|"Show me one actual heresy"
|Page 1 of 1|
|Author:||brogan [ Mon Jun 19, 2006 7:01 pm ]|
|Post subject:||"Show me one actual heresy"|
Whenever I talk to people who do not hold to the sede vacant thesis about the issue of the pope they usually come to this question; "Can you show me one actual heresy?" Now I've tried to explain that it is the actions of the modern popes which demonstrate their heretical beliefs. This does not seem to satisfy them. They are determined to say that they themselves are better suited to inturpret the documents of the modern church than the writers of said documents are. "I know Ratzinger wrote this, and his actions do seem to indicate that he interprets what he wrote in this heretical way but , what this writting really must mean is this." This is further complicated when you are talking about documents that would be covered under infallibility. "You see they are true popes and that is why they are prevented from writting down actual heresy."
I was wondering how some of the others on this forum answer this question when asked. It is true that these men would have to be guilty of an actually act of heresy to not be true popes. Which heresy do you point to to show that these men do not hold the office of pope?
|Author:||John Daly [ Mon Jun 19, 2006 7:36 pm ]|
Very good point, Brogan.
I wonder if you've read this essay by Arnaldo Vidigal da Silveira http://www.sedevacantist.com/essayonheresy.htm ?
It shows why the theologians say that actions as well as words can manifest heresy - heresy being the refusal to submit to the magisterium of the Catholic Church.
I'd say it was worth insisting on this principle first, before going on to give concrete examples. Otherwise the man who doesn't want to be convinced is simply setting up his own arbitrary standard of what he will admit as evidence. We have seen this with Dr Brian Harrison, debating with Fr Cekada and others. Having an agile mind, he will undertake to find an orthodox sense hiding in almost any statement. For him the Conciliar "Popes" must state verbatim the exact opposite of one of the Canons of Trent before there is a heresy present to discuss.
As we have already seen on this forum, when a man insists on his own standards of evidence and what he requires to be convinced - he is not humbly submitting to the standards of the Church herself. And he is immune to being convinced as long as he doesn't want to be.
Perhaps there is also a tendency coming from the modern world's passion for mathematics - such that men no longer understand the conception of certitude in the absence of mathematical or scientific-type proofs. But the human mind is precisely capable of judging human words and acts and seeing what is behind them. One notes how often an obviously guilty man is found not guilty by a jury confused by the conception of certitude.
John-Paul II never quite said, "All men are saved", but he repeatedly used words that he cannot have failed to see would give that impression. He never quite said, "It is quite unnecessary to be a Catholic, even in desire, to be saved." But he used every means short of directly saying it to ensure that everyone would believe that heresy.
However, personally, against John-Paul II I like to use the Koran-kissing episode precisely because St Thomas Aquinas uses praying at Mohammed's tomb as an example of apostasy by acts. The two are so similar it is very hard to evade the obvious conclusion.
In the case of Benedict you have his statement that the Jews are not waiting in vain for the coming of the Messiah and similar texts.
But having said all that - none of it is strictly necessary. Instead of demonstrating personal heresy you have the option of showing that the Vatican II sect has taught errors (even short of heresy, and irrespective of pertinacity) in circumstances in which the Catholic Church would be protected by infallibility.
|Author:||Philothea [ Mon Jun 19, 2006 8:56 pm ]|
One actual heresy that comes to my mind is the new ecumenism espoused by Vatican II and its "popes". Here is JPII in his Redemptor hominis:
"What shall I say of all the initiatives that have sprung from the new ecumenical orientation? The unforgettable Pope John XXIII set out the problem of Christian unity with evangelical clarity as a simple consequence of the will of Jesus Christ himself, our Master, the will that Jesus stated on several occasions but to which he gave expression in a special way in his prayer in the Upper Room the night before he died: 'I pray... Father... that they may all be one'. The Second Vatican Council responded concisely to this requirement with its Decree on ecumenism. Pope Paul VI, availing himself of the activities of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, began the first difficult steps on the road to the attainment of that unity. Have we gone far along that road? Without wishing to give a detailed reply, we can say that we have made real and important advances. And one thing is certain: we have worked with perseverance and consistency, and the representatives of other Christian Churches and Communities have also committed themselves together with us, for which we are heartily grateful to them. It is also certain that in the present historical situation of Christianity and the world the only possibility we see of fulfilling the Church's universal mission, with regard to ecumenical questions, is that of seeking sincerely, perseveringly, humbly and also courageously the ways of drawing closer and of union. Pope Paul VI gave us his personal example for this. We must therefore seek unity without being discouraged at the difficulties that can appear or accumulate along that road; otherwise we would be unfaithful to the word of Christ, we would fail to accomplish his testament. Have we the right to run this risk?
"There are people who in the face of the difficulties or because they consider that the first ecumenical endeavours have brought negative results would have liked to turn back. Some even express the opinion that these efforts are harmful to the cause of the Gospel, are leading to a further rupture in the Church, are causing confusion of ideas in questions of faith and morals and are ending up with a specific indifferentism. It is perhaps a good thing that the spokesmen for these opinions should express their fears. However, in this respect also, correct limits must be maintained. It is obvious that this new stage in the Church's life demands of us a faith that is particularly aware, profound and responsible. True ecumenical activity means openness, drawing closer, availability for dialogue, and a shared investigation of the truth in the full evangelical and Christian sense; but in no way does it or can it mean giving up or in any way diminishing the treasures of divine truth that the Church has constantly confessed and taught. To all who, for whatever motive, would wish to dissuade the Church from seeking the universal unity of Christians the question must once again be put: Have we the right not to do it? Can we fail to have trust-in spite of all human weakness and all the faults of past centuries-in our Lord's grace as revealed recently through what the Holy Spirit said and we heard during the Council? If we were to do so, we would deny the truth concerning ourselves that was so eloquently expressed by the Apostle: 'By the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace towards me was not in vain'.
