ratzinger taught officially the dogma of transubstantiation in this catechism and that document but denied it personally in this interview and that letter or telegram, would you still consider him pope?
In other words, he tells everybody what the dogma is but at the same time doesn’t actually hold to what he preaches and teaches by example. Is he still pope?
A Pope can lose his office and cease to be Pope, according to theologians. So that is my answer to your scenario.
Xavier,
You’re giving answers but they are not to my questions.
I’m asking very simple yes or no questions.
First, you say yes, to my question that you would recognize Ratzinger as pope he didn’t believe in transubstantiation, but he would not be pope.
And then I asked:
If Ratzinger taught officially the dogma of transubstantiation in this catechism and that document but denied it personally in this interview and that letter or telegram, would you still consider him pope?
In other words, he tells everybody what the dogma is but at the same time doesn’t actually hold to what he preaches and teaches by example. Is he still pope?
There is a reason for these questions. Your first answer didn’t make any sense to me unless you meant to say no rather than yes.
Thanks.
Steven
Yeah, I did mean no. The Pope cannot change the deposit of Faith, though he may define a deeper insight into it dogmatically ex cathedra if he wishes. Still, it is clear that Pope Benedict XVI does teach and believe in transubstantiation not only officially but also personally.
>>>If Ratzinger taught officially the dogma of transubstantiation in this catechism and that document but denied it personally in this interview and that letter or telegram, would you still consider him pope?
No, but the denial would have to be plain and evident to all who read it. Simply if a Pope refers to the consecrated host as “bread”, for example, you cannot construe that to deny the dogma. He may mean Christ, as the Bread of Life, or be referring not to its substantial reality but its accidental reality. Such statements are found even in Scripture.
A Pope is not infallible save on the rarest of occasions and it is possible in a private letter, with the Pope, just like with any one of us, that one mispeaks without intending to, or does not express oneself with the accuracy contained in documents of the Magisterium. But since sedevacantists believe there is no Magisterium currently, no divine protection ensured, then they should consider official Encyclicals are also just personal reflection and so an accurate representation of what Rome’s leaders today believe, since there is no guidance of the Spirit in the Magisterium today, according to them.
Dear Xavier,
It is true. Benedict does teach and believe transubstantiation. I was speaking hypothetically when using this example. Some sedevacantists have taken his words “Christ is in the bread” to mean that he believes in consubstantiation. I don’t. While the phrase is definitely ambiguous, in one sense, Christ is in the bread if you mean the accidents of bread.
Now, let’s go back to our exchange with JP2’s statement on Christ’s descent into hell, because we never finished this part of our exchange. I’ll take those relevant points out and arrange them below for us to go over.
I asked you on Nov. 19, 2010, “Have you looked at JP2′s rejection of the historic understanding of the Dogma Christ descents into hell? You can find it here https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/one-of-the-great-heresies-of-john-paul-ii-in-his-own-words/
You responded, “It seems to me his teaching here was quite in line with that, have you looked at this? No it doesn’t say “limbo”, but it says he went down to the realm of the dead, not to deliver the damned but the souls of the just before Him.”
I (Steven) stated, “JP2 is very clear that he means that one dies and is buried. That’s it. He uses all the right phrases and then explains them all incorrectly. He is not in line at all. As a matter of fact, he is word for word contrary to Pope St. Pius V.”
You brought up the 1990’s Catechism of the Catholic Church and used it as a defense that JP2 actually believed the doctrine correctly since he approved of the catechism. You continued with: “Even that portion says “those who in the days of Christ’s death and burial were already in the “realm of the dead” ” I fail to see where the problem lies.”
I stated, “Because he explains that realm of the dead is just an expression for being dead and buried. There is no actual realm of the dead in JP2 teachings. It is merely a metaphor. Will you descend into hell when you die? JP2 says yes, because descend into hell just means being dead and buried. However, Christ actually went to an actual place. Whatever the catechism states, JP2 clearly teaches to the contrary. Are you not going to admit this simple point?
You stated, “Yes, I don’t “admit it”, because I don’t agree.”
I came back with, “Well, try reading my piece first. It is so clear that my brother and his Doctor Vat2 priest refuse to answer it…I’m trying to get you to admit that JP2′s teaching a heresy? Will you do so? If not, why?
You Xavier responded, “Please show me the negation of a dogma in any of his statements. Remember that any theologian has a right to his own style of expression, so if he did seem to teach something, we ought to clarify it with him, which I think we can do with the Catechism, rather than accuse him presumptuously.
I stated: Please read that piece. JP2 couldn’t have been more clear. >>>Because he explains that realm of the dead is just an expression for being dead and buried. There is no actual realm of the dead in JP2 teachings. It is merely a metaphor. Please read my piece here and see my comments.
Xavier replied, “I did read it, Steven. I think what the Holy Father is saying is a metaphor is “heart of the earth”. I don’t think we are required to believe hell is in the literal heart of the earth within the temporal and spatial realm at least.
My final come back which you never replied was: “No Xavier. He clearly says that descent into hell is merely the expression of dying and being buried. For example, look at this quote…“During the three (incomplete) days between the moment when he “expired” (cf. Mk 15:37) and the resurrection, Jesus experienced the state of death”, that is, the , as in the case of all people. This is the primary meaning of the words “he descended into hell”; they are linked to what Jesus himself had foretold when, in reference to the story of Jonah. he had said: “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so ” (Mt 12:40).” Will you descend into hell when you die, Xavier? JP2 says you will, but this is nonsense! JP2 continues over and over to explain everything as a metaphor for death and burial.”
What say you?
God Bless,
Steven
Not accidental reality, but *accidental appearance.
Dear Xavier,
Allow me to answer your reply below…
X: I read it again. The portion you have posted on your site seems to omit some parts because it is grammatically incorrect and leaves some portions in ” ” without text. So I looked up the entire General Audience.
SS: I didn’t leave anything out within the context. However, your following comments completely miss what JP2 explains with each point. You’re not dealing with JP2’s own explanation. Keep reading…
X: 1. I believe you neglect the many parts where Pope John Paul II speaks specifically about the soul. Witness, “It is Christ—laid in the tomb as regards the body, but glorified in his soul admitted —who communicates his state of beatitude to all the just whose state of death he shares in regard to the body.
SS: How did JP2 explain the communication? He says by Christ’s sharing His glorified state of the soul “to all the just whose state of death he shares in regard to the body.” JP2 is not saying that he went to an actual place of the dead but merely shares the state of death with regard to the body.
X: The Letter to the Hebrews describes his freeing of the souls of the just … In this is manifested and put into effect of Christ’s sacrificial death which brought redemption to all, even to those who died before his coming and his “descent into hell”, but who were contacted by his justifying grace.”
SS: Freeing from what? If you keep reading, you find that JP2 is saying that they are freed from the state of death, not that their souls are detained in actual place.
X: This proves that he holds that.
X: a. The souls were “freed” proving that they were in a detained state
SS: No one is disputing that the souls were freed from a detained state. What is that detained state according to JP2? JP2 is clear that they are merely freed from the state of death. According to JP2, “state of death” means a separation of body and soul, not that the souls are being detained somewhere in an actual place. Never once does JP2 allude to an actual place, but rather teaches that the meaning for “descended into hell’ is merely a separation of body and soul. This is why I’m submitting that JP2’s General Audience is heretical.
You can’t conclude that JP2 believed that Christ actually went to an actual place since “detained state” based on JP2 explanation is merely a state of death. JP2 is quite clear that descent into hell is merely a metaphorical expression for dying and being buried.
X: b. Only the just were saved, and all the just before Christ were saved.
SS: Not part of the dispute since, according to JP2, the just were saved from a mere state of death, not from a real place. JP2 even explains that St. Peter’s Epistle “In spirit he [Christ] went and preached to the spirits in prison” (1 Pet 3:19)”…means, “This seems to indicate metaphorically the extension of Christ’s salvation to the just men and women who had died before him.” Notice that JP2 is not confirming that the prison really is exists which the just souls are actually detained. It’s only a metaphor.
X: c. This was done by the merits of Christ, His soul communicating His beatitude to them, and sanctifying grace was imparted to them that they may enter paradise.
SS: I’ve already explained what he means with your point here above. So far, you haven’t dealt with the subject about Christ actually going to that place of the just souls.
X: The Pope goes on to explain this later, “With the entrance of Christ’s soul into the beatific vision in the bosom of the Trinity, the “” of the just who had descended to the realm of the dead before Christ, finds its point of reference and explanation. Through Christ and in Christ there opens up before them the definitive freedom of the life of the Spirit, as a participation in the Life of God ”
This is an orthodox explanation. With regard to the difficulties you claim it poses, let me point out and respond to your comments.
SS: JP2 simply explains that “realm of the dead” just means being dead, which is what descent into hell is for JP2. Hell is the issue we’re after, not just being dead.
X: 2. As to each,
a. The tomb: The Pope merely affirms the burial of Christ, an ancient article of Christian faith, found in Scripture in the earliest known Christian Creed, possibly within 2 years of Our Lord’s Resurrection, and a great witness of its historicity.
SS: Not the issue. I’ve already explained that “descended into hell” simply means, for JP2, died and being buried.
X: b. “All people”: Here the Pope is interested in pointing out that Christ was in every way like all of us, and so dies as we do, so that His soul too was separated from His body.
SS: You didn’t read JP2 very carefully. Again, he stated, “Jesus experienced the “state of death,” that is, the separation of body and soul, as in the case of all people. This is the primary meaning of the words “he descended into hell”;
X: c. “Limbo of the Fathers”: The Pope does affirm this, without using this particular term, because he speaks quite clearly, like I said above, of the “freeing” of the just souls, indicating that they were in a detained state and moreover deprived of the beatific vision before His death.
SS: You’re missing the point. JP2 doesn’t say, nor imply that Christ went to the actual place that we call limbo of the fathers. According to JP2, that “freeing” just means that the just souls were no longer in a state of death.
X: d. “Metaphors”: The intent here is to convey that what is to us on earth as “three days” will probably not be that same amount of time for them. Moreover, it says that in these “three days”, the Redemption of Christ was extended to all, that is those from all times and places.
SS: JP2 is clear that “descended into hell” itself is a metaphor. In fact, he calls it an, “experience of death” – “placed in a tomb” – “separation of body and soul” – “as is the case of all people” and this is “the primary meaning.” Will you descend into hell, Xavier?
X: e. “Heart of the earth”: Like I said, I don’t think the Church has ever bound us to believe that hell is under the earth. I think it is the more probable opinion, actually, personally, and I do believe it literally, that yes, hell is under the earth, and in its heart or centre or core, and I see no reason not to believe this, but it is surely permissible to hold the other opinion, that souls are detained in some other state or even dimension we can have very little comprehension of.
This suffices as a reply to your objections and comments in the link.
SS: Again, JP2 said that “region of death, “abode of the dead,” “abyss,” and “lower parts of the earth” are all parallel passages meaning that, “Christ passed through a real experience of death, including the final moment which is generally a part of the whole process: he was placed in the tomb. Over and over again, JP2 explains what “descended into hell” means, and he never states, implies, alludes to an actual place. If fact, he denies that there is an actual place and calls it a “metaphorical expression.”
So again, I ask you Xavier. Since JP2 said, “Jesus experienced the “state of death,” that is, the separation of body and soul, as in the case of all people. This is the primary meaning of the words “he descended into hell”…Will you descend into hell when you die?
Dear Xavier,
My replies below…
X: Answer: No, those who die in the state of grace won’t descend into hell.
SS: Then you reject what JP2 teaches, because he said, “Jesus experienced the “state of death,” that is, the separation of body and soul, as in the case of all people. This is the primary meaning of the words “he descended into hell”…” JP2 is implying that everybody descends into hell because everybody experiences death or separation of body and soul. Why are you not seeing this?
X: Before Christ, it was true that the state of death was a descent into hell, even for the just.
SS: Sure, you and I believe this, but JP2 is saying that ‘THE PRIMARY MEANING OF” “descended into hell” is the “state of death” and that this “the case of ALL people.”
X: He also confirms the souls were freed from imprisonment.
SS: What does JP2 mean by “freeing from imprisonment”? You and I believe it means that the just souls were freed from an actual place which we call “hell” “limbo of the just” “Abraham’s bosom” “prison” because Christ also went there, but not JP2. He simply means from a “state of death” and Christ Himself does not go there, because His soul immediately is gloried and then He only gives these just souls eternal life, but doesn’t actually go there. Understand now? Again, JP2 is said, “‘THE PRIMARY MEANING OF” “descended into hell” is the “state of death” and that this “the case of ALL people.” Not that Christ Himself actually goes to some state of existence as the just souls, but only that His soul separated from His body because that is the primary meaning of the doctrine.
X: Not the bodies from a tomb or whatever, but the souls, who were moreover at the point deprived of the beatific vision.
SS: Yes, just merely deprived of the beatific vision, but not deprived of the beatific vision in an actual place where Christ goes. This is what I’m trying to get you to see, or not see depending how you mean it. LOL.
X: The preaching may be said to be “metaphorical” insofar as what was really given them was the grace of the Gospel message, the truth that sets them free, and the Holy Spirit’s indwelling sanctification. So what is the problem?
SS: The problem is that you are not understanding JP2’s message. You read our beliefs into it and not for what JP2 says alone.
X: The full speech is here. http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP890111.HTM In para 7, it says “the “” of the just” which your version does not recount leaving it in blank quotes.
SS: I’m not sure what you are reading because my version also has “of the just” but that is not the issue anyway.
X: So, again, he makes the two important affirmations which are crucial.
1. The souls were freed from imprisonment
SS: Agreed, but from what imprisonment are we talking about and how? In hell where Christ goes as you and I believe, or in some state of existence that Christ does not actually go (descend) as JP2 taught?
2. They were previously deprived of the beatific vision.
SS: Agreed, but how are they deprived of the beatific vision is the issue
X: This alone is sufficient, is it not?
SS: Not at all, as I’ve explained. Don’t you find it queer that JP2 makes no mention of or alludes to “hell” (limbo of the just) as an actual place where Christ Himself actually goes to?
X: Since he talks about their souls, you can’t say that he merely meant that the souls were “imprisoned” by being separated from their body.
SS: Not entirely. He means imprisoned by being in a state where there are no moments which is why Christ doesn’t go there.
X: To me, it seems the crux of your disagreement is because you believe hell must be a literal place within material space-time, whereas I would think it is permissible to hold that it is merely a spiritual state of detention in some sort of different dimension. Would you say this is impermissible? Scripture speaks both of hellfire and the outer darkness, though fire would light up a place, for all we know.
SS: What spiritual state of detention is where the disagreement is. You and I believe that it is a literal place in a moment to moment plane where Christ actually descends to, but not necessarily in a material space-time. JP2 is saying that all these just souls experienced the same moment (not place) of existence. Again, Christ doesn’t actually descend into hell (place/state of existence which the just souls are) but only communicates his state of beatitude to them because ‘THE PRIMARY MEANING OF” “descended into hell” is the “state of death” and that this “the case of ALL people.”
Do you agree with this statement of JP2 about what the primary meaning of descended into hell is?
It had said “freeing from imprisonment” in para 7 but for some reason, it didn’t get copied above. Possibly because I included it in quotes and tags.
Dear Xavier,
My reply…
>>>SS: Then you reject what JP2 teaches, because he said, “Jesus experienced the “state of death,” that is, the separation of body and soul, as in the case of all people. This is the primary meaning of the words “he descended into hell”…” JP2 is implying that everybody descends into hell because everybody experiences death or separation of body and soul. Why are you not seeing this?
X: It is true for all people that their bodies are separated from their souls, that is all. Since the state of death involved a descent into hell for all people before Christ, the Pope’s intention is here to emphasise that Christ shared in this aspect as well of our humanity.
SS: I’m glad you understand the true doctrine. Really, I do. We both agree what it is. However, you’ve completely misunderstood JP2. He is not saying what you just said above. He could have easily explained it as you have done. He is not talking about those before Christ or anything like that. He is saying plainly that the “descended into hell” just means dying where the soul departs from the body which happens to everybody. I’ve sent this to theologians and they all agree with me that something is not right about it. You’re just trying to interpret it to fit our true belief and I applaud you for trying because you want him to be teaching correctly such an obvious doctrine, but JP2 is denying what you are saying and believe.
SS: He simply means from a “state of death” and Christ Himself does not go there, because His soul immediately is gloried and then He only gives these just souls eternal life, but doesn’t actually go there. Understand now?
X: So what does it mean that the souls are “in a state of death” which is also called by him an “imprisonment”? It means exactly that, that they are in a state akin to the place that was called limbus patrum. Scripture also speaks of hell as a spiritual death, so this is an acceptable metaphor to express the reality.
SS: No, no, no. He doesn’t mean that at all. I wish that I could just speak with you because this takes so much time typing out, and I’m not sure how to do it in a way that you’ll get what I’m saying.
SS: Yes, just merely deprived of the beatific vision, but not deprived of the beatific vision in an actual place where Christ goes. This is what I’m trying to get you to see, or not see depending how you mean it. LOL.
X: Place or state are the same thing, like I said. Place would probably indicate that it has to be within material space time while state allows for both interpretations, each of which you said you accept.
SS: It’s both, but what type of state is what I’m trying to explain, which I’m not doing a very good job of doing.
>>>SS: The problem is that you are not understanding JP2’s message.
X: And I say you are likewise misunderstanding it! You don’t have to suspect someone of heresy just because he calls something metaphorical.
SS: JP2 is calling “descended into hell” a metaphor for death only. This is heretical.
>>>SS: I’m not sure what you are reading because my version also has “of the just” but that is not the issue anyway.
X: I meant to quote “freeing from imprisonment” like I explained, but it didn’t get copied.
SS: No problem. I gave the explanation of it…even if a poor one.
>>>SS: Agreed, but from what imprisonment are we talking about and how? In hell where Christ goes as you and I believe, or in some state of existence that Christ does not actually go (descend) as JP2 taught?
X: It is clear that the Pope does say that Christ does go there, since He is said to communicate His beatitude to them, but remember the human soul of Christ remains hypostatically united to God the Word forever, and thus to the Blessed Trinity as well.
SS: What do you think “communicated His beatitude to them” mean?
>>>SS: Not at all, as I’ve explained. Don’t you find it queer that JP2 makes no mention of or alludes to “hell” (limbo of the just) as an actual place where Christ Himself actually goes to?
X: Everytime I show where he did, you’ll say he just meant it as a “metaphor”.
>>>SS: Not entirely. He means imprisoned by being in a state where there are no moments which is why Christ doesn’t go there.
X: What does this mean “no moments”? He clearly speaks of “before” the death of Christ which is many “moments”, though time is probably not reckoned even in limbo or purgatory according to our understanding, as many Saints have opined.
SS: I mean something else, but that’s okay. I’ll have to explain it to you later.
>>>SS: JP2 is saying that all these just souls experienced the same moment (not place) of existence. Again, Christ doesn’t actually descend into hell (place/state of existence which the just souls are) but only communicates his state of beatitude to them
X: What does this mean, “Moment (not place)”? They were in a “state”, not necessarily, but quite possibly a “place”. There were “moments” because there is a before and an after the Redemption of Christ. Statements like His communication of His state of beatitude and their coming into contact with His justifying grace, such expressions prove that the Pope did believe that Christ shared their “state” as well, but only to liberate them, not to be imprisoned Himself.
SS: No, JP2 said that Christ shared their state as for as the body was concerned.
>>>because ‘THE PRIMARY MEANING OF” “descended into hell” is the “state of death” and that this “the case of ALL people.”Do you agree with this statement of JP2 about what the primary meaning of descended into hell is?
X: Sigh. I repeat, “It is true for all people that their bodies are separated from their souls, that is all. Since the state of death involved a descent into hell for all people before Christ, the Pope’s intention is here to emphasise that Christ shared in this aspect as well of our humanity.”
SS: Again, I repeat that you misunderstand and misrepresent what JP2 said and meant. I just showed in the previous paragraph what he said and you twist it to fit our belief, when in fact, what JP2 said is plainly heretical. JP2 intention here was to emphasize that Christ merely died and that is all “descended into hell” means. This has been previously condemned by the Catechism of Trent. Go back and read the Catechism on this point and see how and why JP2’s statement is heretical.
“With the entrance of Christ’s soul into the beatific vision in the bosom of the Trinity, the “freeing from imprisonment” of the just who had descended to the realm of the dead before Christ, finds its point of reference and explanation. Through Christ and in Christ there opens up before them the definitive freedom of the life of the Spirit, as a participation in the Life of God”
He says the just were freed from the imprisonment they had previously had in the realm of the dead. Now, of course, you will say, the realm of the dead is a metaphor for the tomb. But it is not a metaphor, since the whole passage is about souls. Even Scripture uses the “grave” as a “metaphor” for hell.
Since something is “opened up”, they didn’t previously have it, which also means, there are “moments” here. He also says that within the three days, even those in the most distant generations of the past were evangelized and redeemed.
And also they had “descended to the realm of the dead before Christ”. None of this is about their bodies, it is all about the souls.
It is JP2 that is calling “descended into hell” a metaphor for death.
Dear Xavier,
My reply below…
X: Well, there it is, then. We’ve both stated our case, myself defending the Holy Father and you charging him with heresy.
SS: You have not defended him at all. As a matter of fact, you have implied that JP2 was an idiot. JP2 was so blatantly heretical in his statement that you had to insert “the Pope’s intention is here to emphasise” but you didn’t base his intention on what he actually stated. You couldn’t. You based what you thought JP2’s intention was from the correct Catholic teaching that just souls before Christ descended into hell. The phrase “descended into hell” was a consequence after death when the soul separates from the body. JP2 taught that “descended into hell” IS DEATH! That’s why he stated the “THE PRIMARY MEANING OF” “descended into hell” is the “state of death” and that this “the case of ALL people.” The phrase “all people” was not a reference to the time before Christ as you tried to explain. JP2 just meant death, which happens to everybody. He is so clear and you had to explain that he didn’t mean what he stated. In other words, you are implying that JP2 was so stupid that he couldn’t say it correctly. At the same time, however, you did yourself no justice because you really believe that JP2 words really taught and meant the true doctrine. It’s not even close!
X: What now? It would be simple if we could bring the accused to the stand, or at least if the prosecution would permit the use of other works in which he played a role? In the absence of that, I think it’s reasonable to say my client must be held to be innocent till proven guilty. Seriously, though I don’t see how we can go any further.
SS: Actually, you have backwards. 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).
Pope Innocent IV, 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.)
X: As for me, if I believe in the true doctrine, it is surely because of the explicitly clear teaching of the holy Catholic Church in her living voice today. “This was the first meaning given in the apostolic preaching to Christ’s descent into hell: that Jesus, like all men, experienced death and in his soul joined the others in the realm of the dead. But he descended there as Savior, proclaiming the Good News to the spirits imprisoned there.”
SS: I know you believe in the true doctrine, but JP2 clearly did not. What you say is contrary to what he said. Your explanation is contrary to the face value of the plain words used by JP2. You may believe you own explanation is correct for JP2, but you would be only fooling yourself.
X: Many of the passages in the CCC even appear to have been taken verbatim from this General Audience, in fact, and with some additional explanations as well. What will you say, that Pope John Paul II suddenly discovered the true doctrine?
SS: Not at all. The CCC uses the right words as did JP2, but the explanation for those words is what got JP2 in trouble. The Catechism of Trent is much clearer and precise than the CCC.
X: Or that someone else wrote it correctly for him? I really think it is simply more likely that he always believed what the Catechism expresses.
SS: Oh, he believed it the way the CCC expresses it. But the CCC is slightly ambiguous and leaves room for a heretical understanding, unlike the Catechism of Trent.
Perhaps, I should move on to one last thing and see how you handle it.
The question is about heretical and schismatic churches. Are they a part of the one true Church of Christ?
Dear Xavier,
My reply below…
X: See, you want to be judge, jury and executioner.
SS: Christ said to beware of false teachers and when I do, and tell others, I’m accused of wanting to be judge, jury, and executioner. This argument is invalid because we all do what I’m doing. Do you believe Michael is pope along with Benedict XVI? No, you don’t, and you’ll give your reasoning, right or wrong, because you must make that judgment.
X: Who decides between you and someone else? You said yourself that other sedevacantists, no doubt as sure of themselves as you are, believe Pope Benedict guilty of denying transubstantion, yet you acquit him of that charge. Not to mention the numerous aspects on which sedevacantists disagree among themselves.
SS: I don’t acquit anyone. I deny that the charge is valid because of the misapplication of the words Ratzinger used. I’ve already explained it. The argument that sedevacantists disagree among themselves is invalid. Vat2 apologists use the same invalid argument against Protestants. We all disagree among ourselves. You Vat2ites all disagree among yourselves on many, many things, some of which concern both doctrines and disciplines which is understandable. What we cannot disagree among ourselves are defined doctrines and prohibited practices.
X: ‘All people’ qualifies the experience of death and the separation of body and soul. And the “state of death” also would have resulted in a descent into hell for all humanity since Adam, had it not been for the advent of Christ. Again, Scripture uses metaphors like the grave to describe hell itself in the first place. A metaphor is not an error, what matters is what the metaphor was meant to convey.
SS: You’re completely missing the point. JP2 is saying that “descended into hell” IS DEATH. In other words, it is an expression of death. That’s it. You and I know that “descended into hell” is what happened to those who died before Christ, it is not death itself.
X: The like expression, “like all men” is found in the Catechism also. And no, it is the Catechism that in fact explains it in much more depth, so your other argument is invalid.
SS: No, my argument is valid because the CCC stated the issue differently and if JP2 stated it the very same way, we wouldn’t be discussing the issue. The expressions “like all men” or “in the case for all people” itself is not the problem. JP2 didn’t say that the primary meaning of descended into hell was that Christ joined all those in the realm of the dead after he died. Look at it again, “between the moment when he “expired” (cf. Mk 15:37) and the resurrection, Jesus experienced the “state of death,” that is, the separation of body and soul, as in the case of all people. This is the primary meaning of the words “he descended into hell” THIS IS HERETICAL! First, there is death which means the soul separates from the body, then that just soul descends into hell. Death and descended into hell are not one and the same thing. JP2 is saying they are one and the same thing. Christ’s death and Christ’s descent into hell are two different issues.
X: I’m not an expert in canon law, but I’m sure it does not look too highly on bringing a false accusation against a Roman Pontiff either and stipulates a just penalty for it. Again, who decides. You hold one position and I hold another. At the very least, there should be some appointed arbitrator between us, we’re obviously not going to settle it amongst ourselves.
SS: False accusations are one thing, but this is not the case. Bringing up a false accusation against a pope would be a terrible error. You hold the same position I do about the doctrine. Your position about JP2 on the doctrine is clearly erroneous. JP2 is clearly rejecting the historic doctrine, which by the way, had already been specifically condemned in the Catechism of Trent. What JP2 taught was taught before a long time ago. It’s not new.
