Author Topic: Martyrdom or suicide?  (Read 3101 times)

Offline Philip G.

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 392
  • Thanked: 180 times
  • Ordinary Cult
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
« Reply #15 on: January 02, 2019, 06:08:09 PM »
Prayerful - His name is Francis.
For the stone shall cry out of the wall; and the timber that is between the joints of the building, shall answer.  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. - Habacuc 2,11-12
 

Offline TheReturnofLive

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 493
  • Thanked: 127 times
  • Saint Thomas the Apostle, pray for me, a sinner!
  • Religion: I have no idea.
Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
« Reply #16 on: January 02, 2019, 07:30:01 PM »
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.

For Point 2, if you believe Catholicism is right, you can’t rule out a forced abdication of Pope Benedict XVI, who still is alive. The argument that this Pope Francis must be Pope even if Benedict was forced to resign because he’s recognized as such is a load of BS in light of history. Pope Vigilius was appointed by The Byzantine Emperor to be Pope, unlawfully deposing the current occupant of the time, and Robert Bellarmine says that he was an Anti-Pope up until the point where the licit Pope died, where he assumed legally the role of the Papacy, with all his actions null and void until he became a licit Pope.

It’s a very interesting point, if one considers Robert’s point valid, though, because when he was “a licit Pope,” Pope Vigilius defended with great vigor Nestorianism (refusing to condemn three heretical letters) which caused Justinian to get angry so he sent soldiers who grabbed him while he was saying Mass, brought him to Constantinople and forced him to recant. He did under pressure, but then went to back to Rome where he recanted his condemnation. Justinian and the Eastern Patriarchs excommunicated Pope Vigilius for this, to which he recanted again condemned the Three Chapters and apologized to Justinian and blaming the devil for deceiving him.

So it becomes a question to what degree Robert is right and to what degree he is wrong, and to what degree an invalid Pope could allow heresy to spread, because Pope Vigilius issued heretical opinions and forbade the question from further discussion by Apostolic Authority, for which he was excommunicated - and to what degree an anti-Pope may allow heresy to flourish in the Roman Church - if Pope Vigilius issued a doctrinal statement with Apostolic Authority in the first place (Pope Honorius syndrome).



 

Offline TheReturnofLive

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 493
  • Thanked: 127 times
  • Saint Thomas the Apostle, pray for me, a sinner!
  • Religion: I have no idea.
Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
« Reply #17 on: January 02, 2019, 07:34:22 PM »
But regardless, Benedict is still alive, and if Pope Francis is an Anti-Pope, and Pope Benedict was forced to resign, even if Pope Francis was recognized by everywone as licit he would still be an Anti-Pope.

However, the burden is on you to provide evidence of conspiracy, especially in light of the fact that multiple times privately Benedict has explicitly denied he was forced to resign.
 

Offline TheReturnofLive

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 493
  • Thanked: 127 times
  • Saint Thomas the Apostle, pray for me, a sinner!
  • Religion: I have no idea.
Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
« Reply #18 on: January 02, 2019, 08:45:45 PM »
The Old Believer schism happened a century before Peter the Great, and it was an attempt by the Patriarch in question to make the Liturgy more “correct” and to reduce perceived pagan influence and Western influence  by following the Greek norms and rubrics  instead of the Russian norms and rubrics (the irony was that the Russian norms and rubrics were actually older).

Also to suggest that the Catholic Church has never been used as an instrument of policy by autocratic governments is at best, completely ignorant, at worst, maliciously deceptive.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2019, 09:00:21 PM by TheReturnofLive »
 

Offline Kreuzritter

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1119
  • Thanked: 780 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
« Reply #19 on: January 03, 2019, 05:33:43 AM »
Quote
The magisterial element and the act of canonization are supposedly protected by Papal infallibility, yet this nonsense has occurred.

This line about canonisations isn't dogma, and anyone who claims that it's apostolic tradition is smoking the cow dung.
 

Offline Kreuzritter

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1119
  • Thanked: 780 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
« Reply #20 on: January 03, 2019, 05:42:22 AM »
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.

On the basis of your rejection of 1. I can just as well deny your final conclusion: we "know" Orthodoxy is a heresy.

How do you kknow this? And how to you "know"Modernism is a heresy but denial of the filioque, dismissal of the Immaculate Conception, and rejection of the Papal primacy aren't? There appears to be a more than a little bit of question-begging at work here.
 
