How To Respond To Sedevacantists?

[Prosologion]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1344213565' post='2463195']
I'd probably say something like...

It's my faith in Christ and his Church that I believe that the "gates of hell will never prevail" against the Church. This includes the "keys to the Kingdom" with which the pope is instruction. And it's through the "keys," founded on the "never prevail", that I trust in the Petrine Authority of the pope, the current pope. One of the things about being Catholic is accepting with faithful obedience the teachings of our bishops, particularly the Bishop of Rome. Our obedience brings even more joy to Christ when we obey even though teachings are hard to understand or don't make sense at all. There are, however, proper channels to go through in the Church to deal with disagreements over these teachings, and many saints have used them to enact true changes. St. Francis had to wait for permission to form his order. Those who struggle with accepting the legitimacy of our liturgy and respond by denying the legitimacy of the pope are not using the proper channels to deal with their struggle. Instead of embracing the Church, they reject Her.

I don't like to engage with people who boast wildly inflammatory, arrogant and untrue claims, especially when they don't back anything up with actual documents or tell you to go verify their claims yourself. There's nothing to be gained by answering their arguments on their own terms (if, however, they decide to have a civil conversation using historically documented facts and solid sources, that can be worth engaging...sometimes). In your case, I'd do your best to explain why you believe that the current ordinary form is right, and just leave it be. Oh, and pray. Arguments like the one the sedevacantist posted aren't worth the effort. Prayer's pretty much the only thing that will get them to see reason.
[/quote]



And what does the promise "the gates of hell will not prevail" mean?


Moreover, Benedict XVI explicitly denies the dogma of the papacy on many levels. The whole Novus Ordo establishment and Benedict XVI himself say that you can be in "the Church of Christ" without even accepting the dogma of the papacy, without even holding the Catholic Faith whole and undefiled. THEY HAVE EVEN TuRNED AWAY PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO CONVERT TO "CATHOLICISM"!


Your "popes" hold the Catholic faith to be meaningless because they say you're perfectly fine to be a Jew, or a pagan, or an Anglican or an "orthodox" schismatic or a protestant.


The Novus Ordo sect is drunk with the blood of the martyrs and makes all their sacrifices and death MEANINGLESS by praising and "profoundly esteeming" all the other false religions and by saying that the old testament was "never revoked by God" (#121 of your new "catechism of the catholic church") and that "Jewish messianic expectation is not in vain".

So if you want to outrageously condemn sedevacantists as "pope deniers", you condemn yourself out of your own mouth for your very own antipope says that you don't even have to accept the papacy or the Catholic faith.

Go to [mod]link edited[/mod] for all the hard data and evidence.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Lil Red
links to sedevacantist websites not allowed

[Lil Red]

moving to debate.

[Basilisa Marie]

Hi there, Prosologion.

Referencing "the gates of hell will not prevail" generally means that the Holy Spirit will never abandon the Church, no matter how sinful her people might be or how hard the devil tries to attack her.

What do [i]you[/i] mean by the dogma of the papacy? I'm not sure I understand what you mean, as I understand that Pope Benedict XVI would affirm this dogma. Could you clarify what you're talking specifically about for me?

Actually, if you read through [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html"]Dignitatis Humanae[/url] and [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html"]Nostra Aetate[/url], you can see that what is actually said is that religious freedom is a good thing, and that other faiths can be good in so much as they share something in common with Catholicism. Like, it's better to be a Lutheran than an atheist, because a Lutheran believes in God and that Jesus is the Son of God and our savior, while an atheist does not. It's not as good as being Catholic, because the Catholic Church contains the fullest deposit of faith, but it can be a start on a person's spiritual journey.

I can see why this is an issue that touches a nerve. Like I said before, I generally don't like to engage in angry ad-hominem theology wars. But if you want to have a civil discussion, based on mutual understanding, by all means you've come to the right forum.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Basilisa Marie

[Nihil Obstat]

Just out of curiosity, what site was this dude linking to? Traditio? Something even more obscure?

[Papist]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1347993042' post='2483796']
Just out of curiosity, what site was this dude linking to? Traditio? Something even more obscure?
[/quote]
Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of removing the link?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1347993310' post='2483798']
Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of removing the link?
[/quote]

Depends on the motivation for removing it. Everyone knows such sites exist, and how to find them. My perception of editing out links is simply because we do not want to provide that direct path to specific 'information' that attacks orthodox Catholicism. It is the directness that is the issue, and the specificity.
At least that is how I have always seen it.

[Prosologion]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1347981717' post='2483740']
Hi there, Prosologion.