X: My answer to your last and final point is no, they are not.
SS: Would you also say that it is de fide that heretical and schismatics are not part of the Church of Christ?
Dear Xavier,
My reply below…
X: Nobody who brought up an accusation deemed false by a legitimate authority ever thought himself that he was doing so.
SS: Because a legitimate authority deemed something false doesn’t make is so either, so your point is moot.
X: As for Michael, the election of schismatics separated from the communion of the Church is null and void.
SS: He believes you are the schismatic and what do you have to prove otherwise? You have become the same judge, jury, and executioner that you accuse me of. Just to let you know, I agree with you about his status as being outside of the Church, so I’m next to you as that judge, jury, and executioner.
X: He holds the same position against the Church that sedevacantists do, and it is he who needs to establish his claims about the validly elected Roman Pontiffs from lawful conclaves, not us.
SS: You can’t establish that your “popes” are true popes. We have had true Roman Pontiffs in the Catholic Church that were invalidly elected and from unlawful conclaves. Did you know that?
X: It is a perfectly valid argument, used before the Second Vatican Council as well, about disagreements. Catholic disagreements within ourselves are legitimate, for neither anathematizes the other party, nor holds such views that would necessarily be mutually anathematizing of the other. The same cannot be said for either sedevacantists or Protestants.
SS: Sorry, but you don’t a valid argument at all. Sedevacantism is a position, not a religion. There are Catholic sedevacantists and there are heretical sedevacantists. You have the SSPX. Are they part of your religion? Are they 100% Catholic in your book? As for Protestants, many of them don’t recognize others as true Christians either. You believe you are the true Christian, but you have so-called Catholics who attend your services that call themselves Catholic while rejecting the teaching on abortion, contraception, etc. They truly are not part of your religion just because they call themselves Catholic. Just because someone calls himself a sedevacantist doesn’t mean that he is a true Catholic who holds the position. So you must concede that your argument is invalid.
X: Yes, I think it probably is de fide. I don’t know if it is, I don’t think I need to know in personal life, I’m open to any sources you may show me. Regardless, I believe it without doubt regarding their groups and sects that they are outside the one, Catholic Church of Christ.
SS: Okay then. Now take a look at these statements by your “popes” and tell me how they are not rejecting the teaching of the Church when they refer to heretical and schismatic bishops as pastors in the Church of Christ:
Common Declaration with [schismatic/heretic] Orthodox Chrysostomos II, June 16, 2007: “We, Benedict XVI, Pope and Bishop of Rome, and Chrysostomos II, Archbishop of Nea Justiniana and All Cyprus… we assure our faithful of our fervent prayers as Pastors in the Church…”
Letter to [schismatic/heretic] Romanian Patriarchate, published August 2, 2007: “In conveying my closeness in prayer at this time of grief, I also wish to express my earnest good wishes for you and your brother Bishops as you guide the Church in this time of transition.”
Joint Declaration with [schismatic/heretic] Patriarch Bartholomew, Nov. 30, 2006: “This fraternal encounter which brings us together, Pope Benedict XVI of Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, is God’s work, and in a certain sense his gift. We give thanks to the Author of all that is good, who allows us once again, in prayer and in dialogue, to express the joy we feel as brothers and to renew our commitment to move towards full communion. This commitment comes from the Lord’s will and from our responsibility as Pastors in the Church of Christ….”
Ratzinger was echoing Paul VI who addressed in a telegram to the newly elected Patriarch of Constantinople: “At the moment when you assume a heavy charge in the service of the Church of Christ…” (L’Osservatore Romano, July 27, 1972, p. 12.)
X: However, I don’t grant that it follows that the only acceptable approach towards reunion can be to levy anathematizatons. It is theologically accurate to say that love is what will heal schism, and thus gestures borne from love can and we hope will succeed in reducing the obstacles that remain. This was seen also in her making every possible concession that was lawful to the Greeks, in the years before their final schism and definitive repudiation of the union temporarily achieved at Florence. Why didn’t the Church simply declare, that henceforth all Greeks everywhere were bound to confess the Filioque in the Creed?
SS: Because it wasn’t in there to begin with, and due to language barriers and semantics, it would not be absolutely necessary.
X: And also many of them may be in good faith.
SS: If they are, then they would be Catholic and inside the Church on a subjective level. I agree with you that may be the case.
X: St.Augustine, Doctor of the Church, not one known to mince words, goes even further, “But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics.”
SS: I agree. I wrote an entire book on the subject.
Dear Xavier,
My reply below…
X: The point is that one person brings the accusation and another judges between them. It is he who needs to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on him, not on me. I have not become anything, I follow the Church, and I don’t have communion with those outside her bosom.
SS: Have you done so with Pope Michael? Your argument is proving my point.
X: What do you mean, were “invalidly elected and from unlawful conclaves”? Are you trying to tell me Michael may be a true Pope?
SS: We have several true popes in the Catholic Church that were invalidly elected and from unlawful conclaves. I wrote a book about it.
X: It is valid because what the true teaching is clear, whether or not one may dissent from it.
SS: That’s my point! It applies for me as it does for you. Perhaps you could give me an example where it doesn’t.
X: But some Protestants even genuinely may not know, because they begin from a false premise of private judgment, what is the true doctrine concerning the Real Presence, Perpetual Virginity etc.
SS: Has nothing to do with your argument.
X: Just like sedevacantists, with a sort of “Sola Traditio” approach may not genuinely know what is the true doctrine concerning baptism of desire and blood, implicit faith, NFP and many other issues. Whereas Catholics always can and do. That some may choose to dissent from known teachings only makes their error all the more grievous, but doesn’t impugn the Church, for she has always clarified the heavenly truth in her living voice.
SS: What are you talking about? The same rule applies with you as it does with me. Besides, we are the true Catholics because we hold to the Faith. Your religion rejects the historic Faith. You don’t have true popes because they reject the historic Faith. Your “popes” are those that dissent from known teachings and that does make their error all the more grievous. The fact that you defend their errors as truth is worse, as I’ll show next.
X: My answer is that these men of particular Eastern Churches are not necessarily schismatics or heretics as it stands because they have not refused the counsel of the Catholic Church and are working towards reunion with her. Thus, in the meanwhile, as a gesture of goodwill from both sides, a certain reasonable hope of this awaited reunion may be anticipated and lived. The decision of whether to walk this path or not was contingent upon just authority. And the authority was both Papal dispensation and an Ecumenical Council, especially since after the mutual excommunications were lifted, and each side strives to find a coming together in unity and in profession of the truth until ecclesial communion may be realized.
SS: These men are patriarchs of Eastern Orthodox Churches which you have admitted are not part of the Church of Christ. Now, you say they are not necessarily schismatics or heretics? They have refused the counsel of the Church. They are heretics and schismatics because they reject 13 ecumenical councils, the teaching on the papacy, etc. You have a major contradiction here. How are your popes not rejecting de fide teaching by acknowledging bishops of the Eastern Orthodox as pastors of the Church of Christ?
Dear Xavier,
My reply …
>>>SS: Have you done so with Pope Michael? Your argument is proving my point.
X: I don’t need to. The burden of proof is on him. Do you agree with the concept of burden of proof?
SS: You have become his judge, jury, and executioner. So, yes, I agree which again proves my point in the end.
>>>SS: We have several true popes in the Catholic Church that were invalidly elected and from unlawful conclaves. I wrote a book about it.
X: Even if this is the case, this does not prove that either your point or Michael’s that the See of Peter is or was vacant.
SS: Never said it did. Go back and read why this came up. You missed the point once again.
>>>SS: That’s my point! It applies for me as it does for you. Perhaps you could give me an example where it doesn’t. Has nothing to do with your argument.
X: NFP, Baptism of desire etc. Sedevacantists, even sincere ones, may not know the correct teaching.
SS: Wait a second. Very few Vat2ites know these correctly. I have found many Vat2 priests that don’t understand BOD well. So what’s your point with naming these? Thus far, you are proving my argument to be true, not yours.
>>>Your religion rejects the historic Faith.
X: In your opinion. And we say sedevacantists are merely content to remain in schism from true Popes under a pretext.
SS: Benedict has practically admitted it himself. It’s not an opinion. It’s a fact.
>>>SS: These men are patriarchs of Eastern Orthodox Churches which you have admitted are not part of the Church of Christ. Now, you say they are not necessarily schismatics or heretics? They have refused the counsel of the Church.
X: Your argument assumes what it purports to prove. They are not necessarily schismatics for the reason I mentioned, as St.Augustine put it, because they are willing to heed the counsel of the Catholic Church. Anyway, whether or not a person is in good faith is a matter of judgment, and even a poor one does not constitute heresy. Beside, the Pope has supreme jurisdictional rights and can grant certain privileges if he deems sufficient goodwill from the other side.
SS: Please tell me that you’re joking. You’re pulling my leg, right? My argument doesn’t assume anything. Your “popes” have called non-Catholic bishops as pastors in the Church of Christ. You agree that Patriarchs of the Eastern Orthodox are “Pastors in the Church of Christ,” YES or NO? It’s that simple.
X: Even in Florence, they had rejected 10 Ecumenical Councils before both sides met together to resolve the breach. Now, of course you will say they are only listening to the “Vatican II Church”, but this is why your argument is circular. You bring this up to attempt to prove something, and then you presume that to be true in the meanwhile. Surely you see this?
SS: What are you talking about? The Catholic Church has never thought of heretical and schismatic bishops as pastors of the Church of the Christ. The rest of your statements are moot. I’ll await your answer as to whether non-Catholic bishops are pastors in the Church of Christ in light of the fact they you said the churches that these bishops head are not part of the Church of Christ. YOU HAVE TOTALLY CONTRADICTED YOURSELF.
X: Like I said, it is the Church’s discretion to decide when to lift excommunications, and to chart out a path to corporate reunion.
X: And Ecumenism has if anything been incredibly successful. Already, the East grants the concept of Papal primacy, that Rome presides in love. Kallistos Ware qualified the position he took on the Filioque many years ago recently, saying the Western development was an example of “legitimate organic orthodoxy” or something of the sort. They believe in the Assumption, though prefer to hold that the Blessed Virgin died, which is permissible in the Catholic Church, and they also generally believe in her sinlessness though they misunderstand the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. These things will very easily be resolved by theological discussion. There is no need to exercise mutual anathematizations or spew vitriol at one another in the meanwhile.
X: Were close to 300 million of them to be united again with us even 10 years from now, that alone would mean on average 5 million conversions per year since the Second Vatican Council. And would disprove the sedevacantist claims that ecumenism is incompatible with conversion. Ecumenism is about corporate reunion.
And a few months ago, Pope Benedict received a Papal tiara, as you may know, from them.
Dear Xavier,
My reply below…
>>>SS: You have become his judge, jury, and executioner. So, yes, I agree which again proves my point in the end.
X: But I don’t believe in a practically invisible or “remnant” Church without evident hierarchical authority. It is his having supported himself from this visible communion that makes it evident that he is in schism, to any Catholic in communion in Rome. But with the numerous sede groups no one can tell why Steven Speray should be more in the right than one of the conclavists or the Dimond Brothers or any other sedevacantist.
SS: But I’m still Catholic in your book, right? This would include the Dimonds and every other sedevacantist and conclavist, right?
>>>SS: Never said it did. Go back and read why this came up. You missed the point once again.
X: I didn’t miss the point. He needs to prove the election was uncanonical or invalid, before I give heed or credence to his pretended “election”.
SS: He has already given his reasoning and you have judged him. Perhaps you judged and executed him without looking at his reasoning.
>>>SS: Wait a second. Very few Vat2ites know these correctly.
X: But the teaching of the Church is clear if they did. You miss the point. These are necessarily anathematizing issues among you. Among us, those who don’t know can look it up.
SS: I didn’t miss anything. These are necessarily anathematizing issues among you too. Your argument doesn’t follow logic. We can look up what makes for a Catholic too. You can’t do anything that we can’t.
>>>SS: It’s not an opinion. It’s a fact.
X: The only fact is that most lay Catholics in communion with Rome do not differ, as to what pertains to the Faith, from reasonable sedevacantists. We embrace all the doctrines of the Faith and they know it.
SS: No, not all of you embrace the doctrines of the Faith. JP2 didn’t with Christ’s descent into hell. Ratzinger has not with many things, too. This is why I’m here with a website.
>>>SS: Please tell me that you’re joking. You’re pulling my leg, right? My argument doesn’t assume anything. Your “popes” have called non-Catholic bishops as pastors in the Church of Christ. What are you talking about? The Catholic Church has never thought of heretical and schismatic bishops as pastors of the Church of the Christ.
X: Schism is defined as the obstinate refusal of communion with the Roman Pontiff and the bishops subject to him.
SS: Of course it is. Patriarchs of Eastern Orthodox churches have obstinately refused in believing the doctrines of the papacy and being in communion with the pope for the past 1000 years.
X: Like I said, many of these validly ordained bishops may be in good faith, and seem evidently of good will. Thus it is reasonable to judge that they are not schismatics.
SS: It is reasonable to judge them as schismatics because they in fact are, and they are heretics because they knowingly reject the papacy. We don’t judge the heart; the subjective and internal forum. We judge in the external forum only, or else every heretic would be considered a member of the Church.
X: But even if we grant that this is an erroneous judgment, it is only that, an erroneous judgment in an individual case. It is not a heresy.
SS: Wrong again. It is heretical because Eastern Orthodox churches are not part of the Church of Christ and its leaders are not in the Catholic Church, thus their pastors are not in the Church of Christ.
X: Patriarchs who are willing to bow in humble reverence, who kiss with honor the ring of the Holy Father, who deem the call to unity “urgent” can hardly be said to be obstinate schismatics.
SS: WHAT? JP2 and Ratzinger have bowed in humble reverence to the Archbishop of Canterbury. You’re sinking your own boat quickly!
X: Thus, they may be judged to be in good faith, and thus to be pastors, yet momentarily deprived of true and proper jurisdiction.
SS: It does appear that you agree with your “popes” that heretical and schismatic pastors are at the same time “Pastors in the Church of Christ.” Is this correct?
Dear Xavier,
My reply…
>>>SS: But I’m still Catholic in your book, right? This would include the Dimonds and every other sedevacantist and conclavist, right?
X: One can believe the Faith correctly and still not be in full communion with the Church. I don’t know why this came up, Steven, nor why you’d expect me to.
SS: Because you have a complete disconnect from point to point. Have you forgotten how we got here?
>>>SS: I didn’t miss anything. These are necessarily anathematizing issues among you too.
X: No, they are not. Not when both sides subject judgment to the Church, and listen to her living voice.
SS: So are you saying that if you reject her living voice, no one is anathematized?
>>>Your argument doesn’t follow logic. We can look up what makes for a Catholic too. You can’t do anything that we can’t.
X: You folks can’t follow Mat 18:15-17 for one,
SS: We most certainly can. We do it the same way you would do it during an interregnum. However, you can’t actually follow that verse anyway, since the Church Christ was referring to was the Catholic Church which I belong. You belong to the Vat2 church founded in the 1960’s.
>>>SS: No, not all of you embrace the doctrines of the Faith.
X: This is another opinion. If our Popes intended to legitimately develop a doctrine, we would want to know about it and follow them. We do not because they do not.
SS: Your “popes” have taught complete novelties found right in Vat2. You follow it and even defend it.
>>>SS: Of course it is. Patriarchs of Eastern Orthodox churches have obstinately refused in believing the doctrines of the papacy and being in communion with the pope for the past 1000 years.
X: Which is what made them schismatics then.
SS: They are schismatics now and heretics because they obstinately refuse to believe in the papacy.
>>>SS: It is reasonable to judge them as schismatics because they in fact are, and they are heretics because they knowingly reject the papacy. We don’t judge the heart; the subjective and internal forum. We judge in the external forum only, or else every heretic would be considered a member of the Church.
X: Then St.Augustine didn’t know what he was talking about. Under certain conditions, the judgment of the person or persons in the “external forum” can be favorable. Not devising it “by the rashness of their own presumption, and having accepted it from parents who had fallen into error” is one criterion.
SS: St. Augustine knew what he was talking about, but you don’t know what he was talking about. You misapply the internal and external forums.
>>>SS: Wrong again. It is heretical because Eastern Orthodox churches are not part of the Church of Christ and its leaders are not in the Catholic Church, thus their pastors are not in the Church of Christ.
X: Consider a secular analogy.
Certain separatists were exiled from the Kingdom long ago. Their descendants, not directly responsible for this, are now seeking reunion. They may be called legitimate ministers, even though they do not yet exercise a true ministry in the Kingdom.
It is the same.
SS: Not even close, because they would not be ministers IN THE KINGDOM. I don’t deny that Eastern Orthodox are legitimate pastors, but they are not IN THE CHURCH. Do you see the difference and why your analogy is wrong?
>>>SS: WHAT? JP2 and Ratzinger have bowed in humble reverence to the Archbishop of Canterbury. You’re sinking your own boat quickly!
X: Everyone inclines oneself upon meeting another person. You need to watch the video. This wasn’t just that.
SS: This is another disconnect from the point.
>>>SS: It does appear that you agree with your “popes” that heretical and schismatic pastors are at the same time “Pastors in the Church of Christ.” Is this correct?
X: Wow! You misrepresent my position and set up a strawman by obfuscating a fine distinction.
SS: You completely misunderstood my question. When I say heretical and schismatic pastors, I was speaking from my perspective. But I’ll reply to you below because you’re still wrong.
1. These men may be judged to be in good faith.
SS: Absolutely.
2. If so, they are not schismatics.
SS: Wrong. They are still heretics and schismatics in the external forum which is what we must go by.
X: So it is not schismatics who are pastors but those of evident good faith and eminent good will who may be said to be pastors. Even so, it does not imply that they yet exercise any true jurisdiction.
SS: I’ve already explained what I mean.
X: You can deny 1 if you like, but that is just a matter of judgment. It is a most reasonable judgment, but even if it is a wrong judgment, it is not a heresy. Besides, things like who is in good faith cannot be reasonably discerned by private individuals, however, heaven can make it known to the Church at appropriate times.
SS: I agree with (1) but you’re wrong on point (2)
X: To see my point, why we believe this is an act that is almost irreconciliable with an internal schismatic mentality, let, if they will, sedevacantists consent to kiss the ring of our Pope, and then we will see whether or not this is an act really possible by someone who genuinely and obstinately is opposed in principle to submission under him, as sedevacantists self-confessedly are. Obviously, they would be repulsed by the suggestion. So this argument fails.
SS: Kissing the ring simply means they recognize the bishopric of Rome, not necessarily the office of the papacy. So your argument not only fails, it condemns you and your “popes” because JP2 and Ratzinger have kissed the ring of the Archbishop of Canterbury which means that they either recognize the validity of the Anglican Orders, or they did it out of human respect, or both
Dear Xavier,
My reply below…
Right. Sorry about the late response. I was a bit busy with exams and all.
>>>SS: Because you have a complete disconnect from point to point. Have you forgotten how we got here?
X: I was speaking on why listening to the judgment of the living voice of the Church, which we are commanded to do by Our Lord in case of personal disputes, is manifestly different from private judgment. I still have no idea how your response is related to that.
SS: That is not what you were speaking of in the beginning. You were accusing me of being judge, jury, and executioner simply because I was recognizing who is Catholic and who is not. But you do the same thing, which was my point. This is why I said that you have a disconnect from point to point. You’re not able to follow the argument. You must believe that I’m a Catholic and member of your Church since I’ve not been judged otherwise from your Church.
>>>SS: So are you saying that if you reject her living voice, no one is anathematized?
X: Do you mean “accept her living voice”? Obviously, after the Church has spoken, one party will probably have to recant their former opinion.
SS: Again, you’re not following the argumentation. You said that there were no anathematizing issues with you, but the fact is, every official teaching is an anathematizing issue. If you don’t listen to the living voice of the Church on doctrinal issues, then you automatically anathematize yourself. You’re in the same boat as I on this point, and I’m waiting for you to concede.
>>>SS: We most certainly can. We do it the same way you would do it during an interregnum.
X: No, that’s the thing, you know, you don’t. Your comparison with an interregnum bears superficial similarity at very best.
SS: Please tell me how you do it during an interregnum.
X: But who decides between you and the Dimonds?
SS: No one decides, because it is not in a decision. Automatic anathemas are just that, automatic, as you already know.
X: Between any two other sedevacantists? You do! That’s the thing about private judgment.
SS: Again, private judgment doesn’t anathematize anyone. I don’t anathematize the Dimond brothers and they don’t anathematize me. They may believe that I’m not a Catholic based on this or that, but that judgment doesn’t make it so. It’s about recognition. Do you recognize Fr. Richard McBrien as a Catholic and member of your Church? In case you don’t know him, he was head of the theological dept. of Notre Dame, famous author, teacher, etc and believes the devil is not a real substantial creature fallen from grace. He actually has stated that Satan is a symbol of evil but that he doesn’t really exist and exorcisms are silly nonsense. He has never been censored or corrected by Rome or by any bishop of your Church. Is he a Catholic and member of your church based on what I told you?
X: But who decides between two Catholics? The Church does, and we, on each side, subject judgment to her, even during an interregnum.
SS: First of all, we are the Catholics. Secondly, how do you subject judgment to the Church during an interregnum? You see, this is what we are doing? Your responses are not giving any explanations. You simply say I don’t and you do, or you do and I don’t, but you never give why’s or how’s to back up your statements.
>>> You belong to the Vat2 church founded in the 1960’s.
X: The refusal to accept legitimate doctrinal developments, either by misrepresentation or by misunderstanding constitutes schism.
SS: I agree. And to accept illegitimate doctrinal developments, especially those that contradict dogmas, etc., constitutes heresy and schism. But again, who decides for the Church during an interregnum?
>>>SS: Your “popes” have taught complete novelties found right in Vat2. You follow it and even defend it.
X: We accept the Second Vatican Council as a legitimate expression of the universal and ordinary Magisterium, as the 21st Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church. The Popes have clarified your difficulties, but you still misrepresent us as believing what we do not believe.
SS: Wrong again. I have read all of their explanations and their explanation are even erroneous.
X: For example, with regard to our discussion, the Church of Christ can only be said to subsist in the Catholic Church and not in any other community, as God is said to subsist in Himself, and not, as pantheism holds, in the universe.
SS: You misrepresent your own religion and don’t quote the whole thing below on Ratzinger, who stated, “When the Council Fathers replace the word “is,” used by Pius XII, with the word “subsistit,” they did so for a very precise reason. The concept expressed by “is” (to be) is far broader than that expressed by “to subsist.” “To subsist” is a very precise way of being, that is, to be as a subject, which exists in itself. Thus the Council Fathers meant to say: the being of the Church as such extends much further than the Roman Catholic Church, but within the latter it acquires, in an incomparable way, the character of a true and proper subject.” The CDF stated, “the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone.” This is simply a lie, because Ratzinger himself understood it differently. Not only that, but the CDF contradicts its own statement when it quotes UR 15.1 of Vat2, “It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature.” This statement cannot be true unless the Church of Christ subsists within these communities, too. Also, “subsists in” cannot be attributed only to something grammatically without using “alone” which Vat2 doesn’t do. Hydrogen subsists (exists fully) in the sun. Hydrogen also subsists (exists fully) in water. The implication is that something can exist fully in different things. Also, in the case of water which has oxygen, the water is something more than just hydrogen. Now if the Church of Christ subsists (exists fully) in the Catholic Church, then the implication is that the Catholic Church is more than just the Church of Christ. What would that be? So, grammatically, the preposition is incorrect to do what the CDF claims. And lastly, Dominus Iesus also contradicts the CDF stating, “The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united…” which is impossible unless the Church of Christ subsists in these churches too. The biggest problem of it all is the fact that they could have used another preposition very easily to keep from ambiguity turning to heresy.
X: Thus, the Holy Father had said, “Subsisting is a special case of being. It is being in the form of a subject standing on its own. This is the issue here. The Council wants to tell us that the Church of Jesus Christ as a concrete subject in the present world can be encountered in the Catholic Church.
SS: I have no problem here.
X: This can occur only once and the notion that subsistit could be multiplied misses precisely what was intended.
SS: I just showed how subsistit can occur more than once with the hydrogen analogy. You don’t know what was intended. Ratzinger says one thing and then says something else. He only tells you what you want to here like all good politicians. The problem is “subsists in” is grammatically incorrect leaving an open intention. It doesn’t matter what they intended since the teaching of its intention is not in the council, but in an external explanation that doesn’t match other official explanations.
X: With the word subsistit, the Council wanted to express the singularity and non-multiplicability of the Catholic Church”.
SS: According to what explanation? Why use such an ambiguous phrase when it could have been much easier just to use a much simpler and more precise one?
>>>SS: They are schismatics now and heretics because they obstinately refuse to believe in the papacy.
X: See, this is why your position seems to be circular. According to you, they would be schismatics unless they seek communion with the peculiarities of your own sedevacantist group.
SS: Wrong again, They are schismatics and heretics because they reject historic doctrine.
X: But you assume this in order to prove it.
SS: Nothing is assumed, but your own explanation.
X: To us, they are schismatics or not with respect to Rome, not with respect to you. To disprove this, can you formulate your argument with regard to schism as a syllogism, building premise on premise? I’m curious.
SS: Already done so. Go by my books and read my website more carefully.
>>>SS: St. Augustine knew what he was talking about, but you don’t know what he was talking about. You misapply the internal and external forums.
X: St.Augustine was not privy to internal thoughts either, but rather specified external parameters for reasonable judgment.
SS: Again, you missed the point.
>>>SS: Not even close, because they would not be ministers IN THE KINGDOM. I don’t deny that Eastern Orthodox are legitimate pastors, but they are not IN THE CHURCH. Do you see the difference and why your analogy is wrong?
X: First, to be “in India”, for example, does not establish that you have full citizenship in the country.
SS: Your comparing apples to oranges, because being in a Catholic Church doesn’t make one Catholic either.
X: Second, it is a statement of judgment regarding their being in good faith.
SS: Already answered this one. Go back and read it.
X: Thirdly, Rome has lifted the excommunication of Constantinople and so, though not yet in full communion as a corporate body, individuals may yet be reconciled to the extent of their personal sincerity, good will and good faith.
SS: N/A Paul VI lifted the excommunications.
X: Some theological specificities are beyond the scope of average individuals and the Church in her wisdom does not require from her separated children something they are hardly capable of, though sincerely seeking in whatever limited ways they know of so that full corporate communion is eventually realized.
SS: Separated yet united. Ummmm
X: The case of the SSPX, a schism in this century, is instructive as an analogy. Schism is a state of mind, not merely a legal technicality, and from our perspective those in obstinate refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff are in schism even now, though the former excommunications were lifted.