The following users thanked this post: Michael Wilson

Offline Prayerful

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 6351
  • Thanked: 2711 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
« Reply #21 on: January 03, 2019, 08:13:24 AM »
The Old Believer schism happened a century before Peter the Great, and it was an attempt by the Patriarch in question to make the Liturgy more “correct” and to reduce perceived pagan influence and Western influence  by following the Greek norms and rubrics  instead of the Russian norms and rubrics (the irony was that the Russian norms and rubrics were actually older).

Also to suggest that the Catholic Church has never been used as an instrument of policy by autocratic governments is at best, completely ignorant, at worst, maliciously deceptive.

It started under an earlier Romanov Tsar, continued under Peter, who was generally milder than predecessors and successors (say Nicholas I) of his House towards Old Believers. However, the complete formal subordination of Church to State, from an Estate to department of state, took a reasonably settled form under Peter with the Procurator of the Holy Synod. This was allied to an annexation of a lot of monastic lands. This close rule was rare in the West outside of kingdoms with Lutheran or other Protestant state heretical Churches, or the Gallican Church of France (which was still more autonomous than an EO schismatic Church). More seriously the education and intellectual standard of EO priests was poor. In fact under Peter, measures were taken to model priestly training along the more successful Tridentine model that could be seen in Poland.
Padre Pio: Pray, hope, and don't worry. Worry is useless. God is merciful and will hear your prayer.
 

Offline TheReturnofLive

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 493
  • Thanked: 127 times
  • Saint Thomas the Apostle, pray for me, a sinner!
  • Religion: I have no idea.
Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
« Reply #22 on: January 04, 2019, 01:49:41 PM »
The Old Believer schism happened a century before Peter the Great, and it was an attempt by the Patriarch in question to make the Liturgy more “correct” and to reduce perceived pagan influence and Western influence  by following the Greek norms and rubrics  instead of the Russian norms and rubrics (the irony was that the Russian norms and rubrics were actually older).

Also to suggest that the Catholic Church has never been used as an instrument of policy by autocratic governments is at best, completely ignorant, at worst, maliciously deceptive.

It started under an earlier Romanov Tsar, continued under Peter, who was generally milder than predecessors and successors (say Nicholas I) of his House towards Old Believers. However, the complete formal subordination of Church to State, from an Estate to department of state, took a reasonably settled form under Peter with the Procurator of the Holy Synod. This was allied to an annexation of a lot of monastic lands. This close rule was rare in the West outside of kingdoms with Lutheran or other Protestant state heretical Churches, or the Gallican Church of France (which was still more autonomous than an EO schismatic Church). More seriously the education and intellectual standard of EO priests was poor. In fact under Peter, measures were taken to model priestly training along the more successful Tridentine model that could be seen in Poland.

It wasn't the Tsar who initiated the liturgical changes - it was the Patriarch himself - Patriarch Nikon of Moscow.



This guy.

The Tsar was even hesitant at points to the excess where Nikon was going. Patriarch Nikon acually broke into people's homes, took their "heretical" icons (which I think were Western style icons), stabbed the eyes out of the icons, and paraded them around in derision. He then wanted to burn them, but the Tsar intervened and said "that's enough."

He was such a bad Patriarch that although the Russian Orthodox Church kept his reforms in place, they deposed him and forced him to retire in a monastery.



Undoubtedly, Peter the Great Westernized - that's what he's known for. It wasn't just education, it was also art, technology, science, military, everything except the form of government. And I don't deny that the Russian Orthodox Church was synthesized into the literal state itself under Peter the Great, but such synthesis was not really in the mind of the Russian Orthodox Church - as soon as the Empire collapsed, the Russian Orthodox Church appointed a new Patriarch.


And for the Gallician Church of France, are you referring to the Orthodox Church St. John Maximovitch established? That happened after the Russian Empire already collapsed. Or are you referring to the Catholic Church under pre-Revolutionary France?

If the latter is a counter-point to my argument about Cronyism between the Church and State, France isn't what I had in mind. I was thinking more about the Byzantine Empire (during the period of the Byzantine Papacy) and then, subsequently, the Holy Roman Empire.

