Sad Day For Catholic Apologetics

[Donna]

Jeff, thanks for the clarification, which I'm not quite sure what to make of.

First, there is a huge difference between the sedes and the liberals (speaking gnerally). The liberals do not want to keep the Faith. They hate the Commandments, the papacy, the hirarchy, etc;

Did St. Paul withstand Cephas to his face because he hated the Pope? Did Jesus hate the Pope (Get thee behind me, Satan)?

There is a serious misunderstanding, in my unscientific observation, among Catholics who do not "get" Traditionalists (whether these be Indulters, SSPX, Independent, or sedevacantists). It is that these tend to defend a Pontiff rather than the Papacy itself; ditto with current documents, rather than the whole of magisterial teachings. I'm sure there are many exceptions.

But it's crazy; one disagrees for a legitimate reason, which remains unclarified for years and other Catholics are ready to throw one into the leper's valley.

The devil is laughing.










However, the layity have the Faith, too.

[Hananiah]

Bump. He's added a section of objections and responses.

[Donna]

Oh dear, I hope they are not in Latin.

Then again, my last post was maybe unclear, I see now that I've read it again.

Bad habit, I do not finish my thoughts sometimes. Also, state of duty often has me rushing away suddenly.

Em, are you talking about Jeff's objections, Mr. H? Where is they?

How many more questions can I ask in 30 seconds?

GO!

[CatholicAndFanatical]

Wow, nice posts everyone..learn things new everyday.

On another board im dialoging on there are a few people that are against the Pope saying he isnt the Real Pope.

I mean, I always thought the first thing a false Pope would do was try to convince people that the Eucharist really isnt the True Body of Christ, or you dont have to go to confession anymore and things like that.

Who would of thought a false Pope would bring people CLOSER to Christ.


I see IronMonks around...HI MAX!! *waves*


God Bless everyone

[Donna]

Hey, C & F!

You've been in my thoughts.

Nice to see ya.

[Stephen III]

Derksen's a clown.

He seems so caught up in becoming an anti-catholic basher that he would deny them a last dying chance of conversion.

As far as reconciling the two canons, one should pay close attention to the words!

The canons he attacks with an obvious slant, and as his PROOF that our beloved holy father is not the pope are:

[b][i]§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.[/i][/b]


First off, the the phrase..."[b][i]not in full communion"[/i][/b] is a phrase best viewed as to the seperated status of the larger Eastern Church itself from the Catholic Church. Almost a formality. For as most people would know, our seperation is based primarily on two things: 1.) that the pope is or is not the universal head of the church and 2.) The filoque statement in the Profession of Faith. Two things that while we hold to our Roman Catholic teaching and tradition, the church has come to view (IMO) as a tragic and unfortunate reason for seperation and hardly worth maintaining seperation over. (Afterall could there not be some compromise that does not diminish the validity of the positions?)
In virtually all other areas we are in complete agreement, so much so that their orders are considered valid! Their Eucharistic celebration is authentic and recognized as being so.
As are their baptisms, marriages, etc.
But the validity of their sacrements is really not the question here. The question is in regards to (btw not just as for the Eastern Orthodox, but for anyone not formally RC) the statement of being "[i][b]properly disposed[/b][/i]". As others have pointed out to be properly disposed, one would be: 1.) [b]under the likelihood of death[/b], 2.) [b]a true and geniune conversion [/b]etc. etc.
These things in and of themselves, I believe would be enough to administer the sacrements! Afterall what the person is effectively doing is renouncing their former associations with the seperated . They are making a profession of faith! A deathbed conversion. Would Christ himself deny these penitents that most holy and living grace given through these sacraments?! I think not.
And if you want biblical proof, all one has to do is recall the story of the thief on the cross. We Catholics refer to that which was bestowed on the penitent thief on the cross who professed his faith in Christ as what?......[u][i][b]A Baptism of desire![/b][/i][/u] The thief on the cross was formally not one of Christ's followers, yet upon his deathbed (or death-stick if you prefer) received the sacrament of Baptism, by none other than Christ himself! (Remember that priests act as in the persona of Christ when they administer the sacraments.)
Let me finish by asking a somewhat rhetorical question?

If we as Roman Catholics can accept and believe in a [i][b]Baptism of desire[/b][/i], why cannot there also be other [i][b]Sacraments of Desire[/b][/i]?

God Bless
Stephen

Edited June 19, 2004 by Stephen III

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Jun 16 2004, 11:33 PM'] By the way, Dave Armostrong is  prone to the same exageration and invective that he is so very fond of accusing others of. [/quote]
I think that's very unfair. Dave's one of the best apologists, and he's always seemed very charitable to me. (I've never seen him over-exaggerate or become overtly abusive, either.)

God bless,

Jen

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='BeenaBobba' date='Jun 19 2004, 06:26 PM'] I think that's very unfair. Dave's one of the best apologists, and he's always seemed very charitable to me. (I've never seen him over-exaggerate or become overtly abusive, either.)

God bless,

Jen [/quote]
Unfair? I simply said he exagerates. You are the one who accused (wrongly, I might add) Matatics and Sungenis of being schismatic. Shall we discuss (or perhaps define) "unfair"? Or rather, would you like examples?