SS: You don’t know the story of the SSPX very well, do you?
>>>SS: I agree with (1) but you’re wrong on point (2)
X: This is impossible because 2 follows from 1. See, what you need to prove is.
1. A misguided judgment constitutes heresy
SS: No I don’t. You don’t know the law either, do you?
and
2. No one can be reasonably judged to be in good faith based on external parameters.
SS: N/A
and even
3. Heaven cannot make known the internal dispositions of the separated persons, or at least communities in a general way, to the Church
SS: Again, that separated but united thing.
X: In the absence of a proof of all of this, in no way evident, your position just does not stand.
SS: We’ll see when you answer the question about Fr. Richard McBrien.
>>>SS: Kissing the ring simply means they recognize the bishopric of Rome, not necessarily the office of the papacy.
X: First, they formally conceded that the Bishop of Rome presides over the brotherhood. Second, this was a clear gesture of submission, whereas the other was a simple courtesy such as we all do to one other.
SS: They recognized that Rome is First among Equals and always have. Get it right. They don’t recognize the papacy. And are you suggesting it’s okay for JP2 and Ratzinger to kiss the ring of an invalid grossly heretical bishop as a simple courtesy? How about when Ratzinger said to him, “May the Lord continue to bless you and your family, and may he strengthen you in your ministry to the Anglican Communion!”
Here is one, rather rare, example I saw recently of an event in the reign of Ven.Pope Pius XII, a wonderful Pontiff, where he seems to reasonably judge the general good faith of I think, a largely Protestant audience, when instead of wildly raging at them as heretics, or attacking them on some specific doctrine, he instead speaks benevolently to them in a general way of the importance of remembering God throughout their lives, and even offers what seems to be a conditional blessing.
http://salesianity.blogspot.com/2011/08/pope-pius-xii-blesses-4000-us-gis-in.html
I have no problem with loving my Protestant friends, or any of my other non-Catholic friends. My best friend is an agnostic. So what?
Dear Xavier,
My reply below…
>>>SS: That is not what you were speaking of in the beginning. You were accusing me of being judge, jury, and executioner simply because I was recognizing who is Catholic and who is not.
X: An accusation I maintain.
SS: You’re my judge, jury, and executioner, for being a judge, jury, and executioner…right?
>>>But you do the same thing, which was my point.
X: And this I deny. If Christ had said, “And if the Church condemn you, then you can decide for yourself that the Church is not really the Church”, you would have a point.
SS: What? Christ said, “beware of false prophets.” You never answered my Fr Richard McBrien question. Please do so…
X: I listen to the judgment of the Church between two positions, and subject my judgment to her. That is the difference.
SS: What about when the Church makes no judgments? Also, I follow the Church’s teachings and reject those that reject them, which you have a problem with.
>>>You must believe that I’m a Catholic and member of your Church since I’ve not been judged otherwise from your Church.
X: The Church has condemned the opinion you hold as neglecting the living character of Tradition
SS: I don’t neglect Tradition, but perhaps you can give me an example rather that make accusations without any substance.
X: (the same reason Cardinal Manning condemned the appeal to antiquity)
SS: You take him out of context. I’ve already addressed Manning’s teaching, which I agree with. You don’t appeal to antiquity to reject defined doctrines, etc. But you do appeal to antiquity to reject errors.
X: and moreover, since you reject submission to the one we accept as lawful Roman Pontiff, the question doesn’t arise.
SS: The members of the Eastern Orthodox reject submission to the papacy and you accept them as members of the Church. Go figure.
>>> If you don’t listen to the living voice of the Church on doctrinal issues, then you automatically anathematize yourself. You’re in the same boat as I on this point, and I’m waiting for you to concede.
X: Yes, but it is more nuanced than that.
SS: So now it’s yes, when you said no… that you don’t have anathematizing issues. Make up your mind.
X: Christology and Trinitarian theology for instance were more developed in the 5th century than in the 2nd and it was this that good fifth century Catholic Christians had to accept. Those who rejected it as “innovations” were condemned by the Church.
SS: N/A since we’re not talking about developed doctrines. Developed doctrines are not contrary to earlier doctrines as your Vat2 doctrines are contrary to defined doctrines. Big difference!
>>>SS: Please tell me how you do it during an interregnum.
X: Please tell me why Catholics don’t form multiple sects during an interregnum?
SS: Catholics do disagree with each other on many things during long interregnums, as they have so many times before in history. They do have separate groups, too.
X: If a confusion arises, we go to the local Church.
SS: What type of confusion? I’m talking about rejecting clear Catholic teaching.
X: Beyond that, we go to the Roman Church.
SS: How?
X: Bishops have a real authority, and their consensus is at least temporarily binding.
SS: They are not binding at all if they are wrong.
X: Either a judgment is given, or no one anathematizes the other position in anticipation of that judgment.
SS: You’re so wrong. I could give many instances to the contrary, but please answer my Fr. Richard McBrien question so that I can be proven right.
X: But this is not true in the sedevacantist community.
SS: That’s because we’re Catholics and we reject anyone who outright rejects official Catholic teaching. It’s called being Catholic and being obedient to Christ’s command.
>>>SS: No one decides, because it is not in a decision. Automatic anathemas are just that, automatic, as you already know.
X: But it is a decision because none of you wishes to dissent from Catholic teaching.
SS: Nope! It’s recognition.
X: It is that one of you, at least, does not know what that relevant Catholic teaching is. Your other example, based on what you’ve told me, is someone who dissents from known teaching. This is why I gave the comparison of Protestants who differ because they do not know, not because they want to dissent from what is known.
SS: Again, you make judgments in the external forum.
SS: You misrepresent your own religion and don’t quote the whole thing below on Ratzinger, who stated, “When the Council Fathers replace the word “is,” used by Pius XII, with the word “subsistit,” they did so for a very precise reason. The concept expressed by “is” (to be) is far broader than that expressed by “to subsist.” “To subsist” is a very precise way of being, that is, to be as a subject, which exists in itself. Thus the Council Fathers meant to say: the being of the Church as such extends much further than the Roman Catholic Church, but within the latter it acquires, in an incomparable way, the character of a true and proper subject.”
X: So subsists is an even more precise way of being. All the more reason it was just to say the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. The Church of Christ cannot be said to subsist elsewhere, this is in “an incomparable way”. Only elements of grace and sanctification, like the Bible, or a validly confected Eucharist, may be found outside her visible confines. Where’s the problem?
SS: WOW! YOU REALLY DON’T SEE IT.
>>>The CDF stated, “the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone.” This is simply a lie, because Ratzinger himself understood it differently. Not only that, but the CDF contradicts its own statement when it quotes UR 15.1 of Vat2, “It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature.” This statement cannot be true unless the Church of Christ subsists within these communities, too.
X: These are elements of grace and sanctification which belong properly to the Catholic Church and are in themselves calls to return to unity with her and are ordered toward that.
SS: YOU MISSED IT AGAIN. READ IT MORE CAREFULLY!
>>>Also, “subsists in” cannot be attributed only to something grammatically without using “alone” which Vat2 doesn’t do.
X: Saying “God subsists in Himself” would be grammatically incorrect?
SS: It’s grammatically silly. Himself is a pronoun which denotes the proper subject. Vat2 didn’t say that the Church of Christ subsists in itself. The point is taking two different identities and showing that they are the same subject. Perhaps a better question in relation to the topic: Saying “God subsists in the Eucharist Host” would be grammatically incorrect? The answer would be yes, if you mean exclusively in the Host. God subsists in the Chalice too, therefore ‘subsist in’ doesn’t attribute only to something without “alone.” I already gave you the hydrogen analogy. How could you not understand what I’m saying?
>>>And lastly, Dominus Iesus also contradicts the CDF stating, “The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united…” which is impossible unless the Church of Christ subsists in these churches too.
X: There are three states, you keep thinking there are only two, which is why there is confusion. Excommunicated and totally cut off, full communion, and an intermediate stage, where excommunications are lifted but the road to full communion is not completed.
SS: You’re totally wrong. You’re either in the Church or you are not. Your comment demonstrates why modernism is so dangerous. You believe it and defend it as truth.
>>>The biggest problem of it all is the fact that they could have used another preposition very easily to keep from ambiguity turning to heresy.
X: Not true, and such an argument could easily be used against the first Councils of the Church, which led to great disputes and further clarifications and definitions in time.
SS: You just condemned the Catholic Church by implication. Never did the first councils teach such ambiguous nonsense as “subsists in.” The Catholic Church can’t teach ambiguously at all. It only teaches clear and unambiguously as several popes have declared. You simply reject those papal teachings.
>>>SS: N/A Paul VI lifted the excommunications.
X: So he did. You are judicially living in 1960, claiming the status then should be considered without regard to the status now and are so being circular.
You say, Rome is in schism (sedevacantist premise). Constantinople is also in schism. Therefore Rome accepts schismatics. Therefore sedevacantism is true.
SS: Are you saying that Constantinople is not in schism now, really?
X: We are being consistent. We say, Rome excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople some 1000 years ago, and some 50 years ago, Rome lifted that excommunication. Hence it has ceased to exist.
SS: Again, there’s no schism right now?
X: You must see that this cannot be used an argument for sedevacantism consistently.
SS: I see clearly that you don’t know what you are talking about.
>>>SS: You don’t know the story of the SSPX very well, do you?
X: While I have some sympathy for their cause, I do not follow those who abandon the Church. There are some who reject the Pope, either implicitly or explicitly. These remain in schism. There are many in the SSPX who love the Holy Father and genuinely want to be subject to him, only hoping and praying, for the theological discussions, often beyond their personal capacity, say, will be resolved in unity, charity and truth. These persons are not at all in schism, and the same applies in the analogy.
SS: Yep, you don’t know the story at all and yet you use them as an example.
>>>SS: No I don’t. You don’t know the law either, do you?
X: No, you don’t what? Does a misguided judgment constitute heresy or not? Was Pope Pius XII a heretic for being kind in greeting Protestants?
SS: Never said it or implied it. We’re supposed to be kind to everybody.
>>>SS: N/A
X: Why?
SS: Because the dots don’t belong in the picture.
>>>SS: Again, that separated but united thing.
X: Yes.
SS: Thanks for admitting your contradiction.
>>>SS: They recognized that Rome is First among Equals and always have. Get it right. They don’t recognize the papacy.
X: I know well what they have historically recognized, which is why I think it is a truly monumental development what they have conceded recently, which is that Rome does in fact actually preside in love. They have not historically conceded as much.
SS: THEY DON’T RECOGNIZE THE PAPACY! THEY ARE NOT IN THE CHURCH! THEY ARE IN SCHISM AND HERESY! COME ON…
>>>And are you suggesting it’s okay for JP2 and Ratzinger to kiss the ring of an invalid grossly heretical bishop as a simple courtesy? How about when Ratzinger said to him, “May the Lord continue to bless you and your family, and may he strengthen you in your ministry to the Anglican Communion!”
X: Diplomatic relations with whomever the Anglican communion appoints are necessary so as to eventually reconcile that community to the Catholic Church.
SS: You didn’t answer the questions!
X: They also said recently, “Anglicans rejected the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome as universal primate in the sixteenth century. Today, however, some Anglicans are beginning to see the potential value of a ministry of universal primacy, which would be exercised by the Bishop of Rome, as a sign and focus of unity within a re-united Church.”
SS: Please answer the questions directly. I want to hear you say that it was okay what they did.
Dear Xavier,
My replies below…
X: Re: Judge
Listening to the judgment of the Church deciding between two persons or positions is qualitatively different from being one of those two persons having a dispute against the other. I’m not claiming this makes sedevacantism false, I’m just denying that we are “in the same boat” where this is concerned.
SS: Having a dispute against the other about doctrine which one of the two persons dissent from the Church, then you know which is Catholic. This is our position as it yours. We are in the same boat!
X: Re: Mcbrien
I already answered about him, he wilfully dissents from known teaching.
SS: You’re still not answering the question. I already told you that he dissents. McBrien argues that he isn’t doing so, and he has not been censored nor has any judgment come down on this theologian. The question is: Is he a Catholic and member of the Catholic Church even though he doesn’t believe in the devil? Are you going to say that he is not a member of the Church, when the Church has not made a judgment, or will you say that he is a member of the Church while rejecting the existence of the devil? It’s either one or the other. You will prove my point with your answer.
X: Re: Doctrinal development
But it’s only your claim that there is a contradiction. It is a legitimate development, and the Church even says it cannot be interpreted in such a way as to produce a contradiction. The mind of the Church must be taken into account/
SS: It’s only your claim that it isn’t. The Church doesn’t say so. False teachers say it is.
X: Re: Interregnum
Mention any interregnum when there were many groups. When there are multiple credible claimants, I don’t agree that that is an interregnum.
SS: In the 13th and 14th centuries, there were many long interregnums, and it happened because there were many groups who disagreed doctrinally and politically. Also, if there are multiple credible claimants to the papacy, then none of them are pope and you really have an interregnum.
X: Re: Subsists
Firstly, why should there be any more question on what the mind of the Church is after the Holy Office has spoken? There is none.
SS: The Church didn’t speak on it, but a counterfeit church did. False teachers spoke about it. This is what you’re not getting.
X: Any other thing pertains either to “outside her visible confines” or “elements of grace and sanctification” as “gifts belong to her and impelling to Catholic unity” the document says.
SS: Never denied that it did, but you’re not seeing what’s right in your face.
X: As for “two different identities”, there is none. For the “Church of Christ” is the Church we profess as one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic, says Lumen Gentium and which was comissioned to St.Peter as sheperd.
SS: Funny how you use “is” to tell me so. However, the Church of Christ is one identity of expression and the Catholic Church is another, but they are the same thing. Of course they are two different identities.
X: Hydrogen does not subsist in water as hydrogen. Hydrogen only subsists as hydrogen in a hydrogen molecule.
SS: I didn’t use the preposition “as”. You changed the argument and you prove my point. Substitit translated as subsists just means “exists” or “to be found” and Hydrogen does subsists in water, because it exists in water. However, it also exists in the sun. You prove that your own religion is wrong. You won’t admit that I’m right because you refuse to believe that your church is really a counterfeit church. Everything it says you believe is true. You and your religion said that “subsists in” is exclusive, and I have proven that it is grammatically incorrect.
X: Yes, it can be said the Christ subsists in the Eucharistic Host, I believe it has been said, for the whole Christ is present under each species.
SS: Of course Christ subsists in the Eucharistic Host, but Christ also subsists in the Chalice. In other words, “subsists in” doesn’t exclude that something or Someone can subsist in something else. I used the Eucharistic Host to prove my point and you are confirming my point.
X: Re: In the Church
When the souls of some 300 million Christians are concerned, the Pope does not want to keep the excommunication in juridical effect because many are in good faith. Those not in good faith or those in obstinate denial of the Papacy are in schism even still.
SS: What are you talking about?
X: Re: Constantinople.
You start with a sedevacantist premise and then conclude with sedevacantism as if this were something astonishing.
SS: You don’t know what you are talking about here.
X: I explained what I meant, whether individuals are in schism or not depends on the level of their personal good faith. But as the community is concerned, heaven seems to have decided, made it known to us through the Church, that there is sufficient good will for theological discussions to commence, in view of a future Ecumenical Council, where the Greeks will accept the Catholic doctrine for there to be full communion.
SS: Get with it. The Eastern Orthodox churches are in schism.
X: Re: Pope Pius XII
Why didn’t he attack them for not believing, say, in the perpetual Virginity of Mother Mary?
SS: Because he wasn’t addressing them on this issue. We all communicate with each other, and we’re not always condemning one another, are we?
X: Are you saying they were not wicked heretics, and to reason like sedevacantists do, that he was a heretic for failing to accuse them of heresy and rather talking about God as if this were good enough? I’ll answer you regarding Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI after you answer me this.
SS: I speak to Protestants all the time and don’t always accuse them of heresy, etc. I even wish them well and hope God blesses them. That doesn’t make me a heretic. JP2 and B16 are saying that leaders of a false religion are leaders in the Church. TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUES.
X: Re: Discussion
You keep failing to acknowledge the significant things they have already acknowledged, both Greeks and Anglicans. This shows the theological discussion has brought good fruit. In course of time, we have no doubt that they will accept the Catholic doctrine. The problem is you expect it to happen overnight, which is unlikely, and we ought to walk the pathe we can, rather than dream of something unrealistic.
SS: You didn’t answer the questions again. I asked you, “are you suggesting it’s okay for JP2 and Ratzinger to kiss the ring of an invalid grossly heretical bishop as a simple courtesy? How about when Ratzinger said to him, “May the Lord continue to bless you and your family, and may he strengthen you in your ministry to the Anglican Communion!”
Dear Xavier,
My reply below…
X: Re: Judge
If you already know, why did Christ say, “Tell it to the Church”? Not necessary at all, isn’t it?
SS: You’re taking Christ out of context. The Matt 18 quote was in reference to sin, not heresy. Christ said beware of false prophets and St Peter said to beware of false teachers, and you would tell Christ and St. Peter that you can’t do so.
X: Re: Mcbrien
Can you see no difference, between, say, the sincere Protestants who struggle and pour over the Biblical texts trying to figure out the true doctrine of the Eucharist, or something else, but fail to do so, or come to different conclusions, and the Protestant who has decided he’s not going to believe the Bible about homosexuality if it doesn’t synchronize with modern culture?
The former fact can and ought to be used as an example of the insufficiency of Protestantism, whereas the latter is not. Would you disagree? And the same applies here.
SS: Can’t you answer my simple question? No you can’t without proving me right. Your statements have nothing to do with the topic. We’re talking about whether you can recognize whether someone is a Catholic or not. You called me a judge, jury, and executioner, and denied that you were the same, and here I’ve presented a question to test whether it’s true. If so, then your arguments against me on this point are invalid.
X: Re: Development
You interpret it in a fundamentalist way. Again, you tell us what we actually believe, much like Protestants may tell us we believe the Pope is God or something, rather than ask us what we believe and tell us why that, which is what is important, is in error.
SS: Sorry, but you’re wrong. You have nothing to back up your statement either.
X: Re: Different groups
If there were different groups, then one of them was the Catholic Church, and the other in material schism. I saw this before as well. How did you reach the conclusion that this must be an interregnum? If it was an interregnum, who was in schism? There would be no principle of unity.
SS: You don’t understand the papacy and the faith at all on this point. First of all, material schism doesn’t separate one from the Church. Secondly, I reached the conclusion that this is an interregnum when the claimant to the papacy is an antipope because he is not a Catholic. As the Vat1 theologians taught, (indeed, common sense tell us) the principle of unity remains even when the Chair of Peter is vacant. This is also the teaching of Vat1 which you apparently reject.
X: Re: False Church
I get what you are saying, but this “false Church” is not teaching what you represent it as, but something else. What this “false Church” actually teaches must be considered before you decide whether it is true or false.
SS: It actually teaches that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church which is wrong, as I’ve proven with the hydrogen analogy. It actually teaches, “It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature.” (UR 15.1) This statement cannot be true unless the Church of Christ subsists within these communities, too. Had it referred and used the sacrament of Baptism rather than the sacrament of Eucharist, then it would be correct, since their baptized infants are really Catholics of the Catholic Church. It actually teaches, “The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united…by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist.” In fact, they are not united at all by the sacraments, but rather they are separated; a word you never find with any Vat2 teaching that I’m aware of. These are just a handful of the many errors of your false church.
X: Re: Ambiguity
Even Scripture, St.Peter tells us is “hard to understand” and that some people wrest it to their own destruction. So unless you want to argue Scripture could not have come from God on account of this, there is no case.
SS: “Hard to understand” is not the same thing as ambiguity. I’m surprised you would resort to such an argument. As a matter of fact, your statement is modernism. However, are you admitting that some of Vat2 teachings are ambiguous?
Re: Won’t admit
If I am so closed to admitting anything, why should I waste my time discussing this, I wonder? I hold truth to be binding in conscience and seek to do what God wills as best as I understand it. God knows my thoughts, if I see a good reason, I will accept it. Otherwise, I do not.
SS: You are looking at this issue with a subjective viewpoint rather than an objective viewpoint. You automatically assume that your church is the true Catholic Church. You must be able to ask yourself, could it be that my (your) church is not the Catholic Church? You see, I was there with you. If it is Catholic, then of course, you are to listen to it because you believe in Christ’s promise. If it is not the Catholic Church, then you must not be defending it as if it were.
X: Re: Host
EWTN tells me this was the common form of expression in western culture from Aristotle to St.Thomas.
1) Let me use your own argument. To say that Christ subsists in the Eucharistic Host, is to say that the Eucharistic Host is Christ. Therefore, you prove my point, and the same applies to teh Catholic Church and the Church of Christ. Namely, to say the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church is to say that the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ.
SS: Christ is present in the Host, but He is not the host, itself (accidents and substance), only the substance. The Eucharist Host contains accidents that are not Christ, therefore the Host is something more than just Christ. That’s why we say that Christ’s Presence is IN the Host. We don’t say that Christ’s presence is the Host. I’ll elaborate this in a minute. Therefore, your argument is still wrong. Also, you reject the explanation of your own religion. It said that “is” doesn’t say the same thing as “subsists in” and that’s why they didn’t use it. Yet, you are saying “is” to mean the same thing as subsists in.
2) Also, we say Christ subsists in the Host, but we do not say, Christ subsists in you or I. This is because, though Christ is in a sense present in me and every Christian, he does not subsist in us, because I am not Christ. This establishes the point of the identity connoted by subsist.
SS: Wrong! Subsist just means exist. Christ does exist in different ways, no doubt. He existed on earth 2000 years ago in a pre-Glorified Body; He exists in Heaven in a Glorified Body: He exists in the Host sacramentally. But your argument still doesn’t follow because when you receive a valid Host, then Christ does subsist in you for a few moments as in the Host, too. Christ subsists in both the Host and you. He also subsists in others after Communion. Not only that, but the Host subsists in the Church, which means that Christ also subsists in the Church. “Subsist in” is not exclusive as you are arguing. After Christ’s Presence leaves the Host within you, the accidents still remain in you, therefore, the Host is more than just Christ because it also contains accidents that are not Christ. “Subsist in” means that Christ exists in the Host, but not as the host, if you mean both the accidents and the substance.
3) But the Church cannot imitate Christ in this, as this is on account of His being God. He is “broken but not divided” so that when the Host is broken in two pieces, the whole Christ is in either portion. But this is not true of the Church, that when two sects break from each other, only at most one, can be the Catholic Church. Christ can subsist in multiple places at the same time, the Church cannot.
SS: That’s my argument, not yours. Christ can subsist in multiple places, but not as multiple places. You have just proved my point, because your religion teaches “subsists in” not “subsists as.” Your religion simply uses a grammatically incorrect preposition to indicate the nature of the Church of Christ.
X: Re: Pope Pius XII
I know you do it, but that is beside the point. Different sedevacantist groups like demonstrating that they are more radically traditionalist than the other. So who is to say, citing some older document, and playing self-appointed Inquisitor, some other sedevacantist may not find both you and Pope Pius XII vehemently suspect of heresy in the external forum for doing so?
SS: The answer is simple. I don’t have to turn to the Church to show why they are wrong in false judgment. So far, you have tried to show me why I’m wrong without going to your religion. The same applies here. We use simple reasoning and give an answer.
X: You both err because you do not recognize obedience to the living voice of the Church.
SS: Yet, you are doing the same thing to me! You see, I do listen to the voice of the Church because She has already given me answer long before I was born. I just take heed.
X: If the Church today told me to shun Protestants altogether as heretics, have no interaction with them whatsoever, I would obey her, even if my judgment of the situation was apposite.
SS: Wait a second. To shun Protestants as heretics and having no interaction whatsoever are two different issues. You can shun Protestants as heretics and still have interaction or vice-versa. Perhaps you meant to use a better example. I know what you meant, and I would do the same thing. As a matter of fact, I am doing so. The Christ and His Church have consistently told me to beware of false prophets and teachers and I listen and obey. You cannot do so based on your own argument.
X: And I would do this not only because, firstly Catholic obedience requires it, but also because on a deeper level she knows many things I do not know, and these things, depend on their interior dispositions, as well as their attitudes toward us, and many other factors, on what is the best way to move forward.
SS: I agree, but the issue is whether the church you’re listening to is THE CHURCH. How do you know? How can you know?
X: And though without the guidance of the Church today, you seem to have reached more or less the same conclusion in talking to Protestants as most Catholics in communion with Rome today have, as you say, “I speak to Protestants all the time and don’t always accuse them of heresy, etc. I even wish them well and hope God blesses them.”
SS: I don’t accuse today’s Rome for not being Catholic because they speak to Protestants and not always accusing them of heresy, etc. Never have, never would. I accuse Rome today for not being Catholic because they praying and worshiping with Protestants, pagans, etc, and for actually participating in Protestantism, paganism, etc, and for rejecting historic Catholic teaching explicitly and implicitly such as recognizing non-Catholic pastors of other religions as “Pastors in the Church of Christ.” So far, you have defended these acts and false teachings because you automatically think they are from the living voice of the Catholic Church. I submit they come from the living voice of Satan! The question is: How can you tell which is which?
Dear Xavier,
My replies below…
>>SS: You’re taking Christ out of context. The Matt 18 quote was in reference to sin, not heresy.
X: I accuse you of having sinned, and you make the same of me. The Church has the mandate and the authority to settle this dispute, and since we are unable to resolve it among ourselves, we may and should “Tell it to the Church”
SS: Which Church? Your Vat2 church founded in the 1960’s which you think was founded by Christ? We can’t agree as to what church, because we both believe that each of our religions is that Church. See the problem here?
>>> Christ said beware of false prophets and St Peter said to beware of false teachers, and you would tell Christ and St. Peter that you can’t do so.
X: We would beware of false teachers, firstly and mainly, by clinging to the Pope and the Church Christ founded and bewaring of all those she warns us of.
SS: That’s one way, but when the false teacher claims to be pope, and you believe that false teacher is the pope, then your answer traps you in the apostasy.
>>>SS: Can’t you answer my simple question? No you can’t without proving me right. Your statements have nothing to do with the topic.
X: It does, because sedevacantism, like Protestantism, has certain inherent limitations you simply refuse to concede.
SS: Again, you didn’t answer the question. Please don’t respond to me again until you answer the question.
>>> We’re talking about whether you can recognize whether someone is a Catholic or not. You called me a judge, jury, and executioner, and denied that you were the same, and here I’ve presented a question to test whether it’s true. If so, then your arguments against me on this point are invalid.
X: I’m the accuser, or the accused, as you will, and the Church is the judge between me and the other party.
