Sad Day For Catholic Apologetics

[yiannii]

So let me get this straight; a Catholic Apologist has become a sedevacantist. What is a sedevacantist anyway?

[Apotheoun]

[quote]So let me get this straight; a Catholic Apologist has become a sedevacantist. What is a sedevacantist anyway?[/quote]

A Sedevacantist is a person who thinks that the Holy See is vacant, i.e., that there is no Pope at the present time.

[crusader1234]

JP2 is the bees knees

[Bruce S]

[quote]So let me get this straight; a Catholic Apologist has become a sedevacantist. What is a sedevacantist anyway?


A Sedevacantist is a person who thinks that the Holy See is vacant, i.e., that there is no Pope at the present time. [/quote]

I guess that makes me a Sedevacantist too. Grin.

Wow.

Amazing, we should petition the Catholic Church to change Protestant, to Sedevacantists, that way we could all be united again!



Funny, if you think about it, how some change over time.

Edited June 13, 2004 by Bruce S

[yiannii]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 13 2004, 06:54 PM']
A Sedevacantist is a person who thinks that the Holy See is vacant, i.e., that there is no Pope at the present time. [/quote]
How can anyone justify that to themselves? If there was an election and JP2 won it therefore it's valid in my books. After all if you believe in the Holy See etc, then shouldn't you would have faith in the sucession of popes and the whole process.

[Quietfire]

[quote]A Sedevacantist is a person who thinks that the Holy See is vacant, i.e., that there is no Pope at the present time.[/quote]

And that being said, because they believe that the seat is vacant, anything coming from the Holy See is not followed by those who are Sedevacanists. They also do not follow anything stated before.


quote by Myrna. Catholic Answer-Apologetics- "would I be welcome here if..."
[quote]Sedevacantists are those who claim that that the "Conciliar popes", that is to say Pope John XXIII and his successors, were heretics and therefore forfeited the papacy. Although they do hold to the definition of the papacy as taught by the Catholic Church but openly Proclaim that Pope John Paul II is not Pope as they belief him to be a heretic and thus to have lost his seat as Pope . Thus they claim that we have no pope and that therefore the Holy See is vacant, sedes (seat) - vacante (vacant), which is why such people are referred to as "sedevacantists".[/quote]


Peace.

P.S. I would provide you all with the link but I honestly have no idea how to do that . If anyone knows how, could you please pm me and give me a free lesson.

Edited June 13, 2004 by Quietfire

[yiannii]

So then how do they explain some of the bad popes in history?

[crusader1234]

Bruce S you are crazy

[Quietfire]

Because Yiannii, to put it simply....human beings smell of elderberries. Get over it. Sorry if that is too harsh for some, but I think many people have this image that anyone elected as Pope should be a perfect as the Lamb himself, and it 'aint gonna happen'. ok? So unless someone here thinks they can do a better job of leading the 2 billion Catholics into some amazingly enlightening understandings, then just deal with the fact that no human, absolutely NO HUMAN is perfect.

Christ himself is fully human, YET fully devine. HUGE DIFFERENCE.

I posted this in the "nun" thread, but it applies here.



[quote]When a person decides to enter the priesthood or become a nun they usually site Christ as their reasoning.
Christ must have figured vastly in their decision to become priest or nun and in serving the flock. Just as one belongs to the Church based on the conviction that Christ wants him/her there.

So it seems strange to leave without relating your actions to Christ. With not so much as Peter's "to whom else shall we go?"

Even criticisms while still with the Church show failure to see Christ as the whole point.
To them so much of what goes on in the Church they find depressing, and lead them to think that the Church is and 'institutional church'.

Well, the institutional Israel, the Chosen People, as the Prophets show it, was even worse than the harshest critics think the CC. Yet it never occured to the holiest of the Jews to leave it.

An administration is necessary if the Church is to function, but Christ is the whole point of the functioning.

We are [b]not[/b] baptized into the heirarchy, do [b]not[/b] receive the cardinals sacrimentally, will [b]not[/b] spend eternity in the beatific vision of the pope.
To quote St. John Fisher:


QUOTE 
If the Pope will not reform the Curia,  God will."



and a couple of years later he laid his head on Henry VIII's block for papal supremacy, followed by Thomas More.