Referencing "the gates of hell will not prevail" generally means that the Holy Spirit will never abandon the Church, no matter how sinful her people might be or how hard the devil tries to attack her.

What do [i]you[/i] mean by the dogma of the papacy? I'm not sure I understand what you mean, as I understand that Pope Benedict XVI would affirm this dogma. Could you clarify what you're talking specifically about for me?

Actually, if you read through [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html"]Dignitatis Humanae[/url] and [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html"]Nostra Aetate[/url], you can see that what is actually said is that religious freedom is a good thing, and that other faiths can be good in so much as they share something in common with Catholicism. Like, it's better to be a Lutheran than an atheist, because a Lutheran believes in God and that Jesus is the Son of God and our savior, while an atheist does not. It's not as good as being Catholic, because the Catholic Church contains the fullest deposit of faith, but it can be a start on a person's spiritual journey.

I can see why this is an issue that touches a nerve. Like I said before, I generally don't like to engage in angry ad-hominem theology wars. But if you want to have a civil discussion, based on mutual understanding, by all means you've come to the right forum.
[/quote]

If they edited my post and removed the website I linked to, I don't see how that's fair or how we would engage in any conversation because all the info is there in one website.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Prosologion' timestamp='1347993682' post='2483802']
If they edited my post and removed the website I linked to, I don't see how that's fair or how we would engage in any conversation because all the info is there in one website.
[/quote]

If your position is reasonable enough, you should be able to state it more or less without relying on too many links.

[Prosologion]

Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, pp. 197-198: “Against this background
we can now weigh the possibilities that are open to Christian ecumenism. The maximum
demands on which the search for unity must certainly founder are immediately clear.
[u][b]On the part of the West, the maximum demand would be that the East recognize the
primacy of the bishop of Rome in the full scope of the definition of 1870[/b][/u] and in so
doing submit in practice, to a primacy such as has been accepted by the Uniate churches.
On the part of the East, the maximum demand would be that the West declare the 1870
doctrine of primacy erroneous and in so doing submit, in practice, to a primacy such as
has been accepted with the removal of the Filioque from the Creed and including the
Marian dogmas of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. [u][b]As regards Protestantism, the
maximum demand of the Catholic Church would be that the Protestant ecclesiological
ministers be regarded as totally invalid and that Protestants be converted to
Catholicism[/b][/u]; the maximum demand of Protestants, on the other hand, would be that the
Catholic Church accept, along with the unconditional acknowledgement of all Protestant
ministries, the Protestant concept of ministry and their understanding of the Church and
thus, in practice, renounce the apostolic and sacramental structure of the Church, which
would mean, in practice, the conversion of Catholics to Protestantism and their
acceptance of a multiplicity of distinct community structures as the historical form of the
Church. [u][b]While the first three maximum demands are today rather unanimously
rejected by Christian consciousness[/b][/u], the fourth exercises a kind of fascination for it – as
it were, a certain conclusiveness that makes it appear to be the real solution to the
problem. This is all the more true since there is joined to it the expectation that a
Parliament of Churches, a ‘truly ecumenical council’, could then harmonize this
pluralism and promote a Christian unity of action. That no real union would result from
this, but that its very impossibility would become a single common dogma, should
convince anyone who examines the suggestion closely that such a way would not bring
Church unity but only a final renunciation of it. As a result, [u][b]none of the maximum
solutions offers any real hope of unity[/b][/u].”

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Prosologion' timestamp='1347993682' post='2483802']
If they edited my post and removed the website I linked to, I don't see how that's fair or how we would engage in any conversation because all the info is there in one website.
[/quote]