SS: You just don’t get it. I asked you if someone like McBrien who dissents is a Catholic or not, EVEN THOUGH THE CHURCH HAS NOT JUDGED HIM ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
X: I maintain my position, and I don’t see we’re going to agree. Mcbrien is a wilful dissenter who has a way to know the truth if he really desired to obey it. But sincere sedevacantists often do not.
SS: You say McBrien is a willful dissenter, but the Church has not done so. Are you his judge, jury, and executioner now? JP2 willfully dissented too, as does Ratzinger now.
>>>SS: Sorry, but you’re wrong. You have nothing to back up your statement either.
X: Let me give you a historical example. Honorius was the one Roman Pontiff in history ever condemned by an Ecumenical Council as a heretic, yet never did the Council say the whole Church had fallen into schism in the last years of his life, or that they, particularly Constantinople, were bound to have anathematized him. Finally, St.Maximus, a martyr for the true Faith concerning the two wills and operations of Christ, properly so called, not only brilliantly expounded the true Faith correctly, but defended Honorius from the charge of teaching the Monothelite heresy. Clearly, it was not his, great Saint as he was, to make the said deposition or “declaration” of the deposition.
SS: Even Honorius’ successor defended him. So what? Honorius’s case in nothing like this one and you can’t compare them in the way that you’re attempting to do. I’ve written about Honorius in two books. Please don’t give me any more historical examples since you don’t represent the history accurately.
X: Such decisions require a degree of certainty only an official Church episcopal congregation can possess and give witness to. Thus, the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia says,
“It is also generally held, and rightly, that questions of dogmatic fact, in regard to which definite certainty is required for the safe custody and interpretation of revealed truth, may be determined infallibly by the Church. Such questions, for example, would be: whether a certain pope is legitimate”
SS: Who is the Church that makes the decision? A bunch of bishops that believe in the same heresies as the pope? What if the church doesn’t make the decision, then what, a heretic can be pope?
X: So, at the very least, dogmatic sedevacantism is in itself far from clear, and at best, a doubtful position.
SS: WRONG! You completely misrepresent sedevacantism and the Catholic teaching on the issue.
X: If presuming the good intentions of the Holy Father was good enough for Maximus, who died rather than compromise himself regarding the Faith, I cannot see why it should not be good enough for Catholics today.
SS: Again, read my books and get the real story which you don’t tell.
>>>SS: You don’t understand the papacy and the faith at all on this point. First of all, material schism doesn’t separate one from the Church.
X: I said, the whole Church cannot be in schism, not even in material schism, as your position would imply. This would be offensive in the eyes of God.
SS: First of all, the whole Church is not in material schism. Members of your false church are in material schism. Secondly, please show me that Church teaching that says the Church cannot be in material schism. Thirdly, Pope St. Eugene was elected pope when Pope St. Martin was still alive. St. Martin forbade an election of a new pope as long as he was still alive and yet Rome did so anyway. What state was the Church in at the acceptance of Eugene until Martin abdicated?
>>>Secondly, I reached the conclusion that this is an interregnum when the claimant to the papacy is an antipope because he is not a Catholic.
X: This isn’t my question. I asked, when there are multiple Popes? You said so, or implied so above. When there are multiple Papal claimants, none of them was a true Pope, and the whole period was an interregnum. This is what you seem to believe. Yes?
SS: Only if all the claimants are reasonably doubtful as with the Great Schism. However, all of them were Catholic so it’s not quite the same as now when none of them are Catholic.
>>>As the Vat1 theologians taught, (indeed, common sense tell us) the principle of unity remains even when the Chair of Peter is vacant. This is also the teaching of Vat1 which you apparently reject.
X: But who is joined to this principle of unity, and how does a simple person tell, between you and the Dimonds, say?
SS: Who is joined during any papal interregnum?
X: Whereas between the Catholic Church and a schismatic sect, even during an interregnum, it is manifestly clear where the Church is and where the schism is.
SS: I agree totally! That’s my argument, not yours.
>>>SS: It actually teaches that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church which is wrong, as I’ve proven with the hydrogen analogy. It actually teaches, “It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature.” (UR 15.1) This statement cannot be true unless the Church of Christ subsists within these communities, too. Had it referred and used the sacrament of Baptism rather than the sacrament of Eucharist, then it would be correct, since their baptized infants are really Catholics of the Catholic Church.
X: You forget the practice of infant communion for one, common in the East, and accepted by the Church, even at Trent, though never resorted to in the West, according to the judgment of the Church.
SS: Once Baptized, the infants are members of the Catholic Church regardless of receiving the Eucharist. The Eucharist itself doesn’t build up the Church. Btw, I like the practice of the East much better than the West.
>>>SS: “Hard to understand” is not the same thing as ambiguity.
X: Amusing. What, then, are they?
SS: What, then, are they, what?
>>>I’m surprised you would resort to such an argument. As a matter of fact, your statement is modernism. However, are you admitting that some of Vat2 teachings are ambiguous?
X: I was just pointing out that your claim was invalid even if something in the SVC was “hard to understand”. In which case, anyway, like the Scriptures, all you have to do is ask the Church.
SS: You didn’t answer the question.
>>>SS: You are looking at this issue with a subjective viewpoint rather than an objective viewpoint. You automatically assume that your church is the true Catholic Church. You must be able to ask yourself, could it be that my (your) church is not the Catholic Church?
X: Ok, I actually have asked myself that question. Especially in connection with AntiChrist. But I think I already explained my eschatological views. And apart from that, I read what some of the Doctors have said on this question. And it is not clear that private persons, especially lay private persons, can make that declaratory sentence themselves, even if this were to happen.
SS: Then you have fallen in the trap which you can’t get out.
>>>SS: Christ is present in the Host, but He is not the host, itself (accidents and substance), only the substance. The Eucharist Host contains accidents that are not Christ, therefore the Host is something more than just Christ.
X: This seems to me to almost border on Lutheran beliefs. The bread and wine do not remain at all, as I’m sure you know. To say they remain only in accident is to say they do not remain at all. The Eucharist is Christ. Truly, really, fully, substantially.
SS: The Eucharist is Christ, truly, really, fully, substantially. However, the accidents of bread and wine remain. Christ is not a little round, white, molecular structured piece of bread. His Presence is found IN a little round, white, molecular structured piece of bread. You don’t see Christ. You see bread which no longer has the substance of bread.
>>>SS: Wrong! Subsist just means exist.
X: Subsist also means “be” according to dictionary definition, i.e. “is”.
SS: Rome has taught that the definition of subsist is exist. You don’t agree with your church now?
>>> Not only that, but the Host subsists in the Church, which means that Christ also subsists in the Church.
X: All this would only be true if subsist simply meant “exist” as you said, which it does not. As it is, they are false.
SS: OH MY GOODNESS! YOU’RE ARGUING AGAINST YOUR OWN RELIGION. They said it means exist.
>>>“Subsist in” is not exclusive as you are arguing.
X: So why don’t you say “God subsists in the universe” just like you say “God subsists in Himself”? Because that would be pantheism!
SS: Wrong. God does subsist in the universe. He exists in the host, which exists in the church, which exists in our atmosphere, which exists in the universe. God is not the universe, but He most certainly exists in it. Subsist doesn’t mean IS.
>>>After Christ’s Presence leaves the Host within you, the accidents still remain in you, therefore, the Host is more than just Christ because it also contains accidents that are not Christ. “Subsist in” means that Christ exists in the Host, but not as the host, if you mean both the accidents and the substance.
X: The bread and wine remain only in accident, which is to say, not at all.
SS: Bread and wine does not exist in substance, but it does exist in appearances. That’s why the Church infallibly teaches that the accidents of the bread and wine REMAIN.
>>>SS: That’s my argument, not yours. Christ can subsist in multiple places, but not as multiple places. You have just proved my point, because your religion teaches “subsists in” not “subsists as.” Your religion simply uses a grammatically incorrect preposition to indicate the nature of the Church of Christ.
X: Christ is omnipresent. Two communicants each receive the whole Christ when the one Bread is broken. None of this is true of any creature.
If the Church were “broken”, so to speak, one side would be the seamless body of Christ, the Catholic Church, and the other a schismatic sect.
SS: NOT MY ARGUMENT.
>>>SS: The answer is simple. I don’t have to turn to the Church to show why they are wrong in false judgment. So far, you have tried to show me why I’m wrong without going to your religion. The same applies here. We use simple reasoning and give an answer.
X: They have even older documents to quote, I assure you.
SS: UH?
>>>SS: Yet, you are doing the same thing to me! You see, I do listen to the voice of the Church because She has already given me answer long before I was born. I just take heed.
X: You are accusing a certain man of a specific heresy. No one is denying that what you claim as a heresy is a heresy. We are denying that the man you charge is guilty of that heresy. That is why you need an ecclesiastical court to settle the matter, not to mention that St.Paul tells us not to receive even an accusation against a priest without one or two witnesses, forget against a Roman Pontiff.
SS: You misapply St. Paul in this case. And are you suggesting that your popes are so stupid that they don’t really know that they are teaching heresy?
SS: I know what you meant, and I would do the same thing. As a matter of fact, I am doing so. The Christ and His Church have consistently told me to beware of false prophets and teachers and I listen and obey. You cannot do so based on your own argument.
X: Do you deny that the Church in the early 20th century did not always treat Protestants with the same hostility as was necessary in the very first ages of Luther’s revolt? This shows that there can be a gradual decrease in the level of hostility.
SS: You’re changing the argument.
>>>SS: I agree, but the issue is whether the church you’re listening to is THE CHURCH. How do you know? How can you know?
X: If what you’re saying really is true, how could any Catholic ever know in conscience he was listening to the Catholic Church. He would be wrenched in conscientious scruples forever, tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine. We know as we’ve always known in the Catholic Church. If a Pontiff falls to heresy, I trust the positive law of the Church will provide for some instance as to how it can be sorted out.
SS: I know, and 10,000 other Catholics know in conscience they are listening to the Catholic Church. We simply follow the historic Faith. The positive law of the Church has already provided the answers, and you won’t listen or follow them.
X: Pope Pius XII’ decreed that under no pretext of excommunication could a cardinal be excluded from election. This, if we interpret it with the sedevacantists, seems to almost make it easy for heretical infiltrators to enter the Church. But on the other hand, we would consider it a providential assurance, that the positive law of the Church forbids such a happenstance.
SS: Pope Pius XII was speaking about a type of excommunication. Cardinals who become heretics are not cardinals any longer. Pius XII wasn’t referring to them. He was referring to those excommunications that were once labeled minor.
X: In future, perhaps the Church will say, for example, that 2/3rds of the Cardinals may, if they gravely suspect a Pope of heresy, while the rest of the Church presumes his innocence, call an Ecumenical Council to settle the question. Just one of many possible alternatives.
SS: NO HERETIC CAN BE POPE EVEN IF ALL THE CARDINALS ELECTED SUCH A PERSON. THIS IS DIVINE LAW!
X: The Church must have visible, historical continuity, and her law must be our resort.
SS: Of course, and the Church law should never be used to override a Divine law.
>>>SS: I don’t accuse today’s Rome for not being Catholic because they speak to Protestants and not always accusing them of heresy, etc. Never have, never would.
X: I know, but others consider that sufficient. That’s why they also find you and Pope Pius XII guilty of the same thing. Everything depends on how they read their own opinions into old Church documents.
SS: It doesn’t matter. They are simply wrong. This is a no-brainer.
>>>I accuse Rome today for not being Catholic because they praying and worshiping with Protestants, pagans, etc, and for actually participating in Protestantism, paganism,
X: We never pray with non-Christians.
SS: Please explain then: John Paul II who prayed with African Animists known as “witch doctors.” He stated, “The prayer meeting in the sanctuary at Lake Togo was particularly striking. There I prayed for the first time WITH animists” (Prayer with an African Animist on August 8, 1985). L’Osservatore Romano, August 26, 1985, p. 9.
X: We do pray with Protestants, but what we really are praying for is their conversion to the Catholic Church. Protestants implore the Lord to show them the way to unity, and that way only is the Catholic Church.
SS: The law of the Church is, “He who prays with a heretic, is a heretic.”
X: We have to carefully distinguish “meeting to pray together” and “praying when we met together”. We can’t pray with them, but we can pray in their presence. A lot depends on interior disposition, and when the person in question is the Pope, good intention may be presumed.
Pope John Paul II said, peace bears the name of Jesus Christ. This was an encouragement to them to seek peace from Christ. Besides, St.Peter sinned scandalously acting out of human respect, and even the venerable St.Barnabas was led astray, says St.Paul. So, even if we grant that the Pope acted out of human respect, this would not prove what you are saying.
Finally, on Assisi this year, a snippet.
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2011/09/cardinal-koch-no-communal-prayer-in.html
SS: TOTAL APOSTASY!
In my third last para above, “we can’t pray with them” now refers to non Christians. Thought that wasn’t clear.
Dear Xavier,
>>>SS: Which Church? Your Vat2 church founded in the 1960’s which you think was founded by Christ? We can’t agree as to what church, because we both believe that each of our religions is that Church. See the problem here?
X: Forget us. I asked you to tell me how you folks satisfy this verse among yourselves.
SS: We have priests and bishops too, you know. We do it the same way you would under the interregnum period. Now this verse doesn’t mean that it can always apply. Japan went 300 years without clergy, and how do you think the verse applied to them?
>>>SS: That’s one way, but when the false teacher claims to be pope, and you believe that false teacher is the pope, then your answer traps you in the apostasy.
X: Then St,Maximus was an apostate, because he didn’t become a sedevacantist and anathematize Rome.
SS: You don’t know what you are talking about. To this day, we don’t know where to place Honorius. As for yourself, you have to acknowledge an antipope because you have no way out. A true pope cannot be ousted by any declaration by anyone.
>>>SS: You just don’t get it. I asked you if someone like McBrien who dissents is a Catholic or not, EVEN THOUGH THE CHURCH HAS NOT JUDGED HIM ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
X: Mcbrien admits to teaching some heresy about the devil according to you. But we don’t deny that transubstantion or whatever it is here is a Catholic dogma. What we deny is that Pope Benedict is guilty of it, or whatever else you accuse him of. See the difference?
SS: No, McBrien doesn’t admit to teaching heresy. JP2 denies Christ’s descent into hell. So yes, he rejects a dogma. Ratzinger rejects several dogmas too. You deny that Ratzinger is guilty, but you have no reason to say that you deny it.
>>>SS: You say McBrien is a willful dissenter, but the Church has not done so. Are you his judge, jury, and executioner now? JP2 willfully dissented too, as does Ratzinger now.
X: But he has admitted, according to you, to denying that the devil exists. But Pope Benedict has not admitted to denying the Eucharist or the Resurrection.
SS: Sure, McBrien admits to denying the devil exists, but he also doesn’t believe the Church has taught that the devil exists as an actual creature. SO PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION WHICH YOU HAVE AVOIDED THUS FAR. Is McBrien a Catholic in the Catholic Church? Your church has never said one way or the other. What say you? Also, Ratzinger has admitted to denying other teachings, such as the condemnations against modernism.
>>>SS: Even Honorius’ successor defended him. So what? Honorius’s case in nothing like this one and you can’t compare them in the way that you’re attempting to do. I’ve written about Honorius in two books. Please don’t give me any more historical examples since you don’t represent the history accurately.
X: You say I don’t represent the history accurately but you don’t see just how devastating this fact is for your position.
SS: The fact is devastating to your position, not mine. You said heresy can’t touch a pope.
X: Catholics then did not know that he was in a heretic.
SS: They still don’t know today. Don’t you get it? His teaching came before the dogma, too. Were Sts. Anselm, Chrysostom, and Aquinas heretics for rejecting the Immaculate Conception? The Church has never clarified Honorius’ case.
X: But they defended him then from that charge.
SS: They defended him, because the two wills of Christ operated in unison, and not contrary to one another. Therefore, Honorius said it wrong, but meant it right, according to his successor.
X: We now know that he was in actual fact a heretic because an Ecumenical Council of the Church has told us so.
SS: WRONG! The Council could have been wrong. The Church is not infallible in excommunications. Also, saints after the council said that Honorius may not have been a heretic. Are they rejecting the council?
X: That means dogmatic sedevacantism is flatly false, because St.Maximus defended, not anathematized, a man who actually was a heretic, from the charge of being so! In other words, he presumed the good intentions of the Holy Father, and submitted judgment to the ecclesiastical Council.
SS: Wrong again! The Holy Father Honorius may in fact not been a heretic and should have been defended.
X: That is exactly what we do, and because St.Maximus was not anathematized, but rather canonized, we cannot be in the wrong in doing so, even in the extremely unlikely event that a future Council of the Church does the same to any of our present Popes. This is fatal to sedevacantism!
SS: It’s not fatal at all, but rather it gives evidence for sedevacantism. You misrepresent the facts of history and distort those facts into in a straw-man argument against us.
>>>SS: Who is the Church that makes the decision? A bunch of bishops that believe in the same heresies as the pope? What if the church doesn’t make the decision, then what, a heretic can be pope?
X: The gates of hell cannot prevail. Heresy cannot infect the Pope and the Bishops.
SS: You misrepresent Christ’s teaching on the gates of hell. You also contradict yourself, since you say Honorius did what you now say he cannot do.
X: If it infects one, God will protect the other, or protect his successors soon enough, as he did with Honorius and the Popes who followed him or at Ecumenical Councils of Constance and elsewhere were Bishops settled the question of multiple claimants.
SS: You’re contradicting yourself. You also don’t understand the clause, “gates of hell.” The Church has told us what it means. The council of Constance settled the question for the Church on multiple claimants? Wrong!
X: According to you all these periods were interregnums.
SS: What periods specifically are you talking about?
X: Yet we’ve never heard of anyone of these Councils or Catholics ever being or teaching sedevacantism.
SS: Oh yes we have. St Vincent Ferrer said the Chair was vacant because of the mess. The Church has also said so by way of implication. Your argument about councils is like a Protestant that says Purgatory doesn’t exist because it’s not explicitly taught in the Bible.
X: On the other hand, if we consider that sedevacantism is merely a schismatical movement, everything makes perfect sense.
SS: If sedevacantism is merely a schismatical movement, then the Gates of hell have indeed prevailed and Christ is a liar.
X: Immediately we see among them what always happens against those who fight against the Church of God. They are scattered.
SS: Yes, you are the schismatical church that is fighting against the Church of God. Your religion is not the historic faith as I’ve proven over and over. Your religion is also scattered.
X: Sedevacantists can’t call this Council and make this alleged declaration without forming so many splinter groups that almost kindle one’s pity.
SS: The Church needs not declare anything about your false religion because your religion is anathema on its own. It’s a pity that you can’t see it.
X: Everyone can make the same plea you make. The Jansenists, the Gallicans, the “Old Catholics”. That “We just need enough Bishops on our side, then we’ll show we are the true Church”. As far as we’re concerned, they are all in schism or worse and they’ll never manage to do what they want to..
SS: You are making the same plea, too, and I can say the same thing as you are.
>>>SS: First of all, the whole Church is not in material schism. Members of your false church are in material schism.
X: What about when there is a single antipope and no one knows it?
SS: It happened before with Benedict X. So what? Material schism, perhaps?
>>> Secondly, please show me that Church teaching that says the Church cannot be in material schism.
X: If the Church can be in material schism, the gates of hell would have prevailed, and the body of Christ would be joined to a false head.
SS: WRONG! Gates of hell pertains to formal heresy and schism, not material. Many true popes have been in material heresy and schism. You misrepresent Christ and Catholicism. Anyway, I asked where the Church taught it. You didn’t provide an answer. You gave me your own mere interpretation.
>>>What state was the Church in at the acceptance of Eugene until Martin abdicated?
X: It’s possible Martin had tacitly resigned earlier, and merely made a formal proclamation later at the Church’s insistence.
SS: He didn’t. Rome directly disobeyed him. Now what are you going to say?
>>>Secondly, I reached the conclusion that this is an interregnum when the claimant to the papacy is an antipope because he is not a Catholic.
>>>SS: Only if all the claimants are reasonably doubtful as with the Great Schism. However, all of them were Catholic so it’s not quite the same as now when none of them are Catholic.
X: So who decided in that case? Individuals forming more groups and more Popes? Or the Church putting an end to the matter once and for all?
SS: No one decided. They all stepped down. No one can declare a true pope as an antipope, not even the whole church. You’re implication is heretical.
X: And according to you, at least some of the Papal claimants today may be Catholic.
SS: NOT AT ALL. NONE OF THEM ARE CATHOLIC! WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS FROM?
X: Most of them are sedevacantists after all, believe Vatican II to be heretical, and may even find broad agreement among many Catholic doctrines.
SS: That doesn’t mean they are Catholic! Listen, you misrepresent me after I was so clear about my position, yet you think you can rightly represent your own popes? You have misrepresented your own religion on several things thus far.
>>>SS: Who is joined during any papal interregnum?
X: The faithful are!
SS: Exactly. That’s the answer. You are not faithful. You accept men as popes who outright reject Catholic dogmas. Go read my debate with Cortes about how JP2 and Ratzinger reject the dogma that those who die in original sin only go immediately into hell.
X: All of us, and if, say, a Bishop excommunicates a person in his diocese, the person cannot claim he is the true Church or that there is no visible Church anywhere just because there is currently an interregnum. So things go on just as usual even then.
SS: Not exactly. A true Catholic can wrongly be excommunicated by a bishop, and if so, the one wrongly excommunicated can claim to be a true Catholic. However, things do go on as usual with the faithful, like they are with us. We recognize who is and is not Catholic, just like you claim to do. This is why I asked you the question about McBrien. Is he a Catholic and member of the Church? AS A MATTER OF FACT, I WANT YOU TO SIMPLY REPLY TO THIS ONE THING IN YOUR NEXT REPLY.
>>>SS: Once Baptized, the infants are members of the Catholic Church regardless of receiving the Eucharist. The Eucharist itself doesn’t build up the Church. Btw, I like the practice of the East much better than the West.
X: Great. But actually the Eucharist does confer grace ex opere operato and so build up the infants who receive it as so.
SS: Building up the infants is a different thing than building up the Church with more members. So your argument fails and so does Vat2’s teaching.
>>>SS: What, then, are they, what?
X: What are those things that are “hard to understand” if not ambiguous?
SS: All things can be hard to understand for the unlearned, but not when learned. The doctrine of transubstantiation may be hard to understand, but there is no ambiguity to the doctrine. All the doctrines of the Faith can be hard to understand, but absolutely none of them are ambiguous. When ambiguity occurs with something, no one can ascertain it.
>>>SS: You didn’t answer the question.
X: No, I don’t believe it is ambiguous. I was granting your premise to point out your conclusion doesn’t follow.
SS: Why then make an argument about hard to understand to be the same as ambiguity? You were implying it and now are changing your position.
>>>SS: Then you have fallen in the trap which you can’t get out.
X: The way you argue is like a Protestant saying, and this has been said to me, “Xavier, I know you can’t come out of what the Catholic Church says.” To that I respond that I have good reasons to trust the Church, but that aside, am more than willing to hear and consider any objections he may have.
SS: You’re an expert at misrepresenting my arguments. Not at all the same. I’m getting tired of this from you. You’re in a trap, because you know that you must follow the Church, but since you can’t see that your church is not The Church, you continue to follow your church.
X: It is a false appeal, to make it look as if one must be agnostic about everything in order to have a discussion about anything. One cannot be agnostic about whether one’s current Pope is legitimate, because that would be schism if the Pope were true and God will find a way if he were not. One must hold to it firmly, therefore, but subject to the judgment of the Church.
SS: I’m asking to look deeper into the subject. You automatically believe they are popes and therefore, you won’t think that it’s possible that they are not popes. The followers of antipope Michael could use your own logic.
>>>SS: The Eucharist is Christ, truly, really, fully, substantially. However, the accidents of bread and wine remain.
X: Objectively, the Eucharist is Christ. In our perception, we see bread and wine. I am speaking objectively.
SS: Still doesn’t work.
>>>SS: Rome has taught that the definition of subsist is exist. You don’t agree with your church now?
X: Firstly, the classical meaning is this:
“This meaning of the term subsistit coincides with the common language of Western culture and is consistent with classical philosophical language from Aristotle to St. Thomas; that which exists in itself and not in something else is said to subsist.4″
http://www.ewtn.com/library/Doctrine/subsistit.htm
Rome has said subsist means “exist as a concrete subject”. Thus, Christ subsists in the Eucharist means Christ can be encountered as a concrete subject in the Eucharist. God subsists in Three Divine Persons means God can be encountered as a concrete subject in the Holy Trinity.
But God doesn’t subsist in the universe, nor does Christ subsist in you and me by this definition.
SS: Yes HE does and that is the point. I am a concrete subject as is the universe! YOU LOSE THIS DEBATE.
>>>Subsist doesn’t mean IS.
X: Subsist reinforces is in a marvellous way!
SS: I’VE ALREADY DEBUNKED THIS ON MY HOME PAGE. READ IT AND WEEP!
X: It is a doctrinal development.
SS: WRONG! It’s total novelty.
X: Just like God subsists in Three Divine Persons, the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church.
SS: WRONG AGAIN. TOTALLY HERETICAL!
X: So, the Council only reinforces the teaching by saying the Church of Christ can be encountered in such a unique and altogether singular way in the Catholic Church as God is in the Holy Trinity, or Christ is, in the Eucharist.
SS: VAT2’S TEACHING IS SATANIC AND YOU’RE DEFENDING IT!
>>>SS: Bread and wine does not exist in substance, but it does exist in appearances. That’s why the Church infallibly teaches that the accidents of the bread and wine REMAIN.
>>>SS: UH?
X: Take the one that said no one is to help Luther and his followers in any way. Or even the well known exhortation of the Apostle John! See, you can concoct anything, if you take it out of context, without respect for the present realities of their interior disposition as heaven makes it known to us through the living voice of the Church.
SS: YOU PROVE MY POINT, NOT YOURS.
>>>SS: You misapply St. Paul in this case.
X: Oh? How?
SS: BECAUSE HIS TEACHING DOESN’T APPLY AT ALL!
>>> And are you suggesting that your popes are so stupid that they don’t really know that they are teaching heresy?
X: I am saying they are guilty of nothing of what you accuse them of, denying the Eucharist or Transubstantion or the descent into hell.
SS: I DON’T ACCUSE THEM OF DENYING THE EUCHARIST OR TRANSUBSTANTIATION! WHY ARE YOU LYING? DECENT INTO HELL! YES. I’VE PROVEN IT.
>>>SS: You’re changing the argument.
X: I brought up Pius XII, so this has been my argument, and my argument from the start. What was yours here that I changed?
SS: THEN YOU MISSED THE BOAT! AND I’VE BEEN WASTING MY TIME!