You can critisize the Pope, even think the Church is a pain in the neck. But nothing should permit one to consider leaving the Church(even if you wished the Pope would)
[u]In the Church,[/u] [b]even under the worst administration[/b], [u]you still can learn Christ's truth, receive his life in the sacraments, be in union with him to the limit of your willingness.[/u]

In awareness of Christ, I can know the Church as his Mystical Body.
[b]And we shouldnt make our judgements by the neck's sensitivity to pain![/b]

Peace all.






can I get an "Amen"[/quote]


and just so you know where I'm coming from...
I have not been received into the Church.
But I will still put my head on the block for papal supremecy.

Edited June 13, 2004 by Quietfire

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

This guy hasn't been Catholic for a while. I thought his schism was implied. I never liked Catholic Insight anyway. It's sad when people think they're more Catholic than the Pope.

Edited June 13, 2004 by thedude

[peach_cube]

I agree, He has not been catholic for a while.

Father John Loughan's site (wich was last updated June 4, 2003), has him and many others listed as schismatic. So it has been somewhat known for at least a year, maybe more.

[Dave]

[quote name='PedroX' date='Jun 13 2004, 02:07 AM'] Dave,

He cannot have joined SSPX, as they acknowledge John Paul II as a legitimate Pope, they just choose to disobey. A fine line of distinction, but an important one.

[/quote]
I'm told there are individual SSPXers who don't consider our Holy Father to be legit.

[Hananiah]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jun 12 2004, 09:58 PM'] hananiah,

how does one reconcile the two canons he refers to in his second premise:

[b]Canon 732 §2, 1917 Code of Canon Law:[/b]
It is forbidden that the Sacraments of the Church be ministered to heretics and schismatics, even if they ask for them and are in good faith, unless beforehand, rejecting their errors, they are reconciled with the Church.

--with--

[b]Canon 844 §§3-4, 1983 Code of Canon Law:[/b]

§3 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the eastern Churches not in full communion with the Catholic Church, if they spontaneously ask for them and are properly disposed. The same applies to members of other Churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the same position as the aforesaid eastern Churches so far as the sacraments are concerned.

§4 If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgment of the diocesan Bishop or of the Episcopal Conference, there is some other grave and pressing need, Catholic ministers may lawfully administer these same sacraments to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who spontaneously ask for them, provided that they demonstrate the Catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed.


this somewhat troubles me. your thoughts?

pax christi,
phatcatholic [/quote]
I wouldn't try to reconcile these two canons. They are clearly contradictory. However, I would argue that neither law is evil, and that it is simply a matter of prudential judgment on the part of the Church which course of action to take. For example, the Acts of the Apostles records that St. James forbade all Christians from eating meat with the blood still in itand also animals which had been strangled. The Church has long since abrogated this law. That doesn't make either decision evil.

[Apotheoun]

I agree with what Cardinal Newman said about accepting the authority of the Pope, for as he eloquently put it:

"[W]e must never murmur at that absolute rule which the Sovereign Pontiff has over us, because it is given to him by Christ, and, in obeying him, we are obeying his Lord. We must never suffer ourselves to doubt, that, in his government of the Church, he is guided by an intelligence more than human. His yoke is the yoke of Christ, he has the responsibility of his own acts, not we; and to his Lord must he render account, not to us. Even in secular matters it is ever safe to be on his side, dangerous to be on the side of his enemies. Our duty is,—not indeed to mix up Christ's Vicar with this or that party of men, because he in his high station is above all parties,—but to look at his formal deeds, and to follow him whither he goeth, and never to desert him, however we may be tried, but to defend him at all hazards, and against all comers, as a son would a father, and as a wife a husband, knowing that his cause is the cause of God. And so, as regards his successors, if we live to see them; it is our duty to give them in like manner our dutiful allegiance and our unfeigned service, and to follow them also whithersoever they go, having that same confidence that each in his turn and in his own day will do God's work and will, which we have felt in their predecessors, now taken away to their eternal reward." [John Cardinal Newman, [u]The Pope and the Revolution[/u], Sermon 15, section I, no. 1; preached on 7 October 1866, in the Church of the Oratory, Birmingham, England]

[Hananiah]

[quote name='BeenaBobba' date='Jun 12 2004, 10:45 PM'] What's with people like Robert Sungenis, Gerry Matatics, and now this guy becoming all Traditionalist and schismatic?