the only part of your post that was edited was the link. We do not allow those kind of websites to be linked to on this phorum.
and, as Nihil stated, if you believe your position is correct, and are actually interested in dialogue[b] instead of docu-dumping[/b], then you should be able to state your position without those links.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Prosologion' timestamp='1347993943' post='2483805']
Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, pp. 197-198: “Against this background
we can now weigh the possibilities that are open to Christian ecumenism. The maximum
demands on which the search for unity must certainly founder are immediately clear.
[u][b]On the part of the West, the maximum demand would be that the East recognize the
primacy of the bishop of Rome in the full scope of the definition of 1870[/b][/u] and in so
doing submit in practice, to a primacy such as has been accepted by the Uniate churches.
On the part of the East, the maximum demand would be that the West declare the 1870
doctrine of primacy erroneous and in so doing submit, in practice, to a primacy such as
has been accepted with the removal of the Filioque from the Creed and including the
Marian dogmas of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. [u][b]As regards Protestantism, the
maximum demand of the Catholic Church would be that the Protestant ecclesiological
ministers be regarded as totally invalid and that Protestants be converted to
Catholicism[/b][/u]; the maximum demand of Protestants, on the other hand, would be that the
Catholic Church accept, along with the unconditional acknowledgement of all Protestant
ministries, the Protestant concept of ministry and their understanding of the Church and
thus, in practice, renounce the apostolic and sacramental structure of the Church, which
would mean, in practice, the conversion of Catholics to Protestantism and their
acceptance of a multiplicity of distinct community structures as the historical form of the
Church. [u][b]While the first three maximum demands are today rather unanimously
rejected by Christian consciousness[/b][/u], the fourth exercises a kind of fascination for it – as
it were, a certain conclusiveness that makes it appear to be the real solution to the
problem. This is all the more true since there is joined to it the expectation that a
Parliament of Churches, a ‘truly ecumenical council’, could then harmonize this
pluralism and promote a Christian unity of action. That no real union would result from
this, but that its very impossibility would become a single common dogma, should
convince anyone who examines the suggestion closely that such a way would not bring
Church unity but only a final renunciation of it. As a result, [u][b]none of the maximum
solutions offers any real hope of unity[/b][/u].”
[/quote]


I must have missed the part where Pope Benedict elevated his 1982 book, written as a private theologian, to the level of infallibility.

[Prosologion]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1347994109' post='2483808']
I must have missed the part where Pope Benedict elevated his 1982 book, written as a private theologian, to the level of infallibility.
[/quote]

I don´t have much time right now but I will come back later.

For now I'll just say:

1- The quote from his book is blatantly heretical which makes him a heretic,
2- This teaching (that you can be in the Church of Christ and in some form of "communion" without being a Catholic or accepting the papacy) is known as the New Ecclesiology which is blatantly heretical and destroys the article of faith which says "I believe in One Church",
3- This teaching is all over the Novus Ordo and is the official teaching of it; it's in Vatican II, it's in the new "catechism", in "CDF" documents like Dominus Iesus (#17 for one), Communion, the Directory for Ecumenism, and other encyclicals by JPII and Ratzinger.

So, you don't know what you're talking about, or know what's going on.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Prosologion' timestamp='1347994920' post='2483819']
I don´t have much time right now but I will come back later.

For now I'll just say:

1- The quote from his book is blatantly heretical which makes him a heretic,
2- This teaching (that you can be in the Church of Christ and in some form of "communion" without being a Catholic or accepting the papacy) is known as the New Ecclesiology which is blatantly heretical and destroys the article of faith which says "I believe in One Church",
3- This teaching is all over the Novus Ordo and is the official teaching of it; it's in Vatican II, it's in the new "catechism", in "CDF" documents like Dominus Iesus (#17 for one), Communion, the Directory for Ecumenism, and other encyclicals by JPII and Ratzinger.

So, you don't know what you're talking about, or know what's going on.
[/quote]

Ok I will bite. For now, at least.

[indent=1]"The quote from his book is blatantly heretical which makes him a heretic,"[/indent]

Not really. You are clearly taking selections from that passage out of context, and you are ignoring what Joseph Ratzinger was actually trying to say. He as Joseph Ratzinger says nothing more than that there is a certain continuum of acceptable Catholic positions, and that there is room for discussion. He is saying that without an openness to discussion, there cannot be unity. Frankly, that is nearly tautological.

For an example, look at how the traditional Anglicans were received into the Church just recently. That was, in my opinion, a masterstroke of true ecumenism.

[indent=1]"This teaching (that you can be in the Church of Christ and in some form of "communion" without being a Catholic or accepting the papacy) is known as the New Ecclesiology which is blatantly heretical and destroys the article of faith which says "I believe in One Church""[/indent]

You will have to point out to me where Joseph Ratzinger says that Protestants belong to the Church. I do not see it in what you have quoted.

[indent=1]"3- This teaching is all over the Novus Ordo and is the official teaching of it; it's in Vatican II, it's in the new "catechism", in "CDF" documents like Dominus Iesus (#17 for one), Communion, the Directory for Ecumenism, and other encyclicals by JPII and Ratzinger."[/indent]

If you refuse to get specific, then we do not have anything to discuss. There is plenty of room for discussion, especially when it comes to documents from the Second Vatican Council.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Nihil Obstat

[Basilisa Marie]

All he's saying in the quote (which, as has been pointed out earlier, is his opinions as a theologian and not as pope, so it's a theological opinion that isn't binding for the whole Church in the slightest) is that if there's going to be any kind of real ecumenical reconciliation between the Catholic Church, the Orthodox, and Protestants, someone is going to have to give some ground on ecclesiastical issues. And he actually says in that quote that since all four of the "maximum demands" are rejected by one side or another, (the fourth seeming the most plausible, but actually not working), that true ecclesiological unity is impossible. So he's not saying anything that's heretical. He's just laying out the positions that different groups want another to accept, and no group is going to budge on anything...and so as a result ecumenical unity is impossible at this time.