>>>SS: I know, and 10,000 other Catholics know in conscience they are listening to the Catholic Church. We simply follow the historic Faith. The positive law of the Church has already provided the answers, and you won’t listen or follow them.
X: I know, and a billion other Catholics know in conscience they are following the Catholic Church, the Faith living and growing, spreading across new frontiers, recuperating from attacks on left and on right, ever ancient, ever new. We’ve always known and we always will know.
SS: You all are know-nothings. Your replies prove it. You can’t represent me correctly, much less your own religion.
X: The positive law should provide for the instance of how the heretic is to be deposed,
SS: YES, IT’S AUTOMATICALLY. THIS IS THE LAW!
X: or declared deposed, in such a way as to be evidently an exercise of Church authority.
SS: NO ONE CAN DEPOSE A TRUE POPE. HE CAN ONLY DEPOSE HIMSELF.
X: This can be easily done, and perhaps will be done, if in future, a Pope is ever going to become a heretic before AntiChrist.
SS: I’VE DEBUNKED THIS ERROR IN MY BOOK.
>>>SS: Pope Pius XII was speaking about a type of excommunication. Cardinals who become heretics are not cardinals any longer. Pius XII wasn’t referring to them. He was referring to those excommunications that were once labeled minor.
X: Yeah, I know this is the standard sedevacantist interpretation. But he said “pretext of any excommunication whatsoever”. Besides he said, “at other times it is to remain valid” meaning that Cardinals could otherwise be excommunicated.
SS: HE WAS SPEAKING ABOUT CARDINALS, RIGHT? HERETICS CANNOT BE CARDINALS! YOU DON’T KNOW CATHOLICISM.
>>>SS: NO HERETIC CAN BE POPE EVEN IF ALL THE CARDINALS ELECTED SUCH A PERSON. THIS IS DIVINE LAW!
X: Sure. But I’m talking about the determination and the deposal as the Church has done in the past with Antipopes.
SS: THERE IS NO NEED TO DEPOSE AN ANTIPOPE FROM SOMETHING HE DOESN’T HOLD.
>>>SS: Of course, and the Church law should never be used to override a Divine law.
X: Church law is our guide and our protector in understanding and applying divine law for our times.
SS: AND YOU DON’T FOLLOW IT, OR BELIEVE IT.
>>>SS: Please explain then: John Paul II who prayed with African Animists known as “witch doctors.” He stated, “The prayer meeting in the sanctuary at Lake Togo was particularly striking. There I prayed for the first time WITH animists” (Prayer with an African Animist on August 8, 1985). L’Osservatore Romano, August 26, 1985, p. 9.
X: Saints have prayed with pagans, meaning they have gone into pagan temples to pray that the false powers be ceased. You don’t know what Pope John Paul II prayed for, and moreover “prayed with” means externally, not necessarily internally.
SS: GOING INTO PAGAN TEMPLES TO PRAY FOR CONVERSIONS IS NOT PRAYING WITH THEM. YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT JP2 DID AND YOU DON’T CARE.
X: Thus, there are good reasons to presume the Holy Father’s innocence.
SS: WRONG! RATZINGER PRAYED IN A MOSQUE AS MUSLIMS AND WITH THEM. THIS IS APOSTASY! NO GOOD REASON TO PRESUME ANYTHING BUT HIS APOSTASY.
X: And before you quote canon law, again, let me remind you the Pope is the supreme legislator of it, and it doesn’t apply simplistically to him. He isn’t just another Bishop for the Church to do as she likes with him.
SS: DIVINE LAW APPLIES TO HIM AND JP2 AND RATZINGER ARE DEVILS!
>>>SS: The law of the Church is, “He who prays with a heretic, is a heretic.”
X: And as St.Augustine said, some men are not to be accounted heretics.
Those, the Church has judged, include those who are willing to pray that the Lord may show them the path to unity.
SS: I’VE ALREADY EXPLAINED AUGUSTINE’S TEACHING, BUT YOU IGNORE IT.
X: That law was framed so that Catholics would not participate in Protestant services. But Protestants coming to pray with Catholics for unity is something completely different.
SS: WHY CHANGE THE SUBJECT?
X: They don’t know what they are praying for, of course, but we do, and that is nothing short of praying for the very great grace, of entering the Catholic Church, which they will receive if they are sincere. Obviously, Catholics can and must pray for this, and since it is a good intention, pleasing to the Lord, Protestants praying for the same thing are welcome to join us.
SS: PLEASE ANSWER THE ONE QUESTION ABOUT MCBRIEN OR DON’T REPLY BACK. THANK YOU! SORRY FOR ALL THE LARGE LETTERS, BUT I’M IN A HURRY. I’M WORKING TWO FULL TIME JOBS AND NEED TO GET TO SLEEP.
Dear Xavier,
My reply below…
X: 1. I already answered, and I’ll do it again. Someone who wilfully dissents is not a Catholic. Mcbrien wilfully dissents. He is not a Catholic. This is the Church versus an individual.
But Pope Benedict has merely been accused, nothing been proven, about dissenting from the Faith. When I said, “you”, I meant sedevacantists. You are trying to pit the Church of yesterday against the Church of today.
SS: How do you know McBrien willfully dissents? He doesn’t believe he is dissenting. So please answer the question. IS MCBRIEN A CATHOLIC AND MEMBER OF THE CHURCH? But since you say that one who willfully dissents is not a Catholic, then you’re in real trouble. JP2 and Ratzinger, both willfully dissent with the dogmatic teaching found in two Ecumenical Councils that those who die in original sin only descend immediately into hell. Based on your own statements, both of them are not Catholics and therefore not popes.
X: 2. I know you have Bishops, but you do not recognize anything as binding. If one Bishop anathematizes one layman, he’ll form another groups. This is not one Church, this is not a Catholic Church.
Yes, excommunications can be wrongful, but the aggrieved party waits patiently, trusting in the Lord, until he is received back, into the Church.
SS: Do you recognize a mere bishop’s teaching as binding? Even a pope’s teaching is not binding unless under certain circumstances. If a bishop forms some other group, he is not a Catholic.
X: 3. A Pope at his death ceases to hold the Keys of the Kingdom. He can afterward be ousted by another who does. Besides, even if he was a true Pope, and became a heretic, he would have lost his office, and so can and should have been anathematized.
SS: You said heresy can’t touch a pope.
X: Honorius was nothing like St.Thomas. Honorius forbad the use of the orthodox expression in a response to a formal query. Nothing could be worse.
SS: The dogma had not yet been defined. How was he a formal heretic?
X: I know some have denied that Honorius was a heretic, but I take the Council for what it says. At the very least, if the Council was correct, sedevacantism in the way it is espoused today would be untrue.
SS: Wrong, at the very most, the council was correct. Saints have said the council may have been wrong. Were they dissenters for rejecting the council that you say at the very least was correct? If Honorius became a heretic, the office became vacant at that moment, and anyone could have rejected him.
X: 4. According to this interpretation, Pope Pius XII was notorious and suspect in the external forum, and so are you, for saying, “I speak to Protestants all the time and don’t always accuse them of heresy, etc. I even wish them well and hope God blesses them.” and thus controverting the Apostle John admit the Church can loose what the Church has bound, which would disprove your position. It is amazing that you do not see that this not differ from fundamentalism and private interpretation.
SS: WRONG! I can wish them well in health and in battle, and hope God blesses them with grace to convert. St John would agree with me. It is amazing that you do not see your invalid argument!
X: 5. Then you are easily answered, for we may simply reply that the SVC is only “hard to understand” to the “unlearned”.
SS: But it’s not true because you cannot ascertain the word. You can only speculate. However, the learned only speculate. I have spoken to three Vat2 theologian priests who agree that it is ambiguous and that one can only speculate about the word. You are not more learned than they, and therefore your argument is false.
X: You are a “concrete subject” but God does not exist and cannot be encountered in you as a concrete subject otherwise you would be God.
SS: YES GOD CAN! WHEN I RECEIVE THE EUCHARIST IT HAPPENS. ALSO, A CONCRETE SUBjECT PROVES MY POSITION, NOT YOURS. YOU SIMPLY LOSE THIS DEBATE!
X: The Eucharist does not build up any Church with more members. The Eucharist builds up the Church by buiilding up the members of her body.
SS: VAT2 DIDN’T IMPLY THIS! But it doesn’t matter, you’ve lost the debate and have proven me right with the rest of your reply. Thank you!
X: 6. Why did he say “pretext of any excommunication whatsoever”.
SS: He was speaking about cardinals, not heretical ex-cardinals.
X: A Cardinal who has really been excommunicated automatically for a heresy would not be Cardinal. But this
SS: But this what? He is not a cardinal, plain and simple. What’s the problem?
X: The Church seems almost to have made it easy to allow heretical infilitrators to ascend to the Petrine throne, if we follow the sedevacantists.
SS: W H A T ? What do you mean easy? THEY CAN’T ASCEND TO THE THRONE AT ALL! They can’t even do it easily for those who are firm in the faith, but they can appear to easily to do it with those who don’t have a firm grip on the faith.
X: But, otherwise, we realize that providentially, the Church made this law just in time so that all doubts may be removed from the minds of the faihtful foreseeing the rise of sedevacantism.
SS: This is the same silly argument used by Tim Staples found elsewhere on my blog. Go find it and read why it is so silly.
X: 7. It is the determination I am talking about. Not deposal, but determination. Definite certainty is necessary for the determination, like the CE said.
The Church makes the determination and ordains a successor or a new Pope. When there appear to be three Popes, or a Pope who is doubtfully electied, or illegitimate for some other reason, it is the Church together in Council who must decide, either for a resignation, or for a successor or whatever.
SS: Wrong again. You don’t know what you are talking about.
X: One final question. Is sedevacantism falsifiable?
SS: Absolutely! If the Faith (The Church) disappears from the earth altogether, then it would prove it false….I think, although, there may be an answer to this, too.
X: If, say, for the next 100 years, Christ does not come back, and the Church shows no signs whatsoever of convoking such a Council to look into the accusation, would you admit that sedevacantism is untrue?
SS: No, because the Church has never defined a limit to an interregnum period.
X: Or does this go on sempiternally?
SS: I don’t know precisely how you mean this but I can say that as long as the principle of perpetuity is in place, the Chair could theoretically be vacant until the end. The Catholic Church in Her great wisdom was very careful when defining the papal doctrine at Vat1. I believe, however, this is a sign that we are very close to the end now.
What is your phone number so that we can talk about it?
Dear Xavier,
My reply below…
X: Actually, Steven, you didn’t answer my question. But, we’ll come to that.
SS: I answered everything.
X: Here’s another question. Do sedevacantists, seeing as their private judgment has convinced them they are the only remaining Catholics in all the world, have the authority and mandate to elect a new Pontiff?
SS: What do you think?
X: If they don’t have the one, they don’t have the other. If you maintain that groups can’t make the determination by themselves that binds the whole Church as to who is the new Pope than individuals can’t make the determination by themselves that the Church has lost his office by heresy.
SS: How do you think we would answer this?
X: You criticize my use of terms, but I used it to drive home a point. To say that “everyone is bound to reject the Pope” is different from “anyone could have rejected him” which you said of Honorius if he had become a heretic. Do you see the difference?
SS: Do you see the difference between knowing for sure whether one is a heretic VS not knowing for sure? Honorius’ case has not been solved. Your point is false.
X: It is the first position I called “dogmatic sedevacantism”. But St.Maximus did not become a sedevacantist! You didn’t understand what I said about the Council.
I said, if the Council was correct, dogmatic sedevacantism stands refuted.
SS: YOU DID SAY THE COUNCIL WAS CORRECT. I’ve already pointed out that even if it were correct, it doesn’t refute sedevacantism precisely because of the issue wasn’t solved in its day. Had someone in the day of Honorius became a sedevacantist, you could not prove him wrong.
X: However, it goes further. Even if the Council was wrong in point of fact, given that it was an Ecumenical Council, and can be expected to correctly dictate to Catholics how they should act, the fact that it did not condemn St.Maximus or Constantinople in general for condemning someone whom it had condemned as a heretic (Honorius) shows that the Fathers of the Council believed that it is wise and prudent for individuals to leave such matters to the judgment of the Church.
SS: WRONG! That’s only your opinion of the council. I deny it. The Fathers condemned Honorius so that others would not follow his error.
X: This does not affect sedevacantism per se, the first position I explained, but does absolutely refute “dogmatic sedevacantism”!
SS: ABSOLUTELY FALSE!
>>>SS: How do you know McBrien willfully dissents? He doesn’t believe he is dissenting.
X: I know that someone who disbelieves in the devil dissents from Catholic faith. Assuming everything you’ve told me about him is true, he does exactly that, since he has effectively pleaded guilty to the charges.
SS: He has not pleaded guilty to anything, since he has not been charged with anything. I’ve told you this many times. The Church has never censored him in anyway.
X: However, on the first point, this does not apply to the Pope since we do not grant the accusations you make, but consider them frivolous, unjust and untrue.
SS: Oh, but it does apply because it’s about whether someone is a Catholic or not based on simple observation and logic.
X: Secondly, even a nominal Pope or Cardinal deserves more respect from the rest of the Church and a presumption of good intention.
SS: I don’t presume that Ratzinger was ever pope. So you must keep in mind that sedevacantists are not saying that the conciliar popes lost the papacy, because we’re saying they never had the papacy to begin with.
X: That is why canon law states only a Pope may judge a Cardinal in ordinary circumstances.
SS: Not when it comes to heresy, schism, or apostasy. Divine law states that anyone whomsoever becomes a heretic/schismatic/apostatate by nature is severed from the Church.
X: By such laws, Mother Church wishes to convey to us the respect we should have for our leaders and their good will.
SS: This is no law to back up your position.
>>>So please answer the question. IS MCBRIEN A CATHOLIC AND MEMBER OF THE CHURCH?
X: No.
SS: Who made you judge, jury, and executioner? The Church has never declared him so.
>>> But since you say that one who willfully dissents is not a Catholic, then you’re in real trouble.
X: I’ve always said so.
As for the rest, as you keep telling me, go read this.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html
SS: Of course I read the above link. Where do you think I got my info from to begin with? IT’S HERETICAL!
X: It is not that we do not know the deplorable natural effects of original sin in the unborn, but that there are theological grounds for hope of a hidden and special supernatural providence.
SS: So you also reject the dogma that those who die in original sin only go to hell? Btw, limbo is a part of hell.
>>>SS: Do you recognize a mere bishop’s teaching as binding? Even a pope’s teaching is not binding unless under certain circumstances. If a bishop forms some other group, he is not a Catholic.
X: But which is the “some other group”? Between two sedevacantist groups no one at all can tell which is the true Church and which is a schismatic sect.
SS: Yes, we can. No bishop can start his own religion. Any knowledge Catholic can tell.
>>>SS: You said heresy can’t touch a pope.
X: I said positive law and a long tradition of pious and probable opinion among the doctors entitles the pope to juridicial presumption of innocence.
SS: WRONG AGAIN. The law says just the opposite and the teaching from all the doctors and saints have been that a pope who becomes a heretic AUTOMATICALLY WITHOUT ANY FURTHER DECLARATION ceases to be pope.
>>>SS: The dogma had not yet been defined. How was he a formal heretic?
X: Not only because he had the authority and the mandate to define it then and there ex cathedra, but because he forbad an orthodox expression, which no power on earth can do.
SS: He didn’t have a mandate if he didn’t know. POPES DON’T KNOW EVERYTHING. Based on your own answer, Aquinas was a formal heretic, because he taught and promoted that Mary was a sinner. Did he have the power to do so?
>>>SS: WRONG! I can wish them well in health and in battle, and hope God blesses them with grace to convert. St John would agree with me. It is amazing that you do not see your invalid argument!
X: What if someone sees your action, and decides, without consulting you, that you had proved yourself a heretic in the external forum? Stretch it a lot further, and this is what you are doing to the Sovereign Pontiffs!
SS: No heresy is involved. Therefore, nothing in the external forum could give someone the ability to rightfully conclude that I was a heretic. However, your “pontiffs” invite the worlds pagan leaders to pray to their pagan gods for world peace. Quite different. Also, you have things like JP2 DRESSING UP IN PAGAN OUTFITS AND ACTIVELY PARTICIPATING IN PAGANISM. You apparently don’t have a problem with that.
>>>SS: But it’s not true because you cannot ascertain the word.
X: But there are innumerable learned persons in the Catholic Church in communion with Rome today who likewise disagree with you. Clearly, this is not an argument.
SS: BUT THAT’S MY POINT. Subsists is not exclusive because both sides of the learned disagree with how the word is to be held. IT IS THE ARGUMENT. You even use the word “is” to explain subsists, which is contrary to the theologians on your side.
X: Besides, St.Paul speaks of those who are “ever learning, but never coming to the knowledge of the truth” so learnedness is not at all an argument.
SS: It is when it comes to a word used in defining the nature of the Church. You lose!
>>>SS: YES GOD CAN! WHEN I RECEIVE THE EUCHARIST IT HAPPENS. ALSO, A CONCRETE SUBJECT PROVES MY POSITION, NOT YOURS. YOU SIMPLY LOSE THIS DEBATE!
X: Only when you become God!
SS: Again, the problem with subsists in how do you mean it. You can’t have a word that is not exclusive. You keep proving me right with your explanations.
X: When Mother Mary kissed her baby boy, she kissed the face of God. God could be encountered in Christ as a concrete subject. St.Paul says, in Him the fulness of the Godhead dwells. This is subsisting. Now, God dwells in all of us, but that is not subsisting, because God cannot be encountered in us by someone else like He can be in Christ!
You insist on redefining a word then not listening to us in the sense in which we mean it.
SS: In the sense that you mean it is the problem. You don’t use “is” because you want to have a word to mean what you want, while at the same time your conciliar popes use it to mean the way we have explained it. The word doesn’t mean what you say or else Rome wouldn’t have spent years and 4 explanations to its own theologians who know it’s wrong. They’re trying to rectify a gigantic problem.
>>>SS: VAT2 DIDN’T IMPLY THIS! But it doesn’t matter, you’ve lost the debate and have proven me right with the rest of your reply. Thank you!
X: Sure, sure!.
SS: It didn’t imply it. Go read it.
>>>SS: He was speaking about cardinals, not heretical ex-cardinals.
X: Your opinion is likely imprudent, possibly dangerous and perhaps schismatic. It is close to the Protestant heresy of an invisible Church.
SS: Wrong. Your opinion is contrary to the Divine law. You want your visible Church with heretical cardinals voting each other in. Sorry, but it doesn’t work like that. You have seriously taken Pope Pius XII out of context.
X: Answer me this, is an occult heretic a member of the Church?
SS: Of course not.
X: Your opinion on this point would reduce the entire Church to the point of absurdity. Cardinals are presumed to be valid unless the Church tells us they are not. Such cases are reserved to the Holy See, and no one may lawfully pass judgment thereupon.
SS: YOU’RE TOTALLY GOING AGAINST ALL THE SAINTS AND THEOLOGAINS WHO HAVE TAUGHT ON THIS, NOT TO MENTION CUM EX FROM POPE PAUL IV. I can’t believe that you are arguing that a Cardinal can be an occult heretic. Unbelievable! I’m really beginning to wonder about you.
>>>SS: W H A T ? What do you mean easy? THEY CAN’T ASCEND TO THE THRONE AT ALL!
X: What if a hypothetical infiltrator, who never held or intended to hold the Catholic faith, but took careful caution to cover his tracks, appeared to become Pope? Would he be so or not?
SS: Absolutely not as the Church has taught! This is our whole point. This is why we are sedevacantists.
X: If what you say is true, none of the faithful could ever have certainty that a said person was Pope.
SS: You already admitted that you agree with all the saints and doctors that a Pope cannot be a heretic, yet you argue against it with the above statement and your statement on heretical cardinals. What gives?
X: This is why they are always free, as per the positive law of the Church, to allow for the presumption of innocence in the case of the Supreme Pontiff. It is only resisting the judgment of the later legimitate Church authority that such and such a pontificate has been void ab initio that would incur schism.
SS: Wrong! I answer this elsewhere on my blog, and show you why it is logically absurd.
X: You inadvertently present sedevacantism as if it were an object of divine and Catholic faith necessary for salvation.
SS: Sedevacantism is a position of Catholicism which you must hold to be saved, because the rejection of it is a rejection of the Divine law of God and the dogmas of the Church. (Presuming of course, culpability)
>>>What is your phone number so that we can talk about it?
X: My phone number? Well, I stay in India, as you may know. Maybe we can chat using skype or something? Or, I don’t mind giving you my mobile number.
SS: Sure, send me your mobile number. Send privately if you like at my email catholicwarrior@juno.com We could save a lot of time talking rather than writing.
Dear Xavier,
My reply below…
X: Yeah, I’ll send you my number in an email after I type this. This was my goto site when I first encountered and considered the question just before the previous post.
Now, a manifest heretic differs from an occult (“secret”) heretic in one important detail – the manifest heretic is no longer a member of the Church. He has left it, by his own will, in the very act of revealing himself openly as an heretic.
http://sedevacantist.com/post4.html
Do you agree? I was told this was the position the Doctors had taken elsewhere. It seemed the more sensible one. Are you telling me it is otherwise? Much of your post depends on this, so let’s settle this first.
SS: Your original use of occult heretic was in respect to being excommunicated and having it lifted so that he may act in a conclave. My understanding of your use of occult was one who practiced the occult. If you mean secret heretic, then you have a different argument altogether. You can’t be judged to be outside of the Church if no one knows that you are a heretic. I’m not referring to someone who no one knows to be a heretic. That is a moot point in regards to our discussion.
X: Now, I will come to the rest, but I want to go into this first.
“Finally, in regard to the teaching of the Council of Florence, it is incredible that the Fathers there assembled had any intention of defining a question so remote from the issue on which reunion with the Greeks depended, and one which was recognized at the time as being open to free discussion and continued to be so regarded by theologians for several centuries afterwards. What the council evidently intended to deny in the passage alleged was the postponement of final awards until the day of judgement.
Suarez, for example, ignoring Bellarmine’s protest, continued to teach what Catharinus had taught — that unbaptized children will not only enjoy perfect natural happiness, but that they will rise with immortal bodies at the last day and have the renovated earth for their happy abode (De vit. et penat., ix, sect. vi, n. 4); and, without insisting on such details, the great majority of Catholic theologians have continued to maintain the general doctrine that the children’s limbo is a state of perfect natural happiness, just the same as it would have been if God had not established the present supernatural order.
SS: Not the point at all. What they all agree with is that they don’t go to heaven because they can’t do so. The discussion is not what degree of hell do they suffer.
X: The question therefore arises as to what, in the absence of a clear positive revelation on the subject, we ought in conformity with Catholic principles to believe regarding the eternal lot of such persons.
SS: Only about the state in hell. Not that they can go to heaven.
X: Now it may confidently be said that, as the result of centuries of speculation on the subject, we ought to believe that these souls enjoy and will eternally enjoy a state of perfect natural happiness; and this is what Catholics usually mean when they speak of the limbus infantium, the “children’s limbo.”
SS: IT’S NOT HEAVEN!
X: This is from Patrick Toner a century ago in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Yes, I know limbo is part of hell, but I have a question for you. Where do, in your perspective, the children go after the Last judgment?
SS: All those who die without Baptism will not go to heaven, but rather hell.
X: Again, the Church has always settled questions by theological discussion and never by private judgment as both Protestants and now sedevacantists now do, as if the alternate theological perspective were incapable.
SS: However, the issue was settled that they didn’t go to heaven, not what type of suffering they will have in hell/limbo.
X: Also a living Faith is a growing Faith, and necessarily develops in time, which is impossible for sedevacantists to recognize or put in practice without horrendous disputes and anathematizations among them. Therefore, even faith cannot save them, for it is faith that is cut off from active charity, not a living and growing faith but a dead faith. This is the unhappy reality of schism.
SS: This is a total lie! I’ve already shown you how you don’t follow your own principles. The living Faith cannot contradict dogmas. YOU DON’T BELIEVE IN THE DOGMA, DO YOU? This is what it comes down to.
X: St.Thomas did not forbid the orthodox expression. There is no comparison whatsoever.
SS: St. Thomas didn’t say unbaptized infants have a hope for heaven! Where to do you get your info?
X: Actually, you didn’t understand what I said. My exact words, “At the very least, if the Council was correct”. So I said, or meant to say, “at least if the Council was correct, then dogmatic sedevacantism would be false”. I didn’t say, “At the least, the Council was correct”
SS: You’re still wrong. Sorry.
X: But let us consider the other case. That the Fathers were wrong in fact. But still they clearly believed, whether or not they were right, that Honorius was a heretic. So why didn’t they condemn St.Maximus or even Constantinople for not condemning him? You cannot maintain what you must without answering this.
SS: Of course I can. No one was sure especially in light of the fact the dogma didn’t exist until after the death of Honorius. You seem not to understand this simple principle.
X: Now, regarding subsist.
SS: What you seem to keep missing is that subsists leaves out exclusivity. This is from the experts in Latin. Your entire following explanation proves my point, not yours.
X: You realize there was a traditional formulation of the Church as a person with her members either belonging to her, in body or in soul or both.
This is the doctrinal development of that.
Now, the body as such is visible, and so the body of the Church only refers to Catholics, who if they are alive in charity belong to the soul as well. But certain of the baptized in good faith, or the unbaptized in invincible ignorance, zealous in obeying the natural law and ready to obey God were traditionally said to belong to the soul as well.
Now, how to legitimately expand and develop this doctrine? First, to make it clear that the Church of Christ as a concrete subject is encountered in this world in the Catholic Church. This is the one Church, the person, our Mother. She is a concrete subject and she is the Catholic Church, body and soul. Then, to point out that others outside her visible body and confines, can nonetheless share in the grace and salvation of the Church, by being mystically united to her soul in Spirit, that comes to us from Christ and through her alone. This is what the Council has done and this is the mind of the Church.
Sedevacantists are like Protestants in some regards when they say that infallibility cannot mean what we say it means, or that infallibility must imply impeccability, or that we shouldn’t call it infallibiltiy or something else like that.
SS: WRONG! You and I both know what infallibility means.
Dear Xavier,
My reply below…
>>>SS: You can’t be judged to be outside of the Church if no one knows that you are a heretic. I’m not referring to someone who no one knows to be a heretic. That is a moot point in regards to our discussion.
X: I think my use was clear enough, but all right.
SS: How could you be clear when the subject was about Pope Pius XII’s lifting of excommunications?
X: Actually, it’s very relevant, and I’ll show why.
SS: It’s not relevant because we are speaking about judging known heretics.
X: Tell me clearly, is he a member of the Church or is it merely that he “can’t be judged to be outside of the Church”? It’s not the same.
SS: It’s doesn’t matter since you don’t know. This is another subject altogether. We’re talking about known heretics. I’m not going into another subject until we finish this one.
