Author Topic: Is rejecting this institution really "apostasy"?  (Read 2532 times)

Offline lauermar

  • "Fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy night!" from 'All About Eve' (1950).
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1186
  • Thanked: 330 times
  • Baby Boomer
  • Religion: Traditional Diocesan Catholic
Re: Is rejecting this institution really "apostasy"?
« Reply #15 on: October 12, 2019, 11:38:28 AM »
@Kreuz, I'm going through an intense internal questioning since this recent synod began. It's been ongoing before this but worse now. I'm following Fr. Heilman's US Grace Force, praying and fasting daily. But I'm not sure if I should be praying to save a false church. It is better off dead. The true Catholic church will always exist in the hearts of men, in heaven and purgatory but not necessarily on earth. In eternal life the Catholic church can never be corrupted or extinguished.

I don't care for Protestants, but it is sad to say that right now they are more Catholic than the Catholics. It's looking more and more like their prediction that the pope is a whore of Babylon is true--at least for the post-Vatican II claimants.  The bible churches do not deny the divinity of Christ, don't bow before idols and they uphold the 10 commandments. The current occupier of the Roman throne is leading us towards paganism, which Protestants abhor. And Protestants consistently evangelize. The Catholic Amazon mission is a total failure.

@Dellery:  Are you of the opinion that a Catholic cannot recognize a false gospel when we see one? That there is no application of natural reason, just blind obedience to a false shepherd?  Galatians 1:

Perversion of the Gospel
      6I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

      10For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.

Paul Defends His Ministry

      11For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2019, 11:54:05 AM by lauermar »
"I am not a pessimist. I am not an optimist. I am a realist." Father Malachi Martin (1921-1999)
 
The following users thanked this post: Kreuzritter

Offline Vetus Ordo

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2341
  • Thanked: 1835 times
  • Religion: The Way
Re: Is rejecting this institution really "apostasy"?
« Reply #16 on: October 12, 2019, 12:10:22 PM »
Or

4. See Gerard's post above.

Yeah, its tiresome with Vetus ordo’s ”three options”

And yet true.

Gerard's post does not address the key issue, though. The recognition that there can be morally flawed prelates and popes, like Julius II or Alexander VI, is uncontroversial. What can't exist, otherwise the whole edifice collapses, is official apostasy from the top. According to the Catholic model, everyone can lose the faith except the rock upon which Christ built His Church.
DISPOSE OUR DAYS IN THY PEACE, AND COMMAND US TO BE DELIVERED FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION, AND TO BE NUMBERED IN THE FLOCK OF THINE ELECT.
 
The following users thanked this post: abc123

Offline Vetus Ordo

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2341
  • Thanked: 1835 times
  • Religion: The Way
Re: Is rejecting this institution really "apostasy"?
« Reply #17 on: October 12, 2019, 12:11:30 PM »

Fundamentally, there are only 3 options:

1. You accept that the tridentine faith is the unblemished truth but you'll have to deal with the irresolvable paradox that the foundation of that very truth, according to its own parameters, is now gone (Rome);

2. You accept that what fundamentally matters in the Christian faith is obedience to Rome, regardless of the contents of the faith that seem to be ever mutable and susceptible to development or revision (this actually predates Vatican II, as we know);

3. If you still believe in the person of Jesus Christ as the Incarnate Word, you reject Catholicism altogether and opt either for a western variety of Eastern Orthodoxy or a brand of Protestantism.

My question for Keutzritter goes to you as well.

In your assesment of the Church, how do you account for unknown variables?

The impossibility of Rome losing the faith is not an unknown variable. It is the key doctrine of the Catholic edifice.
DISPOSE OUR DAYS IN THY PEACE, AND COMMAND US TO BE DELIVERED FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION, AND TO BE NUMBERED IN THE FLOCK OF THINE ELECT.
 
The following users thanked this post: abc123

Offline dellery

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2305
  • Thanked: 670 times
Re: Is rejecting this institution really "apostasy"?
« Reply #18 on: October 12, 2019, 12:14:30 PM »

Fundamentally, there are only 3 options:

1. You accept that the tridentine faith is the unblemished truth but you'll have to deal with the irresolvable paradox that the foundation of that very truth, according to its own parameters, is now gone (Rome);

2. You accept that what fundamentally matters in the Christian faith is obedience to Rome, regardless of the contents of the faith that seem to be ever mutable and susceptible to development or revision (this actually predates Vatican II, as we know);

3. If you still believe in the person of Jesus Christ as the Incarnate Word, you reject Catholicism altogether and opt either for a western variety of Eastern Orthodoxy or a brand of Protestantism.

My question for Keutzritter goes to you as well.

In your assesment of the Church, how do you account for unknown variables?

The impossibility of Rome losing the faith is not an unknown variable. It is the key doctrine of the Catholic edifice.

That's not a response to the question you were asked.
Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's enemies shall be they of his own household.
He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me, shall find it.
 

Offline Vetus Ordo

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2341
  • Thanked: 1835 times
  • Religion: The Way
Re: Is rejecting this institution really "apostasy"?
« Reply #19 on: October 12, 2019, 12:43:09 PM »
Fundamentally, there are only 3 options:

1. You accept that the tridentine faith is the unblemished truth but you'll have to deal with the irresolvable paradox that the foundation of that very truth, according to its own parameters, is now gone (Rome);

2. You accept that what fundamentally matters in the Christian faith is obedience to Rome, regardless of the contents of the faith that seem to be ever mutable and susceptible to development or revision (this actually predates Vatican II, as we know);

3. If you still believe in the person of Jesus Christ as the Incarnate Word, you reject Catholicism altogether and opt either for a western variety of Eastern Orthodoxy or a brand of Protestantism.

My question for Keutzritter goes to you as well.

In your assesment of the Church, how do you account for unknown variables?

The impossibility of Rome losing the faith is not an unknown variable. It is the key doctrine of the Catholic edifice.

That's not a response to the question you were asked.

You've stated that "the human mind's ability to collate information is limited" and that "our powers of observation are extremely limited." This is uncontroversial.

However, we are supposed to be certain about the identity of the true Church. Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia. This epistemological confidence occurs by being in communion with the Apostolic see, regardless of the natural limitations of our powers of observation and reasoning processes. Where is the Apostolic see? It is the organization headed by Jorge Bergoglio whose material continuity with the Church headed by Eugenio Pacelli, Angelo Roncalli or Giovanni Battista Montini is indisputable. This is how the Catholic model works. It is a model based on authority from which it cannot be divorced, unlike the Eastern Orthodox or the Protestant models that allow for individual churches and people to maintain the true faith vis-à-vis others.

Am I correct in surmising that you are here appealing to the possibility of unknown explanations to the present scenario because we can't humanly know all possible variables? If that is the case, it is essentially an appeal