Martyrdom or suicide?

[Saint_Augustine]

I will abandon this line of thinking if someone could please show me where it is wrong-

"The church is undergoing her passion." "The Church is being martyred."

I object. That which we call martyrdom is nothing less than an act of suicide.

Let me explain- Martyrdom is imposed from outside us. For the Church to be martyred some extrinsic human or diabolic element must attack solely the human element within the Church.

But that is not what we see. On the contrary, we see the official authorities in the Church promulgating objectively harmful magisterial teaching. That hasn't happened ever in the history of the Church (or has it?). We see the canonization of a man who destroyed the Church's liturgy.


The magisterial element and the act of canonization are supposedly protected by Papal infallibility, yet this nonsense has occurred.


So, either-

1. The modernists are right

2. The see is vacant

3. Catholicism is false

1. We know modernism is a heresy.

2. It belongs to the infallibility of the CHurch to be able to always identify her head, so sedevacantism is out. (Dogmatic facts).

3. Therefore Catholicism is false, for she has failed, not only in her human element, but the divine promises she supposedly has in relation to infallibility have objectively failed. And if they fail, they were never true.


Therefore- Let us attend to our salvation and become eastern Orthodox.

[Sempronius]

I like what Matthew Schmitz wrote when discussing with Rob Dreher regarding the Catholic Church's failures:

"The Church proclaims a higher, more demanding teaching than any other religious assembly. Because Catholic aspirations are higher, Catholic sins are always more shocking. Corruptio optimi pessima – or as DH Lawrence put it, "The greater the love, the greater the trust, and the greater the peril, the greater the disaster.""

[Michael Wilson]

The Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, therefore your conclusion that the Church has failed, is impossible.
The E.O. Is not a Church, but a collection of independent "auctocephalus" bishoprics; which has fallen into schism and heresy since the 11th C. Hardly the place to find salvation.

[Saint_Augustine]

The Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, therefore your conclusion that the Church has failed, is impossible.
The E.O. Is not a Church, but a collection of independent "auctocephalus" bishoprics; which has fallen into schism and heresy since the 11th C. Hardly the place to find salvation.

Assertions are not arguments.

With the canonization of Paul VI, we have an objective destruction of any pretense to our Lords promise that the gates of Hell will not prevail. Today is elevated the beast who initiated the auto-demolition. He is raised to the dignity of the table...er, altar.

How is this not an indication that the promise does not apply to the Pope?

[Michael Wilson]

St. A.
I don't intend to argue about the truths of the faith; they are proposed on a "take it or leave it" basis. I'm sorry that you are considering the second option.
The Pope issue is not entirely clear, I am a sed for that reason. That is the only way that I can square the facts with the teachings. But that doesn't mean that another and better explanation isn't out there. The crisis will eventually pass and then things will clear up.
Meanwhile, I will pray that you reconsider.

[Gardener]

We know modernism is a heresy because it was defined as such by a Pope. If the Church is rendered invalid by present circumstances, we have no reason to trust that modernism is a heresy, since it was defined by the vicarious head of a false organization. If you disagree, you espouse modernism since what was right is now wrong. You admit as much in your 3rd conclusion that such an organization would be "never true". As such, such an organization would be unable to define and declare heresies to be avoided.

A mystical martyrdom is not out of the question, and though it appears as being perpetrated by those within, it is done by those who are mystically without.

It is not necessary that the Church *always* have a Pope, for interregnum periods are an historical and inescapable known. That She would be without a Pope for an extended period is indeed abnormal, but the principle doesn't deny it.

[Philip G.]

Saint Augustine - I think you need to (re)read the rules of this forum. 

Non-Catholics:
1) Error has no rights. As such, anti-Catholic viewpoints are not permitted to be posted here.
2) Do not attempt to sway traditional Catholics away from the Faith.

Also, don't the eastern orthodox reject St. Augustine?