Believe it or not, the Roman Church was in full coherence with the decisions of Chalcedon, and fully supported the decisions the Byzantine Empire made. In Leo's Tome, he recognizes the authority of the Emperor to smite his enemies with Divine Wrath. The Byzantine Empire tried so hard to get rid of the non-Chalcedonians that the Copts were happy when Islamic occupiers came in. They weren't really hiding or struggling for power anymore, they were just allowed to exist - although in slavery.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2019, 02:13:09 PM by TheReturnofLive »
 

Offline TheReturnofLive

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 493
  • Thanked: 127 times
  • Saint Thomas the Apostle, pray for me, a sinner!
  • Religion: I have no idea.
Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
« Reply #23 on: January 04, 2019, 01:51:42 PM »
Quote
The magisterial element and the act of canonization are supposedly protected by Papal infallibility, yet this nonsense has occurred.

This line about canonisations isn't dogma, and anyone who claims that it's apostolic tradition is smoking the cow dung.

I guess this guy was.

 
The following users thanked this post: Pon de Replay

Offline Non Nobis

  • Why are you fearful?
  • Mary Garden
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 4527
  • Thanked: 3188 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
« Reply #24 on: January 04, 2019, 10:59:28 PM »
Quote
The magisterial element and the act of canonization are supposedly protected by Papal infallibility, yet this nonsense has occurred.

This line about canonisations isn't dogma, and anyone who claims that it's apostolic tradition is smoking the cow dung.

I guess this guy was.



I used to have at least moral certainty that every canonized person was a true saint. I used to think I could take what Pope Benedict XIV said literally.

Scattered thoughts (not answering any particular post).

Now sedevacantism is not a wild speculation and so much we used to hold about the Church (how she is protected by Christ) is in question.  What a sorry state.  Faith is supported by history of thousands of years, by perennial teaching, by holiness in some, and in the Sacraments.  It is God's spiritual gift.  It is not supported by recent happenings (supposed canonizations) and teaching (Pope Francis). It seems Popes of old must have been downright WRONG about the universality of some things they said, when it was supposed to be for the Church of all time: the current situation is a diabolical perversity, and beyond what they could  possibly predict.

I don't pretend to understand the evil, or even to try to any more, but hold onto the good, the same good that was in the Church since it was founded.  I don't look for human intellectual satisfaction with regard to the modern Church, but hang onto Catholic practices and teaching that inspire me and make more sense than abandoning my faith or joining a different religion.

Sedevacantism: I am just unable to swallow such a monstrous speculation.  Maybe it makes sense, but I'd rather let God take care of the monstrosity and not think I can know what He knows about the worst evils.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2019, 11:04:54 PM by Non Nobis »
[Matthew 8:26]  And Jesus saith to them: Why are you fearful, O ye of little faith? Then rising up he commanded the winds, and the sea, and there came a great calm.

[Job  38:1-5]  Then the Lord answered Job out of a whirlwind, and said: [2] Who is this that wrappeth up sentences in unskillful words? [3] Gird up thy loins like a man: I will ask thee, and answer thou me. [4] Where wast thou when I laid up the foundations of the earth? tell me if thou hast understanding. [5] Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
 

Offline awkwardcustomer

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2338
  • Thanked: 927 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
« Reply #25 on: January 05, 2019, 05:04:19 AM »
I used to have at least moral certainty that every canonized person was a true saint.

Sedevacantism: I am just unable to swallow such a monstrous speculation.

If you cannot swallow Sedevacantism, then you have no option but to doubt the sainthood of every person that has ever been canonised.

If you think that Sedevacantism is more monstrous than doubting that the saints are saints, then you are more than welcome to your R&R position.
And formerly the heretics were manifest; but now the Church is filled with heretics in disguise.  
St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 15, para 9.

And what rough beast, it's hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
WB Yeats, 'The Second Coming'.
 

Offline Stubborn

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 998
  • Thanked: 438 times
Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
« Reply #26 on: January 05, 2019, 05:17:41 AM »
I used to have at least moral certainty that every canonized person was a true saint.

All things Novus Ordo cannot be trusted - period.