I'm just a lowly theology grad student, but I've never heard of this "new ecclesiology" that you speak of, and if it does exist as a "hot" theological idea right now, it's no where near the level of being necessary for all to embrace. The Church is definitely in [i]dialogue [/i]with various denominations. We've talked about the issue of faith vs works with the Lutherans and even came up with a nice document that everyone liked.

Part of the reasoning behind the Novus Ordo (as has been explained earlier in this thread) is that it helps get rid of many liturgical stumbling blocks that prevent Protestants from converting. It's not about sacrificing any of our beliefs, but figuring out what we can do in practice that meets people where they are while still reflecting those beliefs. Many Catholics prefer the Extraordinary Form to the Novus Ordo, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I'd prefer it if you didn't say things like "you don't know what you're talking about" and the like. It's not very nice.

[Nihil Obstat]

Just as a little bit of a tangent, the whole Siri Thesis is in my opinion the most compelling out of all the positions that broadly do not recognize the current pope as pope. I say that to include sedevacantists, sedeprivationists, conclavists, and whatever else might exist.
To be clear, I do not support the Siri Thesis. However, I think it is reasonable to suggest that maybe Cardinal Siri was involved in something a bit odd during at least one conclave.
Anyway, there's a reason the conclaves are secretive. It is not for us to know. I am satisfied that Pope Benedict XVI is very much the pope of the Holy Catholic Church.

Edit: Also I think Cardinal Siri's own 'response' is a good model for our own. He refused to acknowledge those Sirianists, even to the tiniest degree, and recognized all official popes as legitimate.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Nihil Obstat

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Prosologion' timestamp='1347993943' post='2483805'][u][b]none of the maximum
solutions offers any real hope of unity[/b][/u].”
[/quote]

That's a pretty accurate assessment of the state of relations between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and Protestant ecclesial communities...you can interpret the reason for that in any way that you want. The Catholic maxim might not offer any real hope of unity because of the heretics who have hardened hearts who will not accept it in any way. The flip side of what he says here is that the Catholic Church cannot except either the Orthodox maxim or the Protestant maxim either.

it is sad, but true, that none of those maxims promises a practical path towards unity. certainly Cardinal Ratzinger was hoping that some other path might be possible which does contradict Catholic doctrines. Ratzinger was not looking to give any ground on dogma, he was looking for a way to move forward with the dogma that might make reconciliation possible. taken alone, the Catholic maxim that Ratzinger described would never be accepted by the Orthodox or the Protestants (on human terms, of course there could always be a miracle).

this evaluation of the state of affairs amongst the baptized Christians who are not in union with the Vicar of Christ is by no means `heretical', unless by 'heretical' you mean "an accurate assessment of the attitudes of the heretical sects, the schismatic Churches, and the various separated groups of Christians towards the Catholic position and vice versa".

[Prosologion]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1347995529' post='2483822']
Not really. You are clearly taking selections from that passage out of context,[/quote]

Ah, the ol' "out of context" accusation.

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1347995529' post='2483822'] and you are ignoring what Joseph Ratzinger was actually trying to say.[/quote]

How so?

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1347995529' post='2483822']He as Joseph Ratzinger says nothing more than that there is a certain continuum of acceptable Catholic positions, and that there is room for discussion. He is saying that without an openness to discussion, there cannot be unity. Frankly, that is nearly tautological. [/quote]

There is nothing to "discuss". There is only 1 option on the table for every single non-Catholic: 100% acceptance of the Catholic Faith and all that the Catholic Church teaches abandoning and abjuring all previously held heresies and errors. Obviously this is not the case anymore.

What you say (and what the Novus Ordo sect says and teaches) is completely heretical and was condemned directly by Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Mortalium Animos. In fact the whole encyclical emphatically condemns the false ecumenism which has now become the offical teaching of the NO sect.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos # 7, 8: "Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, [u][b]but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal[/b][/u]: but even if they could so act. It does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter [b]would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ.[/b]

8. This being so, it is clear that [u][b]the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ.[/b][/u]

Mortalium Animos #2, 3: "For which reason [b]conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction [/b][u][b]are invited to join in the discussion[/b][/u], both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. [b][u]Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy[/u][/b], since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. [b][u]Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion[/u][/b].

Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ [u][b]should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity?[/b][/u] Who would dare to say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples might be "one."[1] And did not the same Christ will that His disciples should be marked out and distinguished from others by this characteristic, namely that they loved one another: "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another"?[2] All Christians, they add, should be as "one": for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength. [b]These things and others that class of men who are known as [u]pan-Christians[/u] continually repeat and amplify[/b]; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. [b]But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed.[/b]

#11:[b] "For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, [u]why do they not hasten to enter the Church, "the Mother and mistress of all Christ's faithful"?[/u]"[/b]


Again I have to go right now and I'll be back.

[Prosologion]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1347995529' post='2483822']
Not really. You are clearly taking selections from that passage out of context,[/quote]

Ah, the ol' "out of context" accusation.

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1347995529' post='2483822'] and you are ignoring what Joseph Ratzinger was actually trying to say.[/quote]

How so?

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1347995529' post='2483822']He as Joseph Ratzinger says nothing more than that there is a certain continuum of acceptable Catholic positions, and that there is room for discussion. He is saying that without an openness to discussion, there cannot be unity. Frankly, that is nearly tautological. [/quote]

There is nothing to "discuss". There is only 1 option on the table for every single non-Catholic: 100% acceptance of the Catholic Faith and all that the Catholic Church teaches abandoning and abjuring all previously held heresies and errors. Obviously this is not the case anymore.

What you say (and what the Novus Ordo sect says and teaches) is completely heretical and was condemned directly by Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Mortalium Animos. In fact the whole encyclical emphatically condemns the false ecumenism which has now become the offical teaching of the NO sect.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos # 7, 8: "Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, [u][b]but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal[/b][/u]: but even if they could so act. It does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter [b]would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ.[/b]

8. This being so, it is clear that [u][b]the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ.[/b][/u]

Mortalium Animos #2, 3: "For which reason [b]conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction [/b][u][b]are invited to join in the discussion[/b][/u], both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. [b][u]Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy[/u][/b], since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. [b][u]Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion[/u][/b].

Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ [u][b]should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity?[/b][/u] Who would dare to say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples might be "one."[1] And did not the same Christ will that His disciples should be marked out and distinguished from others by this characteristic, namely that they loved one another: "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another"?[2] All Christians, they add, should be as "one": for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength. [b]These things and others that class of men who are known as [u]pan-Christians[/u] continually repeat and amplify[/b]; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. [b]But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed.[/b]

#11:[b] "For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, [u]why do they not hasten to enter the Church, "the Mother and mistress of all Christ's faithful"?[/u]"[/b]


Again I have to go right now and I'll be back.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='jaime' timestamp='1344263394' post='2463425']
I would mention to the sedevacanist that a majority of the bishops and cardinals that were around during the formation of Vatican II were appointed by Pope Pius XII.

That has a tendency to shut them up
[/quote]

Man that is a great point. The bishops of VII are more legit than their bishops. Funny.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Prosologion' timestamp='1348010325' post='2483940']
Ah, the ol' "out of context" accusation.



How so?



There is nothing to "discuss". There is only 1 option on the table for every single non-Catholic: 100% acceptance of the Catholic Faith and all that the Catholic Church teaches abandoning and abjuring all previously held heresies and errors. Obviously this is not the case anymore.

What you say (and what the Novus Ordo sect says and teaches) is completely heretical and was condemned directly by Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Mortalium Animos. In fact the whole encyclical emphatically condemns the false ecumenism which has now become the offical teaching of the NO sect.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos # 7, 8: "Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, [u][b]but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal[/b][/u]: but even if they could so act. It does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter [b]would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ.[/b]

8. This being so, it is clear that [u][b]the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ.[/b][/u]

Mortalium Animos #2, 3: "For which reason [b]conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction [/b][u][b]are invited to join in the discussion[/b][/u], both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. [b][u]Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy[/u][/b], since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. [b][u]Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion[/u][/b].

Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ [u][b]should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity?[/b][/u] Who would dare to say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples might be "one."[1] And did not the same Christ will that His disciples should be marked out and distinguished from others by this characteristic, namely that they loved one another: "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another"?[2] All Christians, they add, should be as "one": for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength. [b]These things and others that class of men who are known as [u]pan-Christians[/u] continually repeat and amplify[/b]; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. [b]But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed.[/b]

#11:[b] "For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, [u]why do they not hasten to enter the Church, "the Mother and mistress of all Christ's faithful"?[/u]"[/b]


Again I have to go right now and I'll be back.
[/quote]

Excellent, we agree on everything in Mortalium Animos. What next?