[CatholicAndFanatical]

Hiya Donna!!

Thank you for the prayers, much needed on this end.

I miss you and everyone here, been so long since I posted here there are some new faces around.

Maybe my constant talk of phatmass is getting somewhere huh?

Have a great night! May God continue His blessings on you!

[CatholicAndFanatical]

Stephen III


Great posts and points you made.


[quote]
If we as Roman Catholics can accept and believe in a Baptism of desire, why cannot there also be other Sacraments of Desire?
[/quote]

Is this desire a death bed desire?? I think that is the difference, if a person is healthy to go through the normal lines of becoming Catholic then that should be whats done, simply 'believing' they are Catholic wouldnt be enough (IMO). If this person is uneducated on the foundation of the Church, then it would do more damage than good to this person. Sure they recieve the Body of Christ, but do they even [b]know[/b] they are receiving Him?

A desire on the deathbed is just like the thief on the cross, whether its dying after a long stint of cancer or being in a horrible car crash, once you ask Christ for forgiveness it is done.

More is expected from someone not on their deathbed, like learning about Christ and His Church.

Again, this is my opinion, I just found your question interesting and I started to brainstorm. I am far from qualified to answer correctly so I'll quit.

God Bless!

[VeraMaria]

[quote name='Hananiah' date='Jun 12 2004, 11:26 PM'] I had heard rumors a few weeks ago, but didn't believe them. Now he has made a public announcment.

[url="http://www.cathinsight.com/statusjpii.htm"]http://www.cathinsight.com/statusjpii.htm[/url] [/quote]


I was looking through the site and he has a disclaimer that says

[quote]I am also now in the process of removing, reviewing, and restoring essays on my site that contain questionable information or errors, mostly Novus Ordo.[/quote]


sigh.

[Ben]

I just found this thread and I am sure this has been brought up, but I just wanted to say that, as a traditionalist Catholic who almost became a sedevacantist, I truly believe sedvacantism to be a serious error.

The best resources to refute this great error can be found on various SSPX websites. SSPX and the Sedevacantists are the ones who are most engaged in refuting the other. Its like they are two rival high school sports teams. Sometimes it gets absurd.

Anyway, Sedevacantism is an error because NO one can judge the Pope according to RC teaching. The Pope has no superior on earth, and ONLY a superior can declare you a heretic. However, after a Pope dies or resigns, the next Pope can declare him a heretic, this has happened in Church history. But no Catholic, and not even all the Bishops together in one Ecumenical Council, can declare a Pope a heretic, it is impossible and contary to the teaching of the Church.

The Sedevacantists make the huge mistake of judging the Pope and declaring his election null and void, something they have no power to do.

I will not deny that the Church has had no Pope in the past, but at most it was 3 years, and it was in between elections. But this in no way justifies a few priests and laymen judging the Pope, condemning him, and declaring him not to be the Pope!

And I might add that too many Sedevacantists have realized that the Catholic Church doesn't work without a Pope, and they elect their own Pope! We currently have 12 or 13 anti-Popes out there claiming the Papacy and denouncing JPII.

[BeenaBobba]

Hi PSPX,

[quote]Unfair? I simply said he exagerates. [/quote]

Well, you implied that he's been [b]as[/b] guilty of exaggeration and "invective" as those he accuses of being both. That is what I found a bit unfair. True, just about everyone is guilty of exaggeration and invective to some degree or another every once in a while. But, if you've visited Dave's webpage or blog, you'd see that he isn't even half as bad as a few of his opponents can be. Dr. James White, for example, often attacks Dave's character. Dave, like everyone, can get fed up, but from what I've seen, he is almost always kind and patient. That's a far cry from being just as guilty of exaggeration and invective as some of his opponents.

[quote]You are the one who accused (wrongly, I might add) Matatics and Sungenis of being schismatic.  Shall we discuss (or perhaps define) "unfair"?  Or rather, would you like examples?[/quote]

Here is what I said to Hananiah regarding this:

"I wasn't trying to put them all into the same category. I acknowledge that there are different degrees in which one can be a Traditionalist. Perhaps I used the word schismatic too loosely, and I apologize for that. What I was implying, however, was that all three aren't exactly 100% orthodox."

To the best of my knowledge, both Sungenis and Matatics must be read with a certain amount of caution nowadays, as both aren't 100% orthodox and are, perhaps, personally schismatic. (Forgive me if I'm wrong about the "schismatic" part. Like I said, I might have been rash with the word "schismatic," and again, I apologize for that.)

God bless,

Jennifer

[Stephen III]

Catholic and Fanatical asks:

"Is this desire a death bed desire?? "

I perhaps was not as clear as I should have been. A Baptism of desire is only valid under the imminency of death, so too that the other "sacraments of desire" proposition is in regards to the threat of imminent death. Otherwise as you correctly surmised one would have the obligation of educating and training the conscience. Like the catechumens for example...

Sorry for not making that clearer, I was assuming that it was somewhat understood that a Baptism of desire had the threat of an imminent death as a prerequisite., and my post's somewhat rhetorical question was a continuation in that vein.

Thanks
Stephen

Edited June 21, 2004 by Stephen III

[Hananiah]

[quote name='BeenaBobba' date='Jun 21 2004, 02:48 PM'] "I wasn't trying to put them all into the same category. I acknowledge that there are different degrees in which one can be a Traditionalist. Perhaps I used the word schismatic too loosely, and I apologize for that. What I was implying, however, was that all three aren't exactly 100% orthodox."

To the best of my knowledge, both Sungenis and Matatics must be read with a certain amount of caution nowadays, as both aren't 100% orthodox and are, perhaps, personally schismatic. (Forgive me if I'm wrong about the "schismatic" part. Like I said, I might have been rash with the word "schismatic," and again, I apologize for that.) [/quote]
Jennifer, I think an excerpt from my recent essay on traditionalism might be appropriate here.

[quote][F]or those who believe that any amount of criticism of the reigning Pontiff is sinful, I would like to pose the following hypothetical question. If you lived during the pontificate of Honorius, Zosimus, Stephen VI, Urban VI, John XXII, or any of the other bad to poor Popes with which the Catholic Church has been saddled over her 2000 year history, would you defend everything he said and did? Or would you pray for him, make every effort to induce him to self-reform, perhaps even by rebuking him, and do everything in your power to prevent his scandalous words and deeds from destroying the faith of your fellow Catholics? If the Pope was leading your fellow Catholics astray through his teaching and example, would you let them know that what he was doing was not acceptable? Would you contrast the Pope's words and deeds, in speech and in print, with the authentic patrimony of the Church? If not, why not? And if so, why do you accuse Traditionalists of schism when we do so to the current Pontiff? All I am asking for is consistency. If you would do to Honorius what we do to John Paul II, then you have no grounds for condemning our principles; at worst we have come to mistaken conclusions. If you would not be schismatic for denouncing as unjust Stephen VI's trial of Formosus's corpse, we are not schismatic for denouncing as injurious the salvation of souls the prayer gatherings at Assisi. If you would not be schismatic for objecting to John XXII's teaching that no one would experience the beatific vision until after the last judgment, we are not schismatic for objecting to John Paul II's teaching (maybe) that the Old Covenant is still salvific for the Jews. If you would not be schismatic for lamenting at how Urban VI fiddled in France while Rome burned, we are not schismatic for lamenting at how John Paul II fiddles all over the world while Rome burns.
[url="http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/b/m/bmd175/traditionalism.htm"]What is Traditionalism[/url][/quote]

[Guest JeffCR07]

I think it is a little rash and more than a little improper to compare our Holy Father John Paul II with a Pope that attempted to put a corpse on trial. However, if it IS a use of hyperbole, then your argument is understood.

[Hananiah]

I realize that John Paul II is not as bad as the Popes on the list. I'm just trying to establish a principle.

[Donna]

(C&F, that was sweet; thank you).

And to apply the principle that Hananiah is trying to establish, would it therefore be wrong to criticize a Pope for giving a disgraced Cardinal (who resigned his See over scandals like impure clergy preying on underaged faithful and financial ruin) run of a Major Basillica in Rome?

[Donna]

How might such an action impact the good will of (not the dead) members of the Church?

Edited June 22, 2004 by Donna

[Guest JeffCR07]

Donna, the point that you are making, it appears to me, is one more of personal opinion than of objective rationale. For me personally, I feel better knowing that the Holy Father has taken Cardinal Law from his position of authority in the Sates (where I live) and has placed him in a predominantly symbolic position, with little true power or authority, in such a way that he can be more easily watched by the Holy See.

However, with regards to Hananiah's point:

I am not saying that Traditionalists or that people who tend towards a "liberal" questioning of the Pope are wrong or in sin, merely that they are not orthodox. This is neither meant to be a slanderous comment, nor an attack on credibility or moral standing. As long as members of either group remain within the bounds of the Magisterium's teaching, and do not fall into schism with Rome, they are fine in my book. However, I would like to offer another way of looking at the issue:

A faithful layperson under the pontificate of Pope Stephen VI could, without falling into sin or doing anything wrong, submit to the Pope entirely, trusting that the Holy Spirit will not allow the Church to fall into ruin. This layperson could pray for the continued physical and spiritual health of the Holy Father, and prostrate himself or herself before the authority of the Magisterium and the Vicar of Christ, even as the trial of a corpse is going on.

But how can this be true? Isn't that insane? Many might say so, but I would argue that the layperson would justify it as such: "Stephen VI has been given the keys of the kingdom. He is the sucessor of Peter and wields the same authority as that Apostle. Far be it from me to Judge him. If a later Vicar, or if the Magisterium as a whole, in union with a later Pope, wishes to deem these actions as wrong, unfitting, or sinful, that is within their power, and I will submit to their authority as willingly and as truly as I submit to the authority of Stephen. I pray that God gives me the humility to accept my role, and that my actions may, if Christ desires it, provide an example for others, that there might be unity among Christians under the authority of the Pope.

Edited June 22, 2004 by JeffCR07