The stumbling block in this crisis in my opinion regards judging the pope.  Many trads at the very least believe that a general council can judge a pope to be in formal heresy.  But, I do not believe that.  Because, it opens the door to extremes like vacantism where any old layman can judge a pope to be in formal heresy.  And, a formal heretic is no longer a Catholic.  Do the math.  It is not reconcilable with the church's teachings about the papacy.  Here are some truths.  A pope that is not a formal heretic, is still pope.  A pope that is a material heretic, is still pope.  The pope is judged by no man save Christ.  Let this be your foundation, and then make a selection from possible choices in response to this crisis.  When I do so, I find that my options lead me to the Catholic Church and the papacy despite the dangers thereof.  I read a quote from I think it was St. John of the Cross recently.  And, it went something like this, "where you do not find love, pour in love, and you will draw out love."  This crisis calls for such measures, I have personally experienced it.  It is called being faithful to ones state in life.  God does not allow us to be tempted beyond our ability to resist.  Do you believe that?  Believe it.

[james03]

Assertions are not arguments.

I wish you would stand by your principles.

2. It belongs to the infallibility of the CHurch to be able to always identify her head, so sedevacantism is out. (Dogmatic facts).

Really?  So why did a DOCTOR of the Church discuss a pope losing office due to heresy, and why did a Pope write a bull on the topic of a future Pope falling into heresy?

[awkwardcustomer]

I will abandon this line of thinking if someone could please show me where it is wrong-

"The church is undergoing her passion." "The Church is being martyred."

I object. That which we call martyrdom is nothing less than an act of suicide.

Let me explain- Martyrdom is imposed from outside us. For the Church to be martyred some extrinsic human or diabolic element must attack solely the human element within the Church.

But that is not what we see. On the contrary, we see the official authorities in the Church promulgating objectively harmful magisterial teaching. That hasn't happened ever in the history of the Church (or has it?). We see the canonization of a man who destroyed the Church's liturgy.


The magisterial element and the act of canonization are supposedly protected by Papal infallibility, yet this nonsense has occurred.


So, either-

1. The modernists are right

2. The see is vacant

3. Catholicism is false

1. We know modernism is a heresy.

2. It belongs to the infallibility of the CHurch to be able to always identify her head, so sedevacantism is out. (Dogmatic facts).

3. Therefore Catholicism is false, for she has failed, not only in her human element, but the divine promises she supposedly has in relation to infallibility have objectively failed. And if they fail, they were never true.


Therefore- Let us attend to our salvation and become eastern Orthodox.

Option 2 is correct.  The See is vacant.

Where you are going wrong is confusing the opinions of self-appointed lay theologians with "dogmatic facts". There are no "Dogmatic facts" which state that the Church always has to be able to identify her head.

[Daniel]

Let me explain- Martyrdom is imposed from outside us. For the Church to be martyred some extrinsic human or diabolic element must attack solely the human element within the Church.

But that is not what we see. On the contrary, we see the official authorities in the Church promulgating objectively harmful magisterial teaching. That hasn't happened ever in the history of the Church (or has it?). We see the canonization of a man who destroyed the Church's liturgy.

The extrinsic human element is the modernists who entered the Church and have now been attacking it from the inside. They are "in" the Church but are nevertheless "extrinsic", since the Church is holy whereas modernism is evil.

So, either-

1. The modernists are right

2. The see is vacant

3. Catholicism is false

That's not an exhaustive list. What about the SSPX's position? Not sure I really buy into it, but they hold that the pope is infallible only when he teaches the stuff that the Church teaches. Not sure I really buy into this position (seems a lot like a tautology in my opinion), but it does solve the problem you've raised: modernism is wrong (condemned as a heresy), sedevacantism is also wrong (comes from an incorrect understanding of papal infallibility), and the Catholicism is not false.

[Michael Wilson]

Cardinal Pie of Potiers:

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit."

[Michael Wilson]

Heinrich posted this on another thread, and I think it would be a good idea if the members of this forum also drafted a resolution to stand firm in the fight for the faith as the men from Hood's brigade did

[yt][/yt]

Maybe Gardener or somebody with his eloquence can start another thread with the draft and then the members of this forum can sign on to the pledge. I was most touched by the fact that Hood's brigade drafted the resolution in Jan. 1865; in other words near the very end of the Civil War when the South was all but defeated. Unlike the South, the Church will never perish; so we have even more reason to not give up.

[Stubborn]

I will abandon this line of thinking if someone could please show me where it is wrong-........

Short snip from one of the sermons from Fr. Wathen....