"What we have just said must also be applied -although in another way and with the due differences-to activity for coming closer together with the representatives of the non-Christian religions, an activity expressed through dialogue, contacts, prayer in common, investigation of the treasures of human spirituality, in which, as we know well, the members of these religions also are not lacking. Does it not sometimes happen that the firm belief of the followers of the non-Christian religions-a belief that is also an effect of the Spirit of truth operating outside the visible confines of the Mystical Body-can make Christians ashamed at being often themselves so disposed to doubt concerning the truths revealed by God and proclaimed by the Church and so prone to relax moral principles and open the way to ethical permissiveness. It is a noble thing to have a predisposition for understanding every person, analyzing every system and recognizing what is right; this does not at all mean losing certitude about one's own faith or weakening the principles of morality, the lack of which will soon make itself felt in the life of whole societies, with deplorable consequences besides." (Emphasis added).
This last sentence is somewhat ironic, is it not? This is exactly what has happened to many so-called Catholics - i.e. they no longer know what the true Faith is.
|Author:||Penrod Schofield [ Mon Jun 19, 2006 10:06 pm ]|
I think the Vatican 2 teaching on religious liberty is an explicit heresy. By promoting Vatican 2, therefore, Ratzinger adheres to heresy.
Don't quote me on this, because I'm entirely sure I could prove it, but just read through the Syllabus of Errors and then read the V2 document on religious liberty, and see if one doesn't contradict the other.
|Author:||M_Eulogius [ Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:08 am ]|
Saint Juliana Falconieri
Penrod Schofield wrote:
I think the Vatican 2 teaching on religious liberty is an explicit heresy.
Of course it is, as is the tacit acceptance of homosexuality--the acceptance of false religion and sodomy are both capital crimes in the Old Testament. Catholics may not be quite so violent anymore, but the sins remain sinful.
Another rich source of heresy is Pope John Paul II's encyclical Ut unum sint in which he calls for dialogue on doctrinal matters that are quite clearly settled.
John Paul II wrote:
79. It is already possible to identify the areas in need of fuller study before a true consensus of faith can be achieved: 1) the relationship between Sacred Scripture, as the highest authority in matters of faith, and Sacred Tradition, as indispensable to the interpretation of the Word of God; 2) the Eucharist, as the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, an offering of praise to the Father, the sacrificial memorial and Real Presence of Christ and the sanctifying outpouring of the Holy Spirit; 3) Ordination, as a Sacrament, to the threefold ministry of the episcopate, presbyterate and diaconate; 4) the Magisterium of the Church, entrusted to the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him, understood as a responsibility and an authority exercised in the name of Christ for teaching and safeguarding the faith; 5) the Virgin Mary, as Mother of God and Icon of the Church, the spiritual Mother who intercedes for Christ's disciples and for all humanity.
95. ... I am convinced that I have a particular responsibility in this regard, above all in acknowledging the ecumenical aspirations of the majority of the Christian Communities and in heeding the request made of me to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation.
But, perhaps the greatest heresy is Modernism--the idea that religion is nothing more than feelings, and that doctrine is merely the consensus of the current moment, created through an Hegelian dialectic ("dialogue") of "acting persons."
|Author:||Crusader [ Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:00 am ]|
|Post subject:||Re: "Show me one actual heresy"|
Whenever I talk to people who do not hold to the sede vacant thesis about the issue of the pope they usually come to this question; "Can you show me one actual heresy?"
One could fill many volumes with examples of the errors of Vatican II yet no matter how anti-Catholic it is there will always be those who will defend it. Still, consider an example:
Vatican II - Decree on Ecumenism: Paul VI, November 21, 1964 : 8 "In certain special circumstances, such as the prescribed prayers "for unity," and during ecumenical gatherings, it is allowable, indeed desirable that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren. Such prayers in common are certainly an effective means of obtaining the grace of unity, and they are a true expression of the ties which still bind Catholics to their separated brethren. "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
Compare this with Past Church Teaching
Pius XI, Mortalium animos: "2 ...congresses, meetings, and addresses are arranged, attended by a large concourse of hearers, where all without distinction, unbelievers of every kind as well as Christians, even those who unhappily have rejected Christ and denied His divine nature or mission, are invited to join in the discussion. Now, such efforts can meet with no kind of approval among Catholics. They presuppose the erroneous view that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy, inasmuch as all give expression, under various forms, to that innate sense which leads men to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Those who hold such a view are not only in error; they distort the true idea of religion, and thus reject it, falling gradually into naturalism and atheism. To favor this opinion, therefore and to encourage such undertakings is tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God.
According to Pius XI, when Paul VI says that “during ecumenical gatherings, it is allowable, indeed desirable that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren” it is tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God.
|Page 1 of 1||All times are UTC|
|Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group