God bless,

Jen [/quote]
I wouldn't put Sungenis in the same catergory as Matatics, and still less would I put him in the same catergory as Mario Derksen. He believes that John Paul II is a legitimate Pope, that the SSPX is in schism, and that the documents of Vatican II are without error. I model my position on such issues after his.

[Apotheoun]

In my own case, I simply accept the teachings of the Papal and Episcopal Magisterium as a matter of faith, because I know that the Holy Spirit guides the Magisterium in its teachings, and this is true even in those things that are not infallibly defined. In addition, as far as it concerns the disciplinary directives and norms issued by the Apostolic See, I accept these decisions because as the First Vatican Council dogmatically defined: "Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power [i.e., of the Pope] by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith, the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation." [Vatican 1, Dogmatic Constitution [u]Pastor Aeternus[/u], chap. 3, nos. 2-4] Therefore, in all things pertaining to the doctrine of the faith, the establishment of good morals, and the government of the Church, I submit willingly to the authority of the Supreme Magisterium.

Edited June 14, 2004 by Apotheoun

[ironmonk]

Traditionalism hurts the Church... it leads to schism, then heresy. Those who attack VII are wrong to do so. They show little faith in the promises of Christ when they do. They, much like the pharisees are missing the point.

Sometimes a way seems right to a man, but in the end leads to death.

My focus on his argument was premise 2.

He fails to realize that there is no other chance of any other Church being the Church established by Christ. Therefore, if something seems off in the Canons, it is not the Canon's that are off, but our understanding of them. The Catholic Church is the wisest organization on earth and is guided by God. This premise 2 of his falls under discipline. He quotes nothing but Catholics and then claims that the Pope is not legit.

I know because of Christ's promise that the Church will not misguide us. Therefore, if I ever think it is, I will be wrong. The Church cannot be wrong, has this guy even talked to a priest or two about it?

Sad. Very Sad.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[peach_cube]

Apotheoun and Ironmonk,

Very well said, we are all very fortunate to see your examples of faith and love for Mother Church.

[ironmonk]

I sent him the following email.....


Dear Mario,

Proverbs 16:25 Sometimes a way seems right to a man, but in the end leads to death!

Do you realize that there is no other chance of any other Church being the Church established by Christ. Therefore, if something seems off in the Canons, it is not the Canon's that are off, but our understanding of them. The Catholic Church is the wisest organization on earth and is guided by God. Premise 2 falls under discipline. To receive or not receive is an act... this act, the Church has the power to bind and loose (St. Matt 16:19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."). Brother, this is one of those things that the Church has the power to change. The Church will always have Christ with her. The Church will always be guided by the Holy Spirit. Because Jesus said so. The Church made the rule, the Church can change the rule. What makes you think that it would harm souls? Remember; those who think that they are serving God the way God intended are Catholic by desire (Romans 2:15 They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them). It is done for Love; Love is the greatest thing. Love is from God. Please, remember, we are not wiser than the Church that Christ left us.

I know because of Christ's promise that the Church will not misguide us. I know because of Christ's promise that Christ will always be with the Church. Therefore, if I ever think it is misguiding, I will be wrong. The Church cannot be wrong, have you talked to a priest or two about this?

Sometimes we all fall a little. The Church is the Church. The Pope is the Pope. Seek to understand, come to Christ as a Child... Remember sometimes a way seems right to a man, but in the end leads to death.

Stick to the Pillar and Foundation of Truth... the Church of the Living God.


God Bless, Love in Christ & Mary,
Max Brackett
www.MoralTruth.com
www.MaxBrackett.com

[Guest JeffCR07]

Hananiah and Apotheoun, you are two of the best apologists that I know, and you seem to be really grounded, not only in your fatih, but also in logical reason and the structure that your arguments take. Though I don't know much yet, I'm aspiring to become an apologist and professor of Theology later in life, and so I'm wondering if either or both of you could critique the argument I made on page 1 of this post. I take the stance that, unlike Hananiah argued, the two statements CAN be reconciled, based on his mistakenly labeling all Protestants and Orthodox as "heretics and schismatics". Anyways, I really respect your two opinions, and I'd love to know what you guys genuinely think. Thanks a ton!

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff