| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 09/14/2019 5:29:10 PM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Duplicate |
Posted on 09/13/2019 7:50:14 AM PDT by daniel1212
In response to the phenomenon of the Vatican II revolution, there are three essential lines of thought that have been proposed as “solutions” to understanding the situation. This is not now the place or time to critique or justify any of them. For now, we want to just describe them: (1) despite appearances, nothing has really substantially changed, and any interpretation of Vatican II that arrives at the conclusion that there has been a substantial change must be incorrect; (2) we must oppose (resist) these substantial changes and stick to the traditional, age-old teaching instead and ignore the Vatican II novelties while recognizing, however, that the authorities in the Vatican are legitimate and genuine Roman Catholic authorities — we just cannot agree with them on these points; (3) because it is impossible for the Catholic Church to change substantially, and because Vatican II constitutes such an impossible substantial change, it is necessary to conclude that the authority which gave us Vatican II is not in fact the legitimate Catholic authority; that is to say, the “Popes” which gave us Vatican II are not true Popes, nor are their successors, who have implemented and expanded this new religion that has its roots in the council. In fact, the entire religion that now occupies the Vatican and the official structures of the Catholic Church throughout the world is false — it is not the Catholic religion at all, and its putative authorities are not Catholics but heretical usurpers.
The first line of thought described above is often termed (not necessarily correctly) “conservative Catholic”, “orthodox Catholic”, “Novus Ordo”, “conservative Novus Ordo”, or “indult”. Prominent organizations and individuals which can be said to promote or be associated with this position would include Catholic Answers, EWTN, Fraternity of St. Peter, Institute of Christ the King, Franciscan University of Steubenville, National Catholic Register, The Wanderer, Latin Mass Magazine, Church Militant, Vericast, Fr. Kenneth Baker, Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, Karl Keating, Scott Hahn, Michael Voris, Tim Staples, Jimmy Akin, Steve Kellmeyer, Dave Armstrong, Mark Shea, and many others.
The second line of thought described above is often termed (not necessarily correctly) “traditionalist”, “traditional”, “resistance”, “recognize-and-resist” (“R&R”), or “SSPX”. Proponents of this position include the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), Fatima Network, Tradition In Action, The Remnant, Catholic Family News, TradCatKnight, Bp. Bernard Fellay, Bp. Richard Williamson, Rev. Paul Kramer, Rev. Nicholas Gruner, John Vennari, Michael Matt, Christopher Ferrara, Louie Verrecchio, John Salza, Robert Siscoe, Eric Gajewski, and many more. Here at Novus Ordo Watch we like to refer to this position as “recognize-and-resist”, “neo-traditionalist”, “pseudo-traditionalist”, or “semi-traditionalist”.
The third line of thought is the one we espouse at Novus Ordo Watch, and it is a theological position known as “Sedevacantism”, from the Latin sede vacante, “the chair being empty”, referring to the Chair of St. Peter that is occupied by the Pope — when there is a legitimate Pope reigning. Sedevacantism is by far the least popular position, the “black sheep” no one wants to be “tainted” with. Besides Novus Ordo Watch, other groups or individuals who promote or share this position include True Restoration, the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (CMRI), Istituto Mater Boni Consilii, Sodalitium, Daily Catholic, The Four Marks newspaper, Bp. Geert Stuyver, Bp. Donald Sanborn, Bp. Mark Pivarunas, Bp. Clarence Kelly, Fr. Anthony Cekada, Fr. Michael Oswalt, Fr. William Jenkins, John Daly, Thomas Droleskey, Stephen Heiner, John Lane, Michael Cain, Mario Derksen, Griff Ruby, Steve Speray, and others.
As for the term “Novus Ordo”, in its most general application it simply refers to the new, pseudo-Catholic religion of Vatican II described above.... To be clear: We adhere fully to the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church from her founding in 33 A.D. by the Blessed Lord Jesus Christ through the death of the last known Pope, Pius XII, on October 9, 1958. We are Roman Catholics. - https://novusordowatch.org/start-here/
any group that separates from the Catholic Church would cease to be Catholic - even if they called themselves Catholic...”
sez who?
typical Protestant response I guess....but as an outsider looking in, the “schism” was put into place by this Pope. By any rational, historic, orthodox standard, he is illegitimate.
Speaking of Protestant who is to say that it won’t go in that direction and continue to schism along many doctrinal lines.
Protestant response? The guy who wrote that is a catholic priest.
Martin Luther was-a catholic priest too ?
As I’ve said many times to all Catholics:
If you accept Vatican 2,
you think your church is alive.
If you reject Vatican 2,
you admit your church is dead.
Typical Catholic response to why they do not like? Why not actually read the article? "Sez who?" One of your own, as that quote is from Longenecker, in the article.
Here is more.
Catholic Encyclopedia: ..not every disobedience is a schism; in order to possess this character it must include besides the transgression of the commands of superiors, denial of their Divine right to command. On the other hand, schism does not necessarily imply adhesion, either public or private, to a dissenting group or a distinct sect, much less the creation of such a group. Anyone becomes a schismatic who, though desiring to remain a Christian, rebels against legitimate authority, without going as far as the rejection of Christianity as a whole, which constitutes the crime of apostasy. - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm
A Catholic canon law lawyer: Canon 751 tells us that schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him. And this is where sedevacantism fits into the equation.
As we saw in “What is the ‘Old Catholic Church’?” canon 205 tells us that a baptized Catholic is in full communion with the Catholic Church if he accepts the Catholic faith, Catholic sacraments, and Catholic governance—and it’s the issue of rejecting church governance that is the key problem with sedevacantism. If you don’t believe that this or that papal document was issued by a man who is/was really the Pope, then you naturally don’t intend to abide by whatever it says. A Catholic who thinks that all the Popes since St. John XXIII were invalidly elected is obviously not going to obey anything that these Popes have said. In other words, by refusing to accept the authority of the current Pope or his recent predecessors, a Catholic who’s a sedevacantist willfully puts himself into a state of schism.
Some of the specific positions advocated by various groups of sedevacantists might strike ordinary Catholics as funny, but schism is no laughing matter. Under canon law it is considered a crime against religion and the unity of the Church, and thus a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication (c. 1364.1). ..
But since sedevacantists tend to cite (incorrectly) a lot of canon law in support of their positions, it seems reasonable to assume that they are aware of both the Church’s position on the crime of schism, and the penalties that may accompany it.
There is nothing illogical about drawing this conclusion about sedevacantists. Think about it: how can you be in full communion with the Catholic Church, if you refuse to acknowledge the authority of the leaders of the Catholic Church? - http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2017/04/20/can-you-be-both-a-catholic-and-a-sedevacantist/
The prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Reading Vatican II as break with tradition is heresy, prefect says. VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Traditionalist and progressive camps that see the Second Vatican Council as breaking with the truth both espouse a "heretical interpretation" of the council and its aims, said the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. - https://www.catholicnews.com/services/englishnews/2012/reading-vatican-ii-as-break-with-tradition-is-heresy-prefect-says.cfm
A lay theologian: Some who call themselves Catholic, utterly reject Vatican II. They say: “Vatican II taught heresy.” Rejection of the authority of any Ecumenical Council, regardless of the content of its teachings, regardless of whether or not the Council taught infallibly, is the mortal sin of schism, and carries the penalty of automatic excommunication. - https://ronconte.com/2013/06/27/note-to-catholics-who-reject-vatican-ii/
The Catholic Church has thus existed for decades in a condition of objective and grave disunity over matters of de fide doctrine. Another way to say this is that the Catholic Church has existed in a de facto state of schism. - https://www.crisismagazine.com/2017/catholic-church-de-facto-schism
And of-course, you also have divisions among traditional Catholics. https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3755297/posts?page=6#6
And schismatics calling other schismatics schismatic and heretical. https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/beware-heresy/ https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/society-of-st-pius-v/
All but one, by their logic, have to be fake.
So, which ones?
Well then if he at all impugns the cherish view of the RCC then he must be a Prot. That is, unless he is a "true Catholic" as TradCaths defined themselves as (and they actually have a strong case for that, but not for the RCC being the NT church. For distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.
That kind of distinction didn’t worry them when the Catholics broke away from the Orthodox. So they splinter and everyone one believes they are “Catholic.” Which one is it in reality? I think it’s probably the Orthodox because they remain the least changed or non divided.
This Pope is unfortunately a symptom, not the cause.
Thank you. I will ask for a redirect.
As an Orthodox Christian I would note that the Fathers did not regard schism as the worst possible scenario. Heresy ipso facto places one outside The Church no matter what office you hold. Being in communion with heretics, whatever private reservations you may have, makes you a heretic.
Interesting that both daniel and elsie post an almost four year old article within hours of each other.
I wonder if somebody is pulling their strings.
This is EXACTLY what I thought.
“denial of their Divine right to command...”
So those who reject Francis and claim Benedict is the “real” pope are forcing a state of schism?
The explanation for that is simple? Elsie received a link from me to an article I intended to post, but did so before i got around to it. But RCs often need to see things at least twice, and with my posting resulting in a post relegating a quote of Longenecker to being that of a Protestant.
Indeed, for a pope relinquishes power and affirms a successor as head then rejection of the latter is a rejection of the authority of the former.
Romans 13:1 comes into play here: Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
This command does not require unconditional obedience, as other texts show, but neither does it excuse obedience to commands that do not truly conflict with the higher authority of the preserved and substantive record of God's word.
The "powers that be" can be replaced, or the people escape unjust rulers, but then the same requirement of submission applies to those under leadership that replaces them.
And as regards Roman Catholicism, much papal teaching is contrary to the idea that the laity are to make the validity of church teaching subject to their own judgment of whether or not it is consistent with past church teaching, as they understand it (even though that is not how the NT church began).
'the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." (Sources http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3578348/posts?page=14#14)
It’s a massive conspiracy don’t cha’ know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.