>>>SS: Not the point at all. What they all agree with is that they don’t go to heaven because they can’t do so. The discussion is not what degree of hell do they suffer.
X: Did you read what was said about Florence
SS: Did you read how they ignored the part about how those who die in original sin only “descend immediately into hell.”??? They just said, “In the Middle Ages, the ecclesiastical magisterium affirmed more than once that those “who die in mortal sin” and those who die “with original sin only” receive “different punishments”. WHY DO YOU THINK THEY LEFT OUT THE PART THAT SAYS, “DESCEND IMMEDIATELY INTO HELL”????
DO YOU ALSO REJECT THIS DOGMA? You didn’t answer this question the first time.
>>>SS: All those who die without Baptism will not go to heaven, but rather hell.
X: You didn’t answer the simple question. Suarez said the children eternally enjoy happiness and will have the renovated earth as their happy abode.
SS: What question did I not answer? Suarez was talking about the state of hell/limbo those children will have. He was not saying that they enjoyed eternal happiness in heaven.
X: Yet, this is impossible if original sin remains in their soul.
SS: We don’t know what type of punishment they have, but they don’t go to heaven do they, which is what Rome is now saying we can hope for.
X: Thus, this very theological speculation, in order not to be discordant, necessarily must include a hope for a hidden remission of sin, as in baptism, by some extraordinary means.
SS: Then what of the dogma? It doesn’t mean anything?
X: None of this is contrary to the Florentine decree, nor was it ever understood in the way you privately do.
SS: They all understood it the way that I’m saying. ABSOLUTLEY NONE OF THEM SAID WE CAN HOPE THEY GO TO HEAVEN OR EVEN IMPLIED IT, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE GOING AGAINST THE DOGMA.
>>>SS: However, the issue was settled that they didn’t go to heaven, not what type of suffering they will have in hell/limbo.
X: Again, I await your answer as to what happens after the resurrection. Those who die in original sin cannot enter heaven, but all those who die without being seen to be baptized may not necessarily die in original sin, and it’s a simple non-sequitur to maintain otherwise.
SS: I guess we can hope that no one dies in original sin only then, right? I guess we could also hope that no one dies in actual sin too, right? The concept can apply to both.
>>>SS: This is a total lie!
X: You think the Faith alone can save someone?
SS: I don’t think faith alone saves anyone. That’s Luther’s heresy.
>>>YOU DON’T BELIEVE IN THE DOGMA, DO YOU? This is what it comes down to.
X: Then Suarez held and taught, implicitly at least, a heresy, denying a dogma.
SS: So you don’t believe in the dogma? Suarez didn’t say they can go to heaven, like you do. He doesn’t go against the dogma, like you do.
>>>SS: St. Thomas didn’t say unbaptized infants have a hope for heaven! Where to do you get your info?
X: I was talking about your comparison of St.Thomas to Honorius.
SS: Then you need to specify what you’re talking about. This is whole thing is getting convoluted. PICK ONE THING AND GO WITH IT. PLEASE!!!
>>>SS: Of course I can. No one was sure especially in light of the fact the dogma didn’t exist until after the death of Honorius. You seem not to understand this simple principle.
X: It doesn’t matter. We don’t need to be sure which was the case.
SS: It matters, because it’s different with Honorius than now. You do need to know for sure!
X: You didn’t answer, “they clearly believed, whether or not they were right, that Honorius was a heretic. So why didn’t they condemn St.Maximus or even Constantinople for not condemning him?”
SS: I answer everything but just ignore it. Go back and reread my answer to your question.
>>>SS: What you seem to keep missing is that subsists leaves out exclusivity.This is from the experts in Latin. Your entire following explanation proves my point, not yours.
X: False. Again,
SS: No it’s not false, because it’s true. I’ve already proven it logically and you didn’t deal with it.
X: “This meaning of the term subsistit coincides with the common language of Western culture and is consistent with classical philosophical language from Aristotle to St. Thomas; that which exists in itself and not in something else is said to subsist.”
SS: Subsist just means exist or to be found. You ignore this definition.
>>>SS: WRONG! You and I both know what infallibility means.
X: This is a circular argument because we both accept the dogma of Papal infallibility. The critics of the dogma make the same arguments there about its alleged misuse of terms that you make here.
SS: Wrong again. Many Vat2 apologists misuse the term of infallibility and what it means. They almost always confuse it with immutability.
Dear Xavier,
My reply….
>>>SS: How could you be clear when the subject was about Pope Pius XII’s lifting of excommunications?
X: Because it was related to that. Why won’t you answer, one way or the other?
SS: You can’t lift an excommunication if one were never excommunicated. Why won’t you answer me what gives you the authority to be McBrien’s, judge, jury, and executioner? Rome has not done so, but you have.
>>>SS: It’s doesn’t matter since you don’t know. This is another subject altogether. We’re talking about known heretics. I’m not going into another subject until we finish this one.
X: No, it does matter.
SS: WHY DOES IT MATTER? If you don’t know if someone is a heretic or not, you can’t judge him to be a heretic.
X: I’ve already answered all your questions, but you refuse me the same courtesy.
SS: You have not answered many of my questions!
X: Why would you be so hesitant, if you didn’t already suspect your position might be wrong, I wonder?
SS: I don’t suspect my position is wrong at all. I’m just not going to let you change the subject. The fact is you keep trying to ask whether a private a heretic is a member of the Church so that you don’t have to deal with your contradiction that you’re now a judge, jury, and executioner to a theologian whom Rome has never declared anything. You don’t give him any benefit of the doubt. You don’t try to reason away his position. But when it comes down your “popes” doing the very same thing, you condemn anyone who does what you do to McBrien.
>>>SS: Did you read how
X: I said what the Catholic Encyclopedia said about the Florentine decree?
SS: No you didn’t.
>>>they ignored the part about how those who die in original sin only “descend immediately into hell.”?
X: We know this better than you do
SS: Better than you do? Why do you make such statements?
X: , for original sin involves the privation of sanctifying grace, and those who die not in a state of grace are lost as surely as those who die in it are saved, just like with mortal sin.
SS: Then you know, but at the same time you can say that everybody has a good hope not to die in original sin only.
>>>SS: What question did I not answer?
X: Where do these souls go after the Resurrection? Are they consigned under the earth, or do they have it as their happy abode, as he said?
SS: You mean what punishments do they have in hell after the Resurrection? We only speculate. Some think it will be like the happy abode of Abrahams’ bosom, some think fire less than the rest, but none of them say they go to heaven.
>>>Suarez was talking about the state of hell/limbo those children will have. He was not saying that they enjoyed eternal happiness in heaven.
X: His view was discordant. It is not possible that if they had died in original sin they would rise with glorious bodies and inhabit the new earth.
SS: What did he mean by New Earth? Sometimes heaven is referred to as a new earth, but he wasn’t referring to heaven now was he?
X: Yet, this is what he said would happen. He seems to have believed that the children go to limbo until the Last day, then rise to eternal life. This remains a permissible theological hypothesis, yet for the reason I pointed out, seems inconsistent with itself.
SS: Limbo is a part of hell. How does it exist is the question. No one is denying Florence.
>>>SS: We don’t know what type of punishment they have, but they don’t go to heaven do they, which is what Rome is now saying we can hope for.
X: The Catholic Church rightly and truly teaches that all those who die without baptism may not necessarily die in original sin. This is something we can hope for, especially where the unborn who are aborted are concerned.
SS: Your Vat2 religion teaches it, but not the Catholic Church. But here’s the major problem, you’re hoping against the doctrine that those in original sin only who die without baptism die in original sin. You’re saying that they may not die in original sin after Florence said there is no other remedy for those babies. If they don’t die in original sin, then there is another remedy for them. You just don’t know what it is, but you can at least hope that the remedy comes from God’s mercy. How about this one? Can you hope the Catholic Church is wrong about many things, and everybody will eventually go heaven? Based on your argument, you can.
>>>SS: Then what of the dogma? It doesn’t mean anything?
X: Didn’t I answer this, quoting the Encyclopedia? It’s focus was the establishment of the immediate judgment, which is what some among the Greeks denied, and that is how it was understood by Catholic theologians.
SS: Give me a specific question.
>>>SS: They all understood it the way that I’m saying. ABSOLUTLEY NONE OF THEM SAID WE CAN HOPE THEY GO TO HEAVEN OR EVEN IMPLIED IT, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE GOING AGAINST THE DOGMA.
X: You still aren’t answering me about what happens after the Last Judgment, and confusing it with the particular judgment. Suarez said they would rise with immortal bodies to eternal life after the Resurrection.
SS: He didn’t say eternal life, but happy abode. After the resurrection, the bodies will join the souls of those infants. What’s the problem?
>>>SS: I guess we can hope that no one dies in original sin only then, right?
X: What we can really hope for, is on a case by case basis, is that such and such a child, who say, was aborted in the womb. Like I said, Limbo remains a permissible theological hypothesis.
SS: So you can hope against Florence’s teaching, “no other remedy” since God may send another remedy anyway? The reason why you need your doctrine that these babies might go to heaven is because you don’t have an answer to God’s sovereignty, or else you wouldn’t have used an example as “aborted in the womb.” Would such a case need a better explanation than a one year old child who died to Muslims?
>>> I guess we could also hope that no one dies in actual sin too, right? The concept can apply to both.
X: Fair objection, but as already said, this speculation only arises because of the absence of a clear positive revelation on the subject,
SS: There is a clear positive teaching that there is no other remedy, and those babies with no other remedy are NOT snatched away. You just don’t like the teaching.
X: and as to what is reconciliable with a worthy concept of God’s justice and mercy,
SS: In other words, Florence is not a worthy concept of God’s justice and mercy? Or it is unreconciliable to God’s mercy and justice that those babies go to hell, or is it you just can’t reconcile it with God’s sovereignty? Would it be wrong to say that I hope they go to hell? Can you say that they might go to hell? If so, how do you reconcile it with God’s justice and mercy and His sovereignty?
X: whereas in the case of the other, we see quite plainly that several will be condemned by Christ at the Last Judgment, (among which, again, it is fair to say, children don’t seem to be mentioned, though that is not the basis of what we’re saying)
SS: How can you see quite clearly that several will be condemned by Christ, if you can hope that God has mercy on them too, despite those teachings that appear to be clear? You simply want your cake (dogma) and eat it too (dogma won’t apply.)
>>>SS: I don’t think faith alone saves anyone. That’s Luther’s heresy.
X: So then sedevacantists may well have the Faith, and yet be lost.
SS: Of course! I think most sedevacantists will go to hell, but I don’t hope it.
X: How can you be sure the faith you have is a living faith, and a faith active in charity?
SS: I’m not the Protestant here. I can only have a moral assurance, not an absolute assurance. You’re in the same boat as I.
>>>SS: So you don’t believe in the dogma?
X: I not only believe those dying in original sin cannot enter heaven, I know why it is so.
SS: Who are those who did in original sin only?
>>>Suarez didn’t say they can go to heaven, like you do. He doesn’t go against the dogma, like you do.
X: Particular and last judgment again.
SS: I answered this one.
>>>PICK ONE THING AND GO WITH IT. PLEASE!!!
Okay.
>>>SS: It matters, because it’s different with Honorius than now. You do need to know for sure!
X: In either case, Honorius was a heretic, or Honorius was not a heretic, the argument would apply.
SS: What argument would apply? The problem was that we don’t know whether Honorius was a heretic. The dogma hadn’t been defined yet.
>>>SS: I answer everything but just ignore it. Go back and reread my answer to your question.
X: Your answer was, “No one was sure especially in light of the fact the dogma didn’t exist until after the death of Honorius.” This is not an answer, but like i said, even if Honorius was not an argument the argument would stand.
SS: What do you mean it’s not an answer? You can’t condemn someone on ignorance.
>>>SS: Subsist just means exist or to be found. You ignore this definition.
X: What nonsense! By whose authority do you give that definition?
SS: Let’s see, every dictionary in the world, perhaps.
X: We are the ones who used the term, and we are the ones who have the right to define it.
SS: So you use a word that has a specific definition, but reject that definition and create an entire new definition to defend your heretical phrase. What nonsense! Again, you had to use the word “is” to tell me what subsists means. You can’t get it right!
X: Moreover, we have the advantage of being consistent with the classical usage, while you have neither, and merely and arbitrarily insist that your definition is what we are bound by. This is exactly like a Protestant on infallibility. Not so the Church’s dogma is Papal infallibility and so it is the Church’s right to define what it means.
SS: You’re not being consistent at all, except the fact that you reject the truth. My definition is the one used everywhere. But I’ll give you an example of a Catholic Theologian using the word elsewhere. Fr. Leo Haydock said in the last century that, “the Roman Empire subsists in Germany.” This is the classic usage of the word and he supports my position, not yours. In other words, the Roman Empire while existing in Germany also is found elsewhere. YOU’RE FINISHED!
>>>SS: Wrong again. Many Vat2 apologists misuse the term of infallibility and what it means.
X: And this only works against you.
SS: Your best apologists misuse and confuse infallibility and it works against me? LOL
X: For if disagreements about meaning proved a doctrine false, or suspect of modernism, than Papal infallibility would be false, since so many, Catholic, schismatic and Protestant, alike, understand it differently, and this for no fault of the Council Fathers.
SS: LOL! I LOVE HOW YOU DESTROY THE CREDIBILITY OF YOUR OWN RELIGION. Thank you for responding to each point. You really keep proving my position to be the right one.
Dear Xavier,
My reply…
X: I sent you my number. Did you get it?
SS: Yes, thank you. I’ll try to call you this week.
X: The New earth after the resurrection is paradise. We know for a fact from Scripture that a certain number will go to hell. We don’t know what number will go to limbo. That is the difference.
SS: A new earth is merely a figurative way of speaking of heaven. JW’s believe in a literal sense of it. However, Suarez was not referring to a new earth in that sense. Limbo could be figuratively referred to as an earthly paradise. Remember that Abraham’s bosom was hell, but it was considered a type of paradise. Yes, a paradise in hell. Even beautiful Hawaii is known as paradise, but it’s not heaven. I don’t personally agree with Suarez, but I don’t say he is a heretic because he isn’t saying that they go to heaven. He couldn’t and he knew it.
X: Your view, which you falsely impose as a dogma, is clearly incompatible with Suarez. Will they rise with damned bodies or with glorious ones?
SS: They will rise with mortal bodies, not glorified ones like those in heaven. I don’t falsely impose anything. You misquote and misrepresent Suarez like you do all the fathers, me, and even your own leaders. You also didn’t answer the question who are those who die in original sin only if unbaptized babies happen not to be one of those groups.
X: You said earlier, “I can’t believe that you are arguing that a Cardinal can be an occult heretic. Unbelievable! I’m really beginning to wonder about you.” This is why you need to give an answer. A Cardinal can be an occult heretic, as can a Pope, for an occult heretic is a member of the Church. You were wrong here, yet you made an accusation against me, and you don’t want to admit it.
SS: I already told you what I thought you meant about occult heretic. I didn’t know you were speaking about a secret heretic because this issue came up with the Pope Pius XII law for papal elections and the lifting of excommunicated persons. If someone is a secret heretic, then he could have never been declared excommunicated and Pius XII couldn’t lift an excommunication that didn’t happen. So yes, I was wrong for misunderstanding what you meant about occult heretic. You were wrong for bringing it up on an issue where it doesn’t apply. However, I don’t think secret heretics are members of the Church either. However, on an objective level they would be considered members of the Church since no one would know and the rule of the Church for supplied jurisdiction would come in to play and Christ’s protection would still be present…I think. That’s one scenario. It’s all speculative, and I could give other possible scenarios.
X: You also don’t recognize that the Church doesn’t work by blatant hierarchical insubordination. There is due process for everything.
SS: The Divine law and all the popes and saints that said that if a pope becomes a heretic, he automatically ceases to be pope without any further declaration. There would be no blatant hierarchical insubordination because there would be no one to be insubordinate to.
X: You seem to think there would need to be a consensus among the sedevacantists, supposedly the only true Catholics for a new Pope, yet there is no need at all for a canonical trial to make so important a determination made known to the Church! This is the exact reason you refuse to answer the question for it is about what can be known with sufficient certainty, as the question entails.
SS: Refuse to answer what question? It’s true that a pope must be known with sufficient certainty and that problem has not yet been solved. The same problem existed for a half a century during the Great Schism. No one knew for sure who the true pope was. Saints were on opposite sides. It took them all to step down on their own. So yes, there would need to be a consensus among all sedevacantists, but it is more than that. Many Vat2 Catholics are also real and true Catholics and members of the true Catholic Church by ignorance and the scandal of having an antipope in Rome and supposedly true pope from sedevacantists doesn’t solve the problem but rather adds to it. This is why the Great Apostasy is so terrible! I think this is one of the sure signs of the end. God could step in and fix it, but I don’t think He will because of our sins. He’s about to separate us sheep and goats. I don’t want to be a goat, do you?
X: Thus, the Catholic Encyclopedia also says,
SS: First of all, the Catholic Encyclopedia has many errors both theologically and historically. I have shown several of them in my book Papal Anomalies. Even Pope St. Pius X called the Encyclopedia modernist. Don’t ask me where he said it. I’m in the process of looking for the exact reference for proof. It’s not on the internet, so I’ll have to look in the libraries. While many things are right and true in the Encyclopedia, some things are not. It has no authority whatsoever with regards to our faith. Remember that, as I answer the rest of your reply.
X: “It is also generally held, and rightly, that questions of dogmatic fact, in regard to which definite certainty is required for the safe custody and interpretation of revealed truth, may be determined infallibly by the Church. Such questions, for example, would be: whether a certain pope is legitimate”
SS: This part of the Encyclopedia does not propose any problems for us. First, it’s only an opinion, not a doctrine. “Generally held” is just that. Once, it was generally held that pope needed be a bishop, and now the general opinion is that he doesn’t. General opinions can change. That being said, who are those Catholics that make up the Church that makes that decision who is a legit pope? This teaching supports my position, not yours. Secondly, I don’t believe in this generally held opinion, because it has been proven false by actual history and this Encyclopedia missed it as did all those theologians. Antipopes were accepted by the Church at large and true popes were rejected by the Church at large. One antipope was considered a true pope for a thousand years before being removed from the papal list. So the Encyclopedia only gave the general opinion which has been proven false. Thank you for bringing to our attention another one of those errors espoused by the Catholic Encyclopedia. That being said, you’re still taking way out of context this text of the Encyclopedia, because this part of the text is not talking about how the Church (everyone except the pope) can depose a true pope. The Church can’t depose a true pope and your due process explanation doesn’t apply with the papacy since no one can depose a true pope. The fact that you would imply such a thing, means that you’re rejecting a doctrine of the Catholic Church. Of course, you’re going to reply that you didn’t mean it that way, right?
X: But we always presume innocence until judicially proven guilty when either Popes or Cardinals are concerned.
SS: Well, I guess you did mean that way. The Divine law of God and all the popes, saints, and doctors said popes who become heretics automatically lose office without any further declaration. No juridical courts could ever depose a true pope anyway. As for Cardinals, only a pope can depose them unless heresy/schism/apostasy is involved. No juridical court can apply.
X: If such presumption of innocence is to be meaningful, it is to apply even when the members concerned are themselves guilty in fact and before God even of public heresy.
SS: Then you reject what you first accepted. You reject all those popes, saints and doctors that said automatically without any further declaration. At first, you said that you agreed with them.
X: It is not a “lifting of excommunication”, because when the determination is made, it will state that the pontificate was void ab initio.
SS: Not even God can lift an excommunicated heretic if the heretic remains obstinate. You misunderstand Pope Pius XII and the Catholic Church and make a mockery of the whole thing.
X: It is a presumption of innocence for the positive law of the Church as a matter of procedural justice.
SS: Not for manifest heretics.
X: Also, it really doesn’t matter to us if sedevacantists think we’re going to hell,
SS: I said I think most sedevacantists are going to hell, much less you Vat2 heretics. I may be one of them. I hope not and I hope not for you either.
X: this is about holding them to a consistent standard.
SS: Which you don’t because you’re defending heresy and apostasy and heretics/apostates.
X: Dogmatic sedevacantism is false because sedevacantism cannot be an object of divine and Catholic faith.
SS: Sedevacantism is only a position that Benedict is not pope. We are Catholics who hold to the faith entirely. However, sedevacantism must be held or the dogmas of the Church will be rejected, speaking, of course, culpably.
X: Applying principles like “culpability” and “invincible ignorance” as you did to it are amusing.
SS: The Catholic Church has taught and applied the principle of culpability and invincible ignorance precisely as I have. You won’t be able to show to the contrary.
X: Sedevacantism is at best a matter of judgment,
SS: Of course, it is a matter of judgment. I’ve told you that already. Your position is a matter of judgment too.
X: and those who are wrong about it are at best imprudent.
SS: Your judgment that heretics are not heretics and heresies are not heresies proves that you are a modernist like your leaders.
X: Yeah, right, so Fr.Haydock from the last century is more reliable than the classical usage from the time of Aristotle and St.Thomas? Wonderful, I must say.
SS: Fr. Haydock is not unreliable since his Bible was used and approved by Rome. Can you cite for me Aristotle or St. Thomas on subsists to mean something other than exists or to be found? Even if you could cite for me another definition, it would still prove me right since the word has multiple definitions which “is” doesn’t in the phrase. But I would still be interested in seeing your classical example cited for me.
X: Your misunderstanding of subsist is no more relevant to Catholics than, say, the Greek schismatic’s misunderstanding of infallibility and proves nothing less or more about the doctrines respectively.
SS: You misunderstand subsists and you reject all the dictionaries in the world about what the word means.
X: Your welcome, I am answering everything, however you’re not doing the same.
SS: You’re not answering everything. Would you like me to compile the list of questions that you have yet to answer? You didn’t even answer everything from the last reply, are you kidding?
X: And you can pat yourself on the back as much as you like!
SS: I don’t have to. You have done so for me and not realized it. Each reply you give proves sedevacantism true and your religion false. I have to admit that I’m very glad that you keep it up. You hit points never addressed by anyone. You bring out the best in the arguments too. I really do thank you for your persistence! I just wish you would concede on those points that you know that you’re wrong on, like the judge, jury, and executioner argument. You know that you’re in the same boat as I and do the same as I when it comes to McBrien. I will apologize though if I came off arrogantly. It must be the Irish in me. It’s hard to be humble when you’re as great as we are. LOL.
X: It doesn’t matter to me, I think, all told, it’s fair to say the sedevacantist position is gravely imprudent.
SS: I understand why you would say this if you believe Ratzinger is pope. I think your position is worse than mere impudence, because you must recognize super manifest apostates as popes. Again, popes can’t dress up in pagan outfits and actively participate in paganism and remain popes. They can’t call non-Catholic Patriarchs “Pastors in the Church of Christ” without rejecting the dogma, because these Patriarchs knowingly reject the papacy. They are not dummies. They can’t call pagans to pray to their pagan gods for world peace. I know my position is ugly and hard to deal with, but it comes down to simple recognition and HONESTY!
Dear Xavier,
My replies below…
X: No, I don’t think you’re being arrogant in the least. I was just matching your own rhetoric in my post. Anyway, a lively spirit like you’ve shown always lightens up a discussion.
SS: It is fun!
X: Coming back, my reference was P. Rodriguez e J.R. Villar “Las ‘Iglesias y Comunidades eclesiales’ separadas de la Sede Apostólica Romana”
SS: I need the citation.
X: Anyway, I remember something vaguely I myself have read in St.Thomas. About being subsistent or even the word substance.
So to say A subsists in B is to say A is subsistent in B or even that A finds substance in B.
So if this is the scholastic usage, it’s really irrelevant even if the word has come to possess a different meaning in secular contexts. Besides, just about every word has different meanings and depends on context.
SS: I’ve already shown you how the word is used and can be used and is used. I don’t think there is a scholastic difference anyway. Rome has attempted to explain it 4 times and many theologians in Rome are still not satisfied. They already tell us why they used it and it’s incorrect. Fr Martin was an expert linguist, speaking and writing 17 languages. He was chosen to translate the Dead Sea Scrolls. He is THE EXPERT and he says the word subsists is wrong. You’re not going to accept the simple fact that subsists is problematic even when the experts say so.
X: Finally, just the prior sentence in this document says the Church of Christ is the Church that is Catholic and Apostolic and commissioned to Peter, so the text must be read in accord with itself, as we do to any.
SS: Protestants have no problem with what you just stated. You have to say the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church, not that the Church of Christ is the Church that is catholic and apostolic and commissioned to Peter. Do you see the difference?
X: And I must say your position seems to bundle out contradiction upon contradiction. Not sedevacantism itself, but your position in its entirety.
SS: Not at all!
X: 1. You say we can and must be certain just like that that someone is not Pope on our own, but you assert that we cannot be certain someone is not Pope even after the Church told us so!
SS: I didn’t say that we cannot be certain someone is not pope even after the Church told us so. I said that it is not infallible.
X: 2. You need to make a proper distinction between what philosophers call ontology, what is, and epistemology, what can be known. Either way you answer my question, it is problematic.
SS: Only in your view.
X: You asserted that an occult heretic is not a member of the Church. Firstly, this is contrary to the Doctors.
SS: What father said that a secret (formal) heretic is still a member of the Church? Of course, such a person would be considered a member of the Church since no one would actually know. In that sense, you could say that such a person is, but not actually because by nature a heretic is not a Catholic.
X: Still, so what now if he is elected to the Papacy? Does he reign as usual?
SS: Everybody would think so, but he would not actually. Christ would protect the Church. I already said that in my last reply.
X: Do those who reject him fall into schism?
SS: Why would anyone reject him if nobody knew he was a heretic?
X: Obviously, we would need the Church to make the determination (epistemology) for us to know the reality of his invalidity (ontology)
SS: How could the Church make a determination for something that is not known? Your argument is flawed!
X: The Church, being divinely guided, is suited for such things, and this moreover demonstrates that one cannot privately judge such things.
SS: Again, no one could judge something that is unknown. Your argument doesn’t follow. But we do know that Ratzinger is a heretic/apostate. HE IS MANIFEST! To accept him as pope is to deny the Divine law and the dogma of the Church. Your entire argument is moot.
X: 3. You misrepresent me by accusing me of saying a Pope can be deposed. No, I said the Church can determine that the Pope has already been deposed. The procedure would be similar to how it was with Honorius.
SS: I’ve already answered Honorius because the doctrine had not been defined. The Church may be wrong on with him and therefore it doesn’t matter what the Church says about him. And of course it’s true that the Church can determine that the pope has already been deposed. That’s my position. The Church has made that determination by not accepting Ratzinger. Those that accept Ratzinger are not the Church. Those that accept the heresies of Ratzinger will not make determination against him. So your argument is flawed, once again.