Even after a long life of sin, if the Christian receives the Sacrament of the dying with the appropriate dispositions, he will go straight to heaven without having to go to purgatory. - Fr. M. Philipon; This sacrament prepares man for glory immediately, since it is given to those who are departing from this life. - St. Thomas Aquinas; It washes away the sins that remain to be atoned, and the vestiges of sin; it comforts and strengthens the soul of the sick person, arousing in him a great trust and confidence in the divine mercy. Thus strengthened, he bears the hardships and struggles of his illness more easily and resists the temptation of the devil and the heel of the deceiver more readily; and if it be advantageous to the welfare of his soul, he sometimes regains his bodily health. - Council of Trent
 
The following users thanked this post: Prayerful

Offline Michael Wilson

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 6778
  • Thanked: 4454 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
« Reply #27 on: January 05, 2019, 03:39:41 PM »
While I agree with the statement of Pope Benedict XIV, I think that this statement was penned when he was still a Cardinal in his work on the Beatification and Canonization of Saints.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"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." Cardinal Pie of Potiers
 
The following users thanked this post: Non Nobis, bigbadtrad, Christe Eleison, Philip G.

Offline Non Nobis

  • Why are you fearful?
  • Mary Garden
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 4527
  • Thanked: 3188 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
« Reply #28 on: January 05, 2019, 05:52:34 PM »
I used to have at least moral certainty that every canonized person was a true saint.

Sedevacantism: I am just unable to swallow such a monstrous speculation.

If you cannot swallow Sedevacantism, then you have no option but to doubt the sainthood of every person that has ever been canonised.

If you think that Sedevacantism is more monstrous than doubting that the saints are saints, then you are more than welcome to your R&R position.

I do not doubt that Saints are saints, but that recent Popes can rightly canonize.  I don't KNOW whether there is some way (sede-something) for a Pope to be corrupted beyond any corruption that past Popes could conceive or accept, or whether  such a corrupt "Pope" would automatically be a non-Pope.  The shepherds and kings seeing Christ in the manger and recognizing Him as God would probably not predict or accept the idea of Him dying on the Cross in the future, and yet it happened.  Maybe some seeing Christ on the Cross would say "that can't be God", condemned as a criminal, but it was. I know the situation is different (Christ did no evil), but the point is that we don't know what God will permit.  No one would have predicted that Judas, a specially selected friend of Christ, would go on to betray Him. Popes are in a sense selected by the Church, and perhaps can go on to betray it too.

I really don't know about Sedevacantism.  It seems monstrous that a (supposed) Pope should falsely canonize a (supposed) saint, or teach (even privately or ambiguously) heresy.  But it also seems monstrous that Christ would appear to abandon the Church to false popes for decades.  What does this mean for simple people who can know the simple teachings of the Church, but can't understand the extensive arguments for sedevacantism (and its varieties) that require an understanding of Papal history, etc.? I leave it to God to understand why He permits either monstrosity.

"As far as I can understand, the whole situation is just impossible", so I admit the poverty of my understanding and leave it to God. No, my intellect is not satisfied, but maybe God is permitting it not to be. Our salvation does not depend on understanding the situation.

I don't sneer at any true-to-the-faith position concerning the Church these days (sedevacantism, R&R, even very conservative Novus Ordo types who fight the worst errors but don't want to say ANYTHING bad about the Pope) because we are all struggling to be saved in a terrible time.

Not trusting recent Popes does not MEAN not trusting all past Popes: we can recognize that there has been a terrible change and things are not the same. God wants us to see that much, because we should know our faith in a simple way that does not correspond to what is taught now.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2019, 05:56:30 PM by Non Nobis »
[Matthew 8:26]  And Jesus saith to them: Why are you fearful, O ye of little faith? Then rising up he commanded the winds, and the sea, and there came a great calm.

[Job  38:1-5]  Then the Lord answered Job out of a whirlwind, and said: [2] Who is this that wrappeth up sentences in unskillful words? [3] Gird up thy loins like a man: I will ask thee, and answer thou me. [4] Where wast thou when I laid up the foundations of the earth? tell me if thou hast understanding. [5] Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
 
The following users thanked this post: Michael Wilson

Offline bigbadtrad

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 470
  • Thanked: 632 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
« Reply #29 on: January 05, 2019, 06:44:57 PM »
While I agree with the statement of Pope Benedict XIV, I think that this statement was penned when he was still a Cardinal in his work on the Beatification and Canonization of Saints.

What Michael said is true and he said canonizations are infallible because of the devil's advocate, which no longer exists.
"God has proved his love to us by laying down his life for our sakes; we too must be ready to lay down our lives for the sake of our brethren." 1 John 3:16
 
The following users thanked this post: mikemac, Christe Eleison