"....Among all the mysteries that we live amongst, is that of the fact that God saves those whom He wills. And yet those who are lost are lost because they will. No one is saved against his will and no one is damned against his will. At the same time almighty God has known from all eternity who would be His, whom He would succeed in saving. And all the jubilation that the Church expresses in its many Masses and in its office is over the fact that those whom God regards as His elect, will be saved.

Furthermore that no matter how much tragedy with which history is strewn, Christ moves towards His glorious triumph. With His resurrection was the announcement that He would have His victory, when He emerged from the tomb, He proved that there was no force, no power greater than He. And He proved that if He was invincible, then that which He would establish is also invincible, namely His Church. It really does not matter therefore that throughout history the Church suffer terrific blows, that it at times – and these times almost have always prevailed – that the Church suffer it's terrible embarrassments, it's setbacks.

Despite all this, despite all appearances and despite whatever losses, Christ is triumphing in the Church and He is proving His power, His invincibility and He is succeeding in doing what He came to the world to achieve and, God the Father is fulfilling the purposes of His creation.

If it were not so, He would never have created anything to begin with. If it could be, that Almighty God could set in motion anything out of which He could not draw whatever He wished, then He would never had done anything like that and He indeed would not be infinite in the first place.

We have it in our power to participate or we have it in our choice to be turned away, it is strictly within our choice and whatever grace is necessary is within our grasp..."




I like to listen to this (Fourth Sunday of Lent, 1988) sermon, particularly those times when the virtue of hope needs a boost in me. It is a very beautiful sermon that helps reinforce, or strengthen the hope for us and for the Church amidst what otherwise often appears to be a hopeless situation.

Keep the faith Saint Augustine.

[Quaremerepulisti]

So, either-

1. The modernists are right

2. The see is vacant

3. Catholicism is false

1. We know modernism is a heresy.

2. It belongs to the infallibility of the CHurch to be able to always identify her head, so sedevacantism is out. (Dogmatic facts).

3. Therefore Catholicism is false, for she has failed, not only in her human element, but the divine promises she supposedly has in relation to infallibility have objectively failed. And if they fail, they were never true.

1.  That post-Reformation theologians were wrong on some things doesn't mean modernism is right.

2.  The way you stated it is wrong.  Obviously during interregnum periods there is no head for the Church to identify.  It could be better stated as: the identification of the Church's head is not a matter for private judgment, but is also accepted on authority, and the authority has said that Paul VI and his successors were Popes.

3.  It isn't precisely infallibility, but indefectibility, which is at issue here.  Now, as Arvinger never tires of repeating, if indefectibility is true then no empirical facts could possibly be contrary to it (speaking of real empirical facts, and not hypothetically).  So your private judgment that the Magisterium is promulgating "objectively harmful" teaching and that the liturgy was "destroyed" must be wrong.

[Prayerful]

I will abandon this line of thinking if someone could please show me where it is wrong-

"The church is undergoing her passion." "The Church is being martyred."

I object. That which we call martyrdom is nothing less than an act of suicide.

Let me explain- Martyrdom is imposed from outside us. For the Church to be martyred some extrinsic human or diabolic element must attack solely the human element within the Church.

But that is not what we see. On the contrary, we see the official authorities in the Church promulgating objectively harmful magisterial teaching. That hasn't happened ever in the history of the Church (or has it?). We see the canonization of a man who destroyed the Church's liturgy.


The magisterial element and the act of canonization are supposedly protected by Papal infallibility, yet this nonsense has occurred.


So, either-

1. The modernists are right

2. The see is vacant

3. Catholicism is false

1. We know modernism is a heresy.

2. It belongs to the infallibility of the CHurch to be able to always identify her head, so sedevacantism is out. (Dogmatic facts).

3. Therefore Catholicism is false, for she has failed, not only in her human element, but the divine promises she supposedly has in relation to infallibility have objectively failed. And if they fail, they were never true.


Therefore- Let us attend to our salvation and become eastern Orthodox.

EO churches, be in Romania, Ukraine or Russia are state churches, instruments of state policy, in particular in the last two places, and cannot be considered a solution. The Russian Greek Rite schismatic liturgy was heavily altered in the seventeenth century on the basis of foolhardy antiquarianism and the greed and liturgical notions of Tsar Peter the Great. It was the cause of schism within the schismatics as many retreated to Russia's endless forests and hacked out new communities where the Old Believers could follow the ancient customs. Panicking because of Bergie the Bad is no solution either.