X: 4. Again, my position is consistent. We presume guilt for ordinary clerics. We presume innocence for Popes and Cardinals, even nominal ones. This is a consistent position.
SS: That’s not consistent at all. but again, your position supports us because we already presumed guilt for Ratzinger when he was an ordinary cleric. We don’t believe any of them were true popes to begin with.
X: The authority for this position is the positive law of the Church, reason, common sense and practical necessity, this latter being since the excommunication of one wayward cleric doesn’t alter substantially the visible hierarchy of the Church.
SS: The Church has not been altered in that sense. All of your clerics follow and believe in the same heresies as your pope.
X: 5. “Generally held” means it is the common teaching of theologians. This is a huge problem for you! It doesn’t matter if antipopes were accepted for a long time. Not the issue at all.
SS: Not at all, because the generally held position is WRONG AS I PROVED USING HISTORY! It does matter that antipope were accepted because the generally held position is that such a thing is impossible since the faithful are infallible in determining who the true pope is.
X: 6. There are no natural bodies. We rise with damned bodies or glorious bodies, that is all. St.Thomas Aquinas mentions specific traits of these bodies.
SS: Then you contradict Suarez who said natural bodies. HE was the one you tried to use against me.
X: By the way, the new earth is mentioned by St.John, as you would know, in the Bible, with St.Paul tells us all creation waits to be renewed, so it’s not what JW’s say.
SS: Yes it is. The new earth is a metaphorical expression for heaven. Yes all creation will be renewed. JW’s do say that the new earth will literally be what happens. You seem to support their view.
X: It is the new creation, where the dwelling of God will be with His people, where the Lamb is the light.
SS: Of course. Who denies this?
X: The damned will be under the earth. The children are either on the earth or under it. Which is it?
SS: Are the demons in hell under the earth right now, or are they on the earth, or both? Again, you are arguing against your own position when you tried to describe hell with my JP2 argument.
X: I already answered your question. The children may very well go to limbo, either some or even all of them and one may recognize this, even while hoping against hope that God provides a way out in specific instances.
SS: Again, hope for everyone to find a way out for specific instances.
X: However, I am talking here of Suarez’s view which has implications you refuse to concede. Suarez’ view completely disproves the sede interpretation,
SS: He supports my position in more ways than one. He implies that a doubtful pope is not even pope.
X: and as I will show, logically entails, even the view that the children will be supernaturally provided for. And if it is permissible to hold Suarez’ view, even if I do not necessarily do it, it must be permissible to hold its logical consequence.
SS: I can even hold to his view. It doesn’t contradict the dogma as your necessarily does. And you’re still not answering who are they that die in original sin only if not unbaptized babies.
Dear Xavier,
My reply…
X: If earth really means heaven, good enough. Then that would imply “renovated earth as their happy abode” means heaven as well. You lose!
SS: I don’t lose. You do. A new heavens and a new earth means heaven, but limbo could be thought to be also like an earthly paradise, unlike heaven where God is seen. Abraham’s bosom was a happy abode, too, but it was hell, also referred to as a prison.
X: Besides, New Earth and New Heavens are spoken of by St.John. So new earth isn’t heaven. This refers to paradise, as it was with our first parents. We enter heaven at death, “our bodies to the ground, our soul to Him who made it”. But at the resurrection, we inherit the earth and dwell in it, as does our Maker with us. This is my theological position. Still, it is irrelevant like I explained to this point.
SS: Your theological opinion sounds much like the JW’s. To say that the new earth isn’t heaven and that you will be resurrected for the new earth which is not heaven is heretical! You know what that makes you, right? Will you concede your error?
X: Suarez’ position is discordant. If the children died in original sin, they could not inhabit the earth.
SS: His position is not like that at all. He is describing a way a viewing limbo, not heaven. You won’t find any father saying or implying unbaptized infants are going to heaven. You’re attempting to say that Suarez is saying they actually go to a type of heaven.
X: Therefore, this doctrine is but the development of it, and the explicit laying out of what it implicitly involves. If it is permissible to say the children are not under the earth but upon it, after the Resurrection, it is permissible to say that they would not have died in original sin.
SS: It is not permissible to say it. Above earth, on earth, and under earth mean something different in time than outside of our time. You won’t find any father saying that Hell is absolutely under all circumstances under the earth either. I asked you where does Satan and demons roam, in hell, on earth, or both? You didn’t answer the question. The answer to the question debunks your assumptions above. Demons have been thought to roam in the heavens above earth, too. Your argument doesn’t follow.
X: How this came to be we can only speculate, how many in number they will be, whether it will be few, all or none of them.
SS: You didn’t answer the question who are they that go to hell in original sin only if the infants are not part of that group.
X: Beside, don’t you understand what hope is? It is patient confidence and abiding trust in God, fully submissive to His will and ready to accept it.
SS: I don’t hope against a teaching of the Church like you do. Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442: “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil [original sin] and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…” YOU ARE HOPING THAT THAT THERE IS A REMEDY ANYWAY. I ACCEPT THE TEACHING, YOU OBVIOUSLY DON’T.
X: Even if all children do in fact descend to libmo and remain there forever, it would not follow that we could not hope they go to heaven. We don’t need to know, we hope.
SS: I didn’t say it would follow based on an “even if” but based on the teaching of the Church. You’re hoping against the teaching of the Church.
X: Let’s go one at a time.
SS: Thank you! It’s much better to keep it short and sweet. Besides, I have a family that needs me more.
Dear Xavier,
You asked, Finally, what of the Holy innocents? Where are they? Are they in heaven or limbo?
Answer: They would not be in limbo or else we wouldn’t celebrate their feast day. They are in heaven because unbaptized infants can be saved by Baptism of Blood which is not another remedy. It’s no more a remedy than death is to cancer patients. The doctrine of the Church on the sacrament of baptism has exceptions such a Baptism of desire and blood. BOD doesn’t apply to infants but BOB does.
Dear Xavier,
You sent…
Just one other thing.
St.Thomas says, “Children while in the mother’s womb have not yet come forth into the world to live among other men. Consequently they cannot be subject to the action of man, so as to receive the sacrament, at the hands of man, unto salvation. They can, however, be subject to the action of God, in Whose sight they live, so as, by a kind of privilege, to receive the grace of sanctification; as was the case with those who were sanctified in the womb”
I’ll answer the rest later.
SS: The above quote was an objection to not being allowed baptism in the womb. St. Thomas also said that unbaptized infants don’t go to heaven. He was clear about how they will not suffer with the other damned souls, and would live a natural happiness (such as the just souls before Christ enjoyed happiness in hell before being brought to heaven after Christ’s death.) Every catechism and every teaching from every pope, saint, etc. (prior to 1960) have UNEQUIVOCALLY taught that unbaptized infants DON’T GO TO HEAVEN. That much is sure. This is a doctrine of the Church. What happens to them in hell/limbo is speculative. Suarez, Aquinas, etc have given many accounts to how they might live in their state of hell, whether in a happy abode with natural (damned) bodies or not. However, the fact remains that they don’t go to heaven! ALL AGREE! It’s more than a mere general opinion, but rather it’s the universal teaching of the Church. Then we come to your position: If you can hope unbaptized infants go to heaven, you’re implying that they might go to heaven. NOW THEN, going from the universal and historic Catholic teaching that they don’t go to heaven, to the novel saying that they might go to heaven is a change in doctrine. It’s not a mere development. It is a clean break with Catholicism! To call it a development is a classic case of modernism! You can’t hope against a doctrine of the Church and a Church doctrine can’t go from a “no” to a “might” because doctrines don’t change. You already have stated that McBrien is not a Catholic because of his non-belief in Satan, even though no one has declared him excommunicated. You recognize on your own that such a person is not a Catholic, which is the same position that Catholic sedevacantists take. WHAT IF MCBRIEN SAID YOU CAN HOPE THAT SATAN DOESN’T EXIST? Silly, isn’t it? Either you concede to the universal teaching of the “no” which means you become a sedevacantist, or remain outside the Church in and with the gates of hell that heretically teach a “might.” YOU AND YOUR POPES ARE SEVERED BY NATURE FROM HISTORIC CATHOLICISM…PLAIN AND SIMPLE!
Xavier,
My reply below…
X: Wow, what a needless break from topic to hope to intimidate me. Nice try.
SS: Break from the topic? Are you kidding? What’s your problem, can’t handle the truth?
X: Everything you accuse me of, you must needs accuse St.Thomas of as well.
SS: WRONG! St. Thomas agrees with me, not you!
X: Yes, I know what he was replying to, but did you read what he actually said?
SS: Yes, I read all the objections. Did you read what he says what happens to unbaptized infants when they die?
X: Your schism in this regard is based on an impious pretense, which involves the denial of the following: God has bound salvation to the sacraments, but He has not bound Himself.
SS: I don’t deny it all. I wrote a book defending BAPTISM OF DESIRE AND BLOOD. What you deny is God’s sovereignty. You don’t have an answer to why God would allow infants to die without baptism and then go to hell.
X: This is the teaching of the Church, and St.Thomas gives an example where infants, unbeknownst to man, might receive sanctification in the womb.
SS: He was talking about how they might receive the gift of baptism while in the mother’s womb even though the water doesn’t touch them. The fact is you are a modernist. The Church, including St. Thomas, has taught that unbaptized babies don’t go to heaven, but you agree with your antipopes with the change from the universal doctrine of a “no” to the novel and heretical “might.”
Dear Xavier,
My reply below…
>>>SS: Break from the topic? Are you kidding? What’s your problem, can’t handle the truth?
X: Heh. Methinks you are far too invested in your position to even consider the possibility that you might be wrong, even on one point.
SS: Right back at you!
X: It was a massive break from the topic on your part, because you didn’t simply and plainly deal with what St.Thomas said.
SS: St. Thomas said unbaptized babies don’t go to heaven. Was he contradicting himself? I’ll finish this off at the bottom.
>>>What you deny is God’s sovereignty.
X: LOL. God’s sovereignity is precisely what you deny.
SS: You obviously don’t know what sovereignty means. You deny it, because you can’t reconcile God’s justice and mercy with the idea that an unbaptized baby goes to hell. You want that “no” position changed to a “might.”
X: Your position rests on the premise that God absolutely cannot and dare not sanctify a child in his mother’s womb because Steven Speray happens to think so, regardless of what St.Thomas said about the possibility. To quote you, “You;re sinking your own boat quickly!”
SS: WRONG! My position rests on the universal teaching of the Church which you reject. I’ll finish off why you can’t use Aquinas below.
>>>You don’t have an answer to why God would allow infants to die without baptism and then go to hell.
X: We have a perfect answer for it, and in fact I think it the more likely possibility. I’ve already shown you how these are red herrings and non sequiturs.
SS: You have nothing!
>>>SS: He was talking about how they might receive the gift of baptism while in the mother’s womb even though the water doesn’t touch them.
X: What he actually said is even more problematic for you, because “It follows, therefore, that a child can nowise be baptized while in its mother’s womb.”
SS: I’m not sure if Aquinas is correct on this point. I’ll have to look it up. I think he is incorrect, but whatever, the Church didn’t say one way or the other in his day. However, look closely at what he is saying. Who is St Thomas speaking about with, “as was the case of those who were sanctified in the womb.” An unbaptized baby can be saved in the mother’s womb through BOB. But I’ll finish my answer below…
>>>The fact is you are a modernist.
X: The fact is that sedevacantists have gone the same way of all schismatics. Learning without truth, knowledge without wisdom, theology without prayer, faith without charity.
SS: Right back at you!
>>>the universal doctrine of a “no” to the novel and heretical “might.”
X: Poor St.Thomas and his heretical thought for holding that those who are in no wise subject to the action of man could in some way be subject to the action of God.
SS: I submit that your taking St Thomas out of context, BUT EVEN IF St Aquinas is wrong and you’re right about him, he died before the DOGMA WAS DECLARED. He died right at the time of Lyons and hundreds of years before Florence which taught “no other remedy.” You can’t use him at all to defend yourself. HE WAS A MATERIAL HERETIC ON MANY POINTS. He would be totally wrong and you would be in worse position for using him against the dogma. YOU LOSE THIS ONE BIG TIME! It’s over for you.
Xavier,
My replies below…
X: I’ve already told you your accusation is entirely false. I’m perfectly reconciled with the fact that the children will likely not go to heaven. If that happens to be the case, glory to God. But you seem to think, effectively, that God dare not do something like this without your knowledge and consent. And that is absurd.
SS: It is absurd to make such a stupid accusation against me. The Church has already told us over and over that unbaptized infants will not go to heaven. You are saying they might go to heaven. BIG DIFFERENCE!
X: St.Thomas states matter of factly that they can be subject to the action of God, cleansed and sanctified in the womb.
SS: St. Thomas also states matter of factly that they will not go to heaven. I asked a question about his statement which you did not answer. Who are they to whom he refers, “as was the case with those who were sanctified in the womb?” St. Thomas was dealing with a particular case of which you seem to ignore. What is he replying to?
X: Your accusation of material heresy against St.Thomas is hilarious.
SS: Really? I once argued against a Protestants that Mary was sinless, and she quoted St Thomas to prove me wrong, just as you have with baptism. St. Thomas said Mary was a sinner and you laugh that I said he as a material heretic? I already stated that even IF he said plainly that unbaptized infants can go to heaven, he would have been wrong because the dogma was defined after he died. I SHOWED YOU THIS AND YOU USE HIM ANYWAY. That’s hilarious!
X: Your use of “has been “defined” is also ridiculous. Many things were dogmatically defined at Trent, but those who denied them even before that were formal heretics.
SS: So St. Thomas Aquinas was a formal heretic for calling a Mary a sinner even though the doctrine was defined many years later? Sts Anselm and Chrysostom also believed Mary was a sinner. Were they formal heretics, too?
X: I have shown you the doctrine from the tradition of the Church, shown you how it occurs in the pages of the writings of one of the greatest Catholic theologians of history. Yet, it is supposedly a “novelty”. Absurd in the extreme.
SS: It’s most certainly a novelty after the Church said infants have no other remedy for salvation but Baptism. However, you have not shown any doctrine from the tradition of the Church that unbaptized infants go to heaven! THAT’S BEYOND HILARIOUS! IT’S SAD! And you don’t even interpret your own popes correctly even when they are clear about what they say, much a less than St. Thomas Aquinas! Yes, absurd in the extreme!
X: Didn’t I already tell you it was about the particular judgment, quoting from the CE, “Finally, in regard to the teaching of the Council of Florence, it is incredible that the Fathers there assembled had any intention of defining a question so remote from the issue on which reunion with the Greeks depended, and one which was recognized at the time as being open to free discussion and continued to be so regarded by theologians for several centuries afterwards. What the council evidently intended to deny in the passage alleged was the postponement of final awards until the day of judgement.”
SS: You left out the rest of the quote which proves me right and you wrong!!!!! “Those dying in original sin are said to DESCEND INTO HELL, BUT THIS DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN ANYTHING MORE THAN THAT THEY ARE EXCLUDED ETERNALLY FROM THE VISION OF GOD. In this sense they are damned; they have failed to reach their supernatural destiny, and this viewed objectively is a true penalty. Thus the Council of Florence, however literally interpreted, does not deny the possibility of perfect subjective happiness for those dying in original sin, and this is all that is needed from the dogmatic viewpoint to justify the prevailing Catholic notion of the children’s limbo, while from the standpoint of reason, as St. Gregory of Nazianzus pointed out long ago, no harsher view can be reconciled with a worthy concept of God’s justice and other attributes.” THANK YOU FOR POINTED OUT WHY I’M RIGHT! LOL
X: And if it is heretical to say New Earth isn’t heaven, then “renovated earth as their happy abode”, after, note, after the Resurrection, in Suarez’ speak must mean heaven, as according to you yourself, it is heretical to say otherwise.
SS: LOL. You don’t read do you! I explained him but even better Suarez explains himself that it’s not heaven! OH, YOU’RE KILLING ME!
X: Again, “Some writers, like Savonarola (De triumpho crucis, III, 9) and Catharinus (De statu parvulorum sine bapt. decedentium),
SS: Now you’re using the famous sedevacantist Savonarola! Please stop! I can’t take it anymore. LOL!
X: added certain details to the current teaching — for example that the souls of unbaptized children will be united to glorious bodies at the Resurrection, and that the renovated earth of which St. Peter speaks (2 Peter 3:13) will be their happy dwelling place for eternity.”
SS: HE WAS NOT SPEAKING ABOUT HEAVEN, but LIMBO! He just completely misinterprets the bible verse, that’s all! All you’ve done was take a few quotes from the CE on Suarez, Savanorola, etc and all in the same place nonetheless, which happens to be speaking about limbo, not about heaven. You do no real research and you do yourself and your religion no justice. PLEASE! But I will add something to show you just how bad all of this is for you. Ratzinger taught, “Limbo was never a defined truth of faith…I would abandon it since it was only a theological hypothesis. It formed part of a secondary thesis in support of a truth which is absolutely of first significance for faith, namely, the importance of baptism…One should not hesitate to give up the idea of “limbo” if need be (and it is worth noting that the very theologians who proposed ‘limbo’ also said that parents could spare the child limbo by desiring its baptism and through prayer); but the concern behind it must not be surrendered. Baptism has never been a side issue for faith; it is not now, nor will it ever be.” SO WHAT IS HE IMPLYING? While it’s true that specifically limbo is not defined in one sense, it is defined in another, viz, the other part of hell for those that die in original sin only. Limbo has always been a nice way of thinking of a good place in hell for those babies. But Ratzinger said you don’t have to believe in the place at all. Does he mean then that you must hold that they are just going to hellfire with the rest of the damned? Of course not. He’s implying that unbaptized infants in fact or are most likely not damned at all and will go to heaven and that you should be concerned about the importance of baptism as this is the concern why the doctrine of limbo was dreamed up in the first place. HE IS A PURE MODERNIST! Xavier, you have totally lost this battle and with every reply you give to me, you only prove the truth of sedevacantism over and over! I will add one last thing here. Pope St. Pius X said that infants cannot be saved without baptism except through martyrdom. He didn’t say they could be saved, or might be saved, but that they CANNOT BE SAVED! He even emphasized that negligent parents who don’t baptized their infants “deprive their children of eternal life!” What say you? Are you going to retaliate with St. Thomas Aquinas again even after I’ve demonstrated how he was a material heretic and died before the definitions were given? Are you going to defend Ratzinger above and misrepresent his own clear teaching as you did with JP2’s teaching that Christ’s descent into hell will happen to us all? Anyone out there reading this exchange want to comment about all of this? I mean seriously, will you ever concede that you’re wrong about anything?
Dear Xavier,
X: It’s good to know you seem to find my posts as hilarious as I find yours. Your sedevacantism is based on much weaker premises than I had given it credit for.
SS: You don’t know what the premises are. You think that your popes can teach and do whatever; even dress up in pagan outfits and worship with them and like them.
X: I do hope we could go to court on this, because not only will I win, but you may even have to pay damages for slander, libel and calumny of the Popes before any impartial judge.
SS: You will go to hell for your modernism and defending demonic antipopes!
X: You make the Angelic Doctor St.Thomas look like not just a manifest heretic, but an illogical fool.
SS: You are making yourself look like an illogical fool. St. Thomas Aquinas called Mary a sinner. Was he a manifest heretic for doing so?
X: There is no comparison to St.Chyrostom.
SS: The issue was about whether they were formal heretics for believing that Mary was a sinner even though the doctrine was defined later. YOU HAVE A COMPLETE DISCONNECT FROM POINT TO POINT! If you can’t follow, then don’t email me again. Pay attention!
X: Do you think he was not aware of his own teaching, when he said that children dying in original sin go to limbo and that some have been and are sanctified in the womb?
SS: You didn’t answer the question. AND AGAIN, YOU CAN’T USE ST. THOMAS AS I’VE DEMONSTRATED. HE DIED BEFORE THE DEFINITION. I’m not going to bother explaining him for you. Besides, you won’t answer that question about his statement.
X: Or, even better, that he, in his ignorance, could not see the “obvious” contradiction you can? I’m sorry, I happen to think it is far more likely the Church’s greatest theologian was able to make the fine distinctions you are unable or unwilling to.
SS: You can’t see the obvious disconnect you have with the points and the arguments. You don’t answer the questions, and you don’t concede to anything when it’s clear that you’re totally wrong!
X: Feeneyism is analogous to this, it being based on a misreading of Councils, an absurd refusal to reason, and an arbitrary confusing of propositions.
SS: Please don’t use Feeney when you don’t the arguments.
X: Let me clarify it for you: We don’t deny that those who die in original sin descend into hell. I’m saying what St.Thomas says, that it is within God’s power and right, should he so choose, as He has done in the past, to cleanse and sanctify children in the womb, from original sin. So these children don’t die in original sin, and it is just an embarassing logical fallacy for you to not see this.
SS: What is the embarrassing logical fallacy for you not seeing is the fact that the Church has taught over and over that unbaptized infants die in original sin!
X: Your absurd misinterpretation of Councils is exactly analogous to the Feeneyite misinterpretaion of “Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation”. You tell me you’ve written a book against that, and yet, you make the similar mistake here.
SS: I’ve made no mistake, you have. The Council said, “no other remedy” and you reject it! Plain and simple!
X: Again, you completely fail to answer? Do they rise with glorious bodies or not?
SS: I said damned, unless God gives them a gloried body in hell! NO ONE KNOWS and the Church hasn’t taught one way or the other…I don’t think.
X: You owe a yes or no on this one.
SS: I gave it and already did before if actually read my replies.
X: You refuse to answer this, and this was said by Suarez after Florence. I understand why, because it devastates your position.
SS: Not at all! It’s devastating to yours because he is referring to limbo, not heaven, and your Ratzinger says you don’t have to believe it all.
X: This is the traditional understanding.
SS: WRONG! IT WAS HIS OPINION ONLY!
X: That the children will be in paradise, after the Resurrection,
SS: NOT THE PARADISE OF HEAVEN, BUT A PARADISE IN HELL LIKE ABRAHAM’S BOSOM.
X: but because of the insufficiency of their internal dispositions, if they had died in original sin, they are unable to enjoy the beatific vision, and live akin to how our first parents did, in natural happiness.
SS: THAT’S WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT! YOU’RE EVEN READING IT FROM THE CE ON LIMBO, NOT HEAVEN.
X: Thus they are even then, as it were, in a state of limbo and this, considered objectively, is a true punishment. And this is a doctrine that admits of development.
SS: WRONG, IT IS LIMBO!
X: That those who die in original sin descend into hell is a dogma.
SS: And babies who die without baptism die (except martyrdom) die in original sin! This is a doctrine of the Church taught at Florence!
X: But it is a simple non sequitur for you to claim what you do, the missing premise being, that all who die without baptism die in original sin.
SS: WRONG AGAIN, Florence teaches “no other remedy” for babies. It is you reject the teaching of Florence.
X: The Church also hurries baptism for pagans, and preaches that there is no other means for salvation for them, even if they happen to be baptized by desire already.
SS: WRONG YET AGAIN. The Church doesn’t baptize pagans at all, but Popes Pius IX and X do teach that it is possible for them to be saved through baptism of desire. Even the Catechism of Trent teaches it and Florence implies it. You don’t know what you’re talking about!
X: It is a similar thing here. We can never know if they have already been sanctified, so we always hurry baptism, and even if they were actually sanctified, they still receive the character and entrance to the body.
SS: Again, you don’t know what you’re talking about. We ONLY hurry to baptize infants so that they will not go to hell! READ THE CATECHISM OF TRENT AND LEARN YOUR FAITH.
X: It’s not I who misunderstood, it’s you. I don’t know how true it is that parents can desire the baptism of their children, but since it is they who make the act of faith in general in baptism, it is a possibility.
SS: THE CHURCH CONDEMNED THIS VIEW! It was the Protestant Calvin that first taught it. SO PLEASE DON’T MAKE ANYMORE COMMENTS UNLESS YOU CONCEDE! I DON’T WANT TO WASTE MY TIME TEACHING YOU THE BASICS.
Dear Xavier,
X: *Cont: what Pope Benedict said that theologians had said. The punishment of limbo, which pertains to the faith, is the deprivation of the beatific vision for those who die in original sin. This was said in the document I gave you.
SS: What Rabbi Ratzinger implied was that you may believe that unbaptized babies go to heaven. Don’t believe me? Write a letter to him and let him prove me right!
X: Finally, one would think it requires volition in order to be a martyr, but that is evidently not the case.
SS: That’s right! Babies can be martyrs and have been martyrs. The holy innocents are they.
X: And lastly, if I considered I had met an insurmountable argument, I would acknowledge that I needed time to ponder over it, and read or refer to the works of Catholic apologists today before responding. However, that just hasn’t been the case.
SS: Not for you, because heresies are truths to you. You have no problems with heresies and you have no problems with practicing paganism.
X: I think the major premise of sedevacantism is itself at best doubtful,
SS: WRONG! IT’S POSITIVE! POPES CAN’T TEACH HERESIES AS YOURS HAVE AND THEY CAN’T DRESS UP IN PAGAN OUTFITS AND WORSHIP AND PRACTICE PAGANISM AS JP2 DID IN INDIA IN 1986.
X: and that is seriously problematic for those who espouse it.
SS: NO PROBLEMS AT ALL!
X: The minor premise has not been established either. Sedevacantists repeat what Fr.Feeney and many others have done, applying private judgment.
SS: We apply Church teaching with our private judgment, just as you try to do!
Dear Xavier,
My replies below…
X: I have read Florence and Trent, and I understand the issues better than you think. I also know what Calvin taught, and you completely misrepresent my position above.
SS: You don’t know anything. You never dealt with the “no other remedy” clause. You just ignore it like you do everything else that condemns you. I didn’t misrepresent Calvin, either. A Flemish Jesuit named Cornieilis Van Den Steen declared in his Commentaria: “Calvin, in order to detract from the necessity of Baptism, maintains that the children of believers are justified in the womb simply because they are children of believers. But this is absurd and perverse, and condemned by the Church as heretical. If it be lawful to wrest this passage with Calvin, then we may do the same with every other passage, and thus pervert; the entirety of Scripture. No commandment will survive, not even the institution of Baptism itself!”
X: However, if you want to stop here, we shall.
SS: Yes, since you won’t admit that you’re wrong on anything, then you have shown me to ill willed! You said that those who reject doctrines before they are declared are formal heretics anyway, and therefore, YOU NECESSARILY CONDEMN STS. THOMAS AQUINAS, ANSELM, AND CHRYSOSTOM FOR TEACHING THAT THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY WAS SINNER.
X: This is the portion of your response that is flawed, and that failed to establish the premise you need to, in your own words, “And babies who die without baptism die (except martyrdom) die in original sin”
SS: Pope St. Pius X taught it, not me. You are saying his teachings are flawed! AGAIN, DON’T COMMENT ANYMORE ON MY WEBSITE, YOU MODERNIST!
X: Your support for this premise comes from the exact same misinterpretation of Florence and other Councils that Feeneyites make.
SS: THE PREMISE WAS NOT MINE BUT POPE ST. PIUS X’S.
X: If your argument had merit when you say “We ONLY hurry to baptize infants so that they will not go to hell” then Fr.Feeney’s argument would also be valid.
SS: Florence and the Catechism of Trent taught it! You said the Church hurries to baptize pagans, which is stupid! Feeney’s was right about babies and wrong adults.
X: Missionaries always hurry to baptize pagans (no idea why you said no to this above) and always operate on that norm, that they are otherwise going to hell.
SS: The Church condemned missionaries from baptizing pagans! DIDN’T YOU KNOW THAT?
X: Rightly is this the norm, because no one knows the hidden workings of God. But it does not follow from this that someone whom the missionary does not reach actually goes to hell, even though missionaries, and indeed all Christians, must operate on that normative basis. This is why your argument is flawed and fails to establish the conclusion.
SS: WRONG. ADULTS HAVE THE REMEDY OF DESIRE AND PERFECT LOVE WHICH INFANTS DON’T. POPE ST. PIUS X TAUGHT IT.
X: The premise you have to establish is that “God has bound Himself to the sacraments, something condemned in the past. In this case, baptism.” Very specific. So long as you do not do this, all the bluster in the world will not make up for the fact that you simply do not have a case.
SS: I’VE SET UP NOTHING. THE CHURCH HAS TAUGHT THAT UNBAPTIZED BABIES HAVE “NO OTHER REMEDY” EXCEPT BAPTISM! YOU REJECT IT AS DO YOUR DEMONIC ANTIPOPES.
X: There, you can have a go at me now, tell me I’m going to hell or whatever else is your fancy. I couldn’t care less in that case. Or, we can disagree peacably, each recognize ourselves bound in conscience to follow known truth, and leave it at that.
SS: YOU DON’T FOLLOW THE CHURCH. YOU REJECT HER. SO I CAN’T SAY PEACE TO YOU. YOU HAVE CONDEMNED YOURSELF!
Xavier,
You stated: Sigh. You’ve descended thoroughly into fanaticism,
SS: Right back at you! You see only what you want and ignore teaching such as “no other remedy.”
X: which is only to be expected when your worldview is challenged.
SS: You ignore the teaching of the Church! Your view has been debunked by the Church.
X: I could match your condemnatory rhetoric word for word if I wished, but I’ll desist.
SS: LOL. You NEVER DID ONCE!
X: I already knew what Calvin had taught and your own copy pasted portion answers it.
SS: You know nothing! The Church condemned the view and you said that you didn’t know.
X: Calvin did it to “detract the necessity of baptism”. He was a heretic.
SS: He was a heretic like you!
X: St.Thomas answered that the infants not subject to man were subject to God.
SS: He also said the Blessed Virgin Mary was a sinner! According your argument, you could join the Protestant that argued with me that Mary was a sinner. You never dealt with it and ignored the fact that you can’t use him since the dogma was declared after his death. WHAT’S WRONG WITH YOU?
X: He said this has happened before, and that those sanctified in this way are cleansed of original sin. Did you get that? Cleansed of original sin. He even says they receive only the character in future water baptism, if any.
SS: How are they cleaned? You didn’t answer the question again, about his statement who are they to whom he refers, “as was the case with those who were sanctified in the womb?” OH BY THE WAY, DID YOU GET THE FACT THAT ST. THOMAS WAS A HERETIC ON SOME THINGS, LIKE TEACHING MARY WAS A SINNER? THAT’S RIGHT, YOU WON’T OWN UP THAT YOU’RE WRONG ABOUT HIM.
X: Your accusation does not hold. Pantheists were condemned before Vatican I, Sola Fiders before Trent etc etc. The difference is that St.Thomas knew and held the doctrine of limbo, while yet holding, and seeing nothing contrary in doing so, that God may yet sanctify children in the womb by His own action, which according to you are directly contradictory, as to be that the one is heretical because the other pertains to the faith, whereas the other Saints did not hold two allegedly contrary doctrines.
SS: YOU CAN’T USE ST. THOMAS AQUINAS! HE DIED BEFORE THE DOCTRINE WAS DEFINED! YOU ACT JUST LIKE SO MANY HERETICS THAT USE EARLY FATHERS TO JUSTIFY THINGS CONDEMNED BY THE CHURCH AFTER THEIR DEATH.
X: That’s silly. You jump to conclusions without understanding. I mean, to baptise pagans who are of good will and ready to obey God once His teaching is known to them, even if they may already have received sanctification. The Church has always hurried to baptise them.
SS: WRONG AGAIN. The Catechism of Trent asays adults “are not baptized at once…The delay is not attended the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any foreseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.” (p 179)
X: Finally, Let prayer delight thee more than disputations, and the charity which buildeth up more than the knowledge which puffeth up. ~ St. Robert Bellarmine.
SS: ALSO, “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.” (Gal. 1:8-9)
My husband and I have been reading this conversation amongst other articles and we are blown away by your answers. We think you should be much more charitable, because you come down pretty hard on Xavier. We were on his side at first, but now after reading carefully the back and forth comments, we see ourselves in a bad predicament. Also, we think the world of Tim Staples and his emails to you and your reply to Mr. Salza including Xavier’s have really forced us to rethink everything. We would like to email you personally about some other questions that we have, if you wouldn’t mind. We were not aware of so much of this stuff. It’s really scary.
Yes, you may email me with more questions. The reason why I allow men like Salza, Staples, and comments from Xavier, is to prove our position legit as they prove theirs false. I’m glad they have been of good use for my cause.
It’s a shame but it’s the persons choice to deny the grace to see the truth. The problem is the lack of Grace. You can argue forever with these people and they will never see the Apostasy right in front of their eye’s. I quit a while back trying to make people see because I finally realized they will never see it until they correspond with the direct Grace from God. I nor anyone else will ever convince anyone of the true position. The people will have to cooperate with the Grace of God first, when they do they will seek out the truth and see it when it is given to them.
Xavier,
You write: Sigh. I don’t want to comment on your website if you don’t wish me to, but I just wanted to say this: you misrepresent me when you say I make the Saints heretics.
SS: This is why I don’t want you to comment anymore on my website, because I didn’t say or implied that you make the saints heretics. You fail to understand that saints have indeed been material heretics and when they are, you can’t use them to defend your heresies today. AND YOU DON’T CONCEDE TO THOSE POINTS THAT I’VE CLEARLY DEBUNKED LIKE THE ALTAR GIRLS, ETC.! Have you even bothered watching the video I posted on B16 bowing towards a Lutheran altar and praying with a female bishop?
X: I quoted St.Thomas because you claimed this was a “novelty”, only to show it was not such a thing.
SS: And you never answered the question about whom are they St. Thomas refers, “as was the case with those who were sanctified in the womb?” Until you do that, you have no business quoting him at all, because you don’t know what he was talking about. Therefore, I submit that it is still a novelty because St. Thomas elsewhere has taught that unbaptized infants DO NOT GO TO HEAVEN. He didn’t say they might not go to heaven. You seem not to understand this point.
X: I did not cite him as a final authority. I will give you the evidence of those after Florence below, if you like.
SS: You only take them out of context as you have done with everyone else as I’ve demonstrated earlier. You confuse limbo with heaven. And you confuse the fact that exceptions don’t go across the board.
X: Finally, your argument fails because the very words “no other remedy” are themselves distinctly Thomistic and the Council of Florence used his arguments with very great profit against the Greeks, often borrowing verbatim, like the above, and never implying he was in material error on this point.
SS: That’s because you don’t know what St. Thomas was talking about. You have “no other remedy” and then say there might be another remedy. That’s a contradiction.
X: Still, I can point to many after Florence, who understood it as being open to speculation, and it is best summed up by Ludwig Ott.
“Other emergency means of baptism for children dying without sacramental baptism, such as prayer and the desire of the parents or the Church (vicarious baptism of desire—Cajetan), or the attainment of the use of reason in the moment of death, so that the dying child can decide for or against God (baptism of desire—H. Klee), or suffering and death of the child as quasi-Sacrament (baptism of suffering—H. Schell), are indeed possible, but their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation. Cf. Denzinger 712.” Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
SS: Well, you prove my point, not yours. Ott is giving other possible “emergency means” which is quite different than saying that all unbaptized children may actually attain one of these emergency means. With that being said, Cajetan understands that only baptism can save the infant by giving the possible baptism of desire from parents as being the exception. He understands that desire is a must. His explanation, however, is silly and Cajetan makes a fool of himself as he had done in the past by claiming that a pope can be a heretic. After all, God has a desire for all to be saved too, right? So why don’t we just say that all unbaptized infants go to heaven and let that be the end of it? Of course, Ratzinger actually teaches this anyway, which makes him a heretic, plain and simple. But Cajetan clearly rejected Florence on this issue. H. Klee understands that desire is a must, too. Therefore, he proposes that God could enlighten the mind of the child to make the decision. If this is so, then that would qualify as another remedy outside of the sacrament. The purpose of the phrase “NO OTHER REMEDY” was to distinguish how an adult could be saved apart from the sacrament, from the infant. The phrase becomes meaningless if Klee is right. As for H. Schell’s explanation, I find this quite interesting, because I don’t know what manner or reason he gives for this. It’s no remedy, that’s for sure, but it doesn’t seem to fit in Catholic theology as a whole. Be that as it may, I’ll grant you that a few post-Florence theologians rejected parts of Florence. Except Cajetan, the 4 other theologians also that rejected Cum ex of Paul IV, it’s possible that they may have been excused from understanding the full scope of papal infallibility and jurisdiction since the definitions were given after their deaths. NOW, all of these are exceptions anyway, and Rome today is making exceptions go possibly across the board. Ratzinger, again, doesn’t believe unbaptized infants go limbo/hell anyway. He tells you that you can’t give up that notion if it bothers you. THEREFORE, I STAND BY MY ORIGINAL ACCUSATION.
Xavier,
“because I didn’t say or implied that you make the saints heretics.”
Excuse me? This was the portion I was talking about, “YOU NECESSARILY CONDEMN STS. THOMAS AQUINAS, ANSELM, AND CHRYSOSTOM FOR TEACHING THAT THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY WAS SINNER.” Anyway, I hope I have clarified I wasn’t implying St.Thomas was infallibly right here.
SS: THEY ALL DID TEACH THAT MARY WAS A SINNER! WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM? You made the statement, “Your use of “has been “defined” is also ridiculous. Many things were dogmatically defined at Trent, but those who denied them even before that were formal heretics.” Since Sts. Thomas Aquinas, Anselm, Chrysostom all said Mary was a sinner, by your own argument, you would condemn these saints as heretics. Now I know that you don’t do so, so therefore, you must admit that you were wrong with your statement. STOP COMMENTING ON MY WEBSITE IF YOU CAN’T CONCEDE THAT YOU’RE WRONG!
X: As for Pope Benedict in Germany, well, I will say that just as St.Peter acting out of human respect, who stood condemned, and rebuked by St.Paul, was not on his part a tacit approval of the Judaizer heretics, sometimes a Pope may sin too in the same way.
SS: WRONG! You’re comparing apples to oranges! Benedict is a total apostate! You would never have seen St. Peter or any other Catholic in a false church praying and worshiping with heretics or with pagans as your devil popes do! Merely, acting out of human respect? What about the laws of the Church such as Canon 1258: It is unlawful for the faithful to assist in any active manner, or to take part in the sacred services of non-Catholics.???? “If any bishop, or priest, or deacon, shall join in prayers with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion.” “If any clergyman or laic shall go into the synagogue of the Jews, or the meetings of heretics, to join in prayer with them, let him be deposed, and deprived of communion”. (Canons 44 and 63 – of Bishop George Hay
X: Now, these words are Thomistic ‘First, because in them we do not look for better instruction or fuller conversion. Secondly, because of the danger of death, for no other remedy is available for them besides the sacrament of Baptism.”
SS: Two different issues and the no other remedy implies that the infant cannot desire.
X: This shows your understanding of the phrase “no other remedy’ is wrong.
SS: Not at all! Read the Catechism. Perhaps you can tell me what are the remedies other than baptism for adults.
X: Florence was based in large measure on the teaching of the Angelic Doctor, often borrowing verbatim. It shows that no other remedy is so because God has bound it on us that way, but He has not bound Himself.
SS: Wrong! It shows that no other remedy is so because they can’t desire. Read your Catechism of Trent to see that I’m right!
X: St.Thomas speaks of it as a kind of privilege which only means to say that God may do it as a way of exception, which means we can hope, not know, but hope, and we might be wrong, that God may work in an extraordinary way in a particular case.
SS: And again, for the 10th time, you never answered the question about whom are they St. Thomas refers, “as was the case with those who were sanctified in the womb?”
X: As for who they were, I’m not sure.
SS: It doesn’t matter, because Rome is taking it across the board to mean all of them. Ratzinger doesn’t believe any unbaptized infant loses heaven and tells you that you can drop that idea if need to.
X: Do you have an idea? Still, St.Thomas says they ‘receive indeed grace which cleanses them from original sin, but they do not therefore receive the character, by which they are conformed to Christ. Consequently, if any were to be sanctified in the womb now, they would need to be baptized, in order to be conformed to Christ’s other members by receiving the character. ‘ showing he leaves open the possibility for the hidden ways of God even now.
SS: Under what circumstances? Answer the question above.
X: Well, it doesn’t matter really if Cajetan’s explanation is wrong, I don’t commit myself to it. What matters is it was after Florence and how the Council was understood by theologians of the time.
SS: It does matter that Cajetan was wrong. I need to correct myself here, because Cajetan died before Cum ex. I was wrong in my last email. After all, he said a non-member of the Church can be the pope, too.
“Be that as it may, I’ll grant you that a few post-Florence theologians rejected parts of Florence.”
X: But Florence was an Ecumenical Council and even the laity, let alone theologians, knew you could not reject something the Church had defined in one.
SS: The Church didn’t define “no other remedy.” It was taught, but not in definition. So, yes, you would be correct that they would have known better about definitions. Outside of definitions is where it got shady for some. Again, 4 theologians outright rejected Cum ex. PERIOD! Perhaps, they all were heretics and schismatics anyway. I do know that Vat1 cleared up papal authority.
“NOW, all of these are exceptions anyway, and Rome today is making exceptions go possibly across the board.”
X: No, not at all. Rome merely says, in official documents, that we may hope for their salvation, which is not even incompatible with the proposition that all children go to limbo after all.
SS: But there’s the rub. You can hope that their (all of them) salvation is deemed possible. Don’t you see the problem? Again, the reason why you have Rome’s teaching now, is because they don’t want to say unbaptized infants go to limbo/hell as the Church has taught in the past.
Xavier,
>>>SS: THEY ALL DID TEACH THAT MARY WAS A SINNER! WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?
X: But that was because the sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin was recognized at the time as being open to theological speculation. This is not the case with limbo which was already the common teaching by St.Thomas’ time.
SS: AGAIN, you made the statement, “Your use of “has been “defined” is also ridiculous. Many things were dogmatically defined at Trent, but those who denied them even before that were formal heretics.” SO YOU’RE ADMITTING THAT YOU WERE WRONG SINCE THEY DENIED MARY’S SINLESSNESS EVEN BEFORE THAT DEFINITION IN 1854?
X: Again, the way you put it is too simplistic. Were the “Reformers” not heretics for believing sola fide before Trent had spoken?
SS: YES, BECAUSE HOLY SCRIPTURE WAS QUITE CLEAR AND THEY REJECTED IT!
>>>SS: WRONG! You’re comparing apples to oranges! Benedict is a total apostate!
X: Firstly, canon law does not apply straightaway to the Pope for he is the supreme legislator of it.
SS: HOW WRONG YOU ARE! DIDN’T YOU READ ROME’S EXPLANATION THAT REJECTS YOUR STATEMENT?
X: Second, by your standards, why wasn’t St.Peter guilty of siding with Judaizing heretics over true Christians?
SS: HE WASN’T! YOU TAKE THE PASSAGE OUT OF CONTEXT!
X: Third, the only reason the Pope speaks kindly with Protestants is to ensure that there can one day be full communion between them and the Catholic Church.
SS: GIVE ME A BREAK! He was worshiping with them, and praying with them! HE IS A TOTAL APOSTATE! IF YOU THINK THAT RATZINGER IS NOT GUILTY OF BREAKING BOTH DIVINE AND CHURCH LAWS, THEN PLEASE DON’T COMMENT AGAIN! I DON’T WANT TO WASTE MY TIME WITH YOU ANYMORE.
X: Just like before Florence was called, it was necessary for there to be some good will between the sides. In fact, arguably, Florence eventually did not bring about the desired reunion primarily because, not of theological reasons, but because animosity between Greeks and Latins, on the level fo the common people prevailed. Thus, it is the wisdom of the Church, to ensure good will, even with ordinary non-theologians, in view of a future Ecumenical Council that will achieve reunion with all separated communitiies.
SS: AGAIN YOU’RE COMPARING APPLES WITH ORANGES!
>>>Two different issues and the no other remedy implies that the infant cannot desire.
X: It’s not different because he was speaking of baptism of infants. But, sure, the infant cannot desire, yet, in context, Florence is imploring that there be no delay in baptising the child and if your interpretation was simply applied, “no other remedy” would preclude blood as well, which is obviously false.
SS: YOU CLEARLY DON’T READ WHAT I WRITE! I ALREADY TOLD YOU THAT IT WOULD NOT PRECLUDE BLOOD AS WELL SINCE DYING IS NOT A REMEDY ANYMORE THAN DEATH IS A REMEDY TO CANCER PATIENTS. GET WITH IT OR DON’T COMMENT AGAIN! THIS IS GETTING OLD!
>>>Not at all! Read the Catechism. Perhaps you can tell me what are the remedies other than baptism for adults.
X: The sacrament as such must always be performed in water. Both blood and desire are extraordinary means as well of water baptism that is necessary for salvation.
SS: OKAY THEN. THANK YOU FOR PROVING ME RIGHT!
>>>SS: And again, for the 10th time, you never answered the question about whom are they St. Thomas refers, “as was the case with those who were sanctified in the womb?”
X: I answered above that I was not sure. I guess the only way St.Thomas could have known it happened in a particular case was if Scripture records it. But not too many examples come to mind. Regardless, I don’t see how this matters.
SS: IT MATTERS BECAUSE HE WAS SPEAKING ABOUT A CERTAIN CASE WHICH YOU KEEP IGNORING!
>>>It doesn’t matter, because Rome is taking it across the board to mean all of them. Ratzinger doesn’t believe any unbaptized infant loses heaven and tells you that you can drop that idea if need to.
X: That probably would be like what Suarez taught after the general Resurrection, and may be qualified by saying they will be deprived of the beatific vision, because of their internal dispositions, and united to God only in natural goods. Those who die in original sin are deprived of the beatific vision. This is certainly true and reaffirmed by the document.
SS: THAT’S NOT WHAT RATZINGER SAID OR IMPLIED. GO BACK AND READ IT.
>>>SS: Under what circumstances? Answer the question above.
X: We don’t know. If your son is conceived with a natural sickness, you might seek a remedy if it is within your power, or you may pray to God for him to be healed. We can hope, but whether the good God chooses to heal or not is entirely up to Him.
SS: MY WIFE AND I LOST A CHILD IN THE WOMB. WE KNOW WHAT THE CHURCH TEACHES AND WE ACCEPT IT AND GO ON.
>>>SS: It does matter that Cajetan was wrong. I need to correct myself here, because Cajetan died before Cum ex. I was wrong in my last email. After all, he said a non-member of the Church can be the pope, too.
X: Ok. But you said yourself, Christ would protect the Church from an apparent Pope who was a secret heretic, the secret heretic himself not being a member of the Church. How do you know this?
SS: THAT’S ONE EXPLANATION OR HE WOULDN’T ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN AT ALL. I KNOW IT BECAUSE OF CHRIST’S PROMISE.
>>>SS: The Church didn’t define “no other remedy.” It was taught, but not in definition.
X: In other words, Florence merely reiterated the common teaching. But that was already known in St.Thomas’ time. Yet, it was you was saying the dogma hadn’t been defined yet about him.
SS: NO OTHER REMEDY WAS NOT DEFINED AT ALL.
>>>So, yes, you would be correct that they would have known better about definitions. Outside of definitions is where it got shady for some. Again, 4 theologians outright rejected Cum ex. PERIOD! Perhaps, they all were heretics and schismatics anyway. I do know that Vat1 cleared up papal authority.
X: But Vatican I was itself about dogmatic definitions, so no.
SS: NOT TOTALLY! NOT EVERYTHING WAS DEFINED.
X: Well, just like Feeneyites, you say they were all possibly heretics.
SS: THAT’S BECAUSE THEY REJECT TRENT WHICH DID DEFINE THAT PARTICULAR DOCTRINE.
X: But you must see I have good grounds for thinking the matter was never historically interpreted as you are laying forth here, by eminent and qualified theologians who were never accused of heresy by those in positions to do so.
SS: YOU MUST SEE HOW I’VE ALREADY EXPLAINED THIS.
X: Finally, if you insist, what of the man himself, who in a standard textbook theology manual of Catholic faith and dogma says extraordinary means are “indeed possible”, which is all we say as well?
SS: EXTRAORDINARY MEANS FOR ALL OF THEM IS THE PROBLEM AND THE FACT THAT RATZINGER DOESN’T BELIEVE UNBAPTIZED INFANTS GO TO HELL AT ALL, BUT RATHER HEAVEN AND SAYS YOU CAN BELIEVE IT TOO, IF YOU LIKE.
>>>But there’s the rub. You can hope that their (all of them) salvation is deemed possible.
X: We hope and pray that God may provide some extraordinary means. We have no way of knowing if He does, nor do we need to, even in a single case. How is this different from what Ott said?
SS: IT’S NOT ABOUT A SINGLE CASE BUT FOR ALL CASES WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM EXTREME CASES.
>>>they don’t want to say unbaptized infants go to limbo/hell as the Church has taught in the past.
X: Except that they have retained that, and the actual reason was Christian parents who have committed abortion asked the Church so. The Church gave careful consideration to the matter, and merely reiterated what her theologians have understood as free to do for a long time.
SS: WRONG. THEOLOGIANS HAVE NOT UNDERSTOOD IT THE WAY ROME IS TEACHING IT NOW. SORRY. BUT PLEASE, DON’T COMMENT AGAIN, UNTIL I HEAR A CONCESSION MADE BY YOU SOMEWHERE.
All right, all right. I won’t comment anymore, not that I was dying to. Fare thee well.
You were weak on the Middle Ages Popes issue Salza brought up, you responses were deflections or “see, it proves SV position” statements…..very weak
If you thought so, fair enough. If you would like to dive a little deeper with these popes, I’d be glad to go over them with you to demonstrate how they help the position of sedevacantism rather than hurt it.
J. Salza: Although we are experiencing a liturgical and theological crisis in the Church, the fact is that Catholics are free to practice the faith as they always had before 1958…[-!]
Sorry, John, you blew it here…
Catholics are not free to practice the true Catholic faith within the geographical limits of the new conciliar anti-Church – that is why so many of them were forced to leave – because of sacrilege in the Liturgy and doctrinal and moral error…
I don’t know about anybody else, but I found Mr….haha my stupid tablet keeps replacing his name with the word “salsa”…Mr. Salsa, then…his opening remark was incredibly insulting, ill bred, and arrogant, not to mention intellectually (and probably ethically) dishonest considering that RIGHT after he insulted thousands of people, he said his intention was NOT to “denigrate” them! Then he proceeded to patronize those whom he was attacking so barbarously by then stating that “some of them” are “actually quite intelligent”! It gives me a literal headache to think of a head so swelled with pride! Well, thanks to lifelong chronic illness I am certainly not able to boast of the education that he can, but I would bet my left hand that my IQ is higher, and would furthermore bet my very soul that my religious views are infinitely more correct than his are; I’d much rather be intelligent, ignorant, and correct than stupid, educated, ill bred, incorrect, AND proud of it – any day of the week!
Here is an interesting take on the issue:
The Office of Peter ( legal ) vs The Chair of Peter ( moral ) http://holywar.org/NoPope.htm
Comments?
It appears to be the position of Sedeprivationism. While interesting, I don’t hold to it. One is either pope or not pope. However, I do hold that if the antipope renounces his errors, he could be considered pope which is the outcome of sedeprivationism if such a case should happen.
Thanks for the comment. I had to go to wikipedia for that! lol
“Two consequences flow out of this thesis:
There is no real sede vacante since a man fills the role of potential Pope;
If the current potential Pope recants from Modernism and returns to Catholicism, he will complete the process and attain to the fullness of the papacy.”
It would seem to involve much more than this ‘recanting’. It assumes only he must “return to Catholicism”. The whole world-wide church would have to convert from heretical protestant practices and return to true orthodoxy, and show true reverence toward the Most Holy Eucharist, a genuine Holy Sacrifice of the Mass world-wide. In my humble opinion, that is what it all amounts too.. the whole problem ( in a nutshell! ). Stop leading souls toward the “wide gate” and start demonstrating a real genuine love for Our Infinitely Merciful and Holy God again! Then, and only then, do we have true restoration, and millions of precious souls united again in the Mystical Body of Christ! 🙂
BTW, it appears that John Salza IS a sede vacantist, at least according to what he wrote here: http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page66/salza_novus_ordo.html he admits that the recent Novus Ordo church hierarchy are in fact anathematized. 😉
The problem with Salza and those like him, is that they become brain dead when it comes to the implications of what they are talking about. Salza knows the new mass is extremely faulty and contrary to Catholicism, but fails to acknowledge what it means. The Church has taught numerous times that She can’t give us faulty laws and disciplines contrary to Catholicism like the mass, sacraments, etc. Either Rome has lost the faith or the Gates of hell have prevailed. Which is it? Salza and his ilk can’t see it, or simply don’t believe in the Catholic Faith. They believe that a pope can believe, teach, and promote anything under the sun (even pray to the sun) and he’s still the pope. This is the position of all traditionalists united to Rome.
It’s a shame but it’s the persons choice to deny the grace to see the truth. The problem is the lack of Grace. You can argue forever with these people and they will never see the Apostasy right in front of their eye’s. I quit a while back trying to make people see because I finally realized they will never see it until they correspond with the direct Grace from God. I nor anyone else will ever convince anyone of the true position. The people will have to cooperate with the Grace of God first, when they do they will seek out the truth and see it when it is given to them.
Galations: 6 (I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. 7 Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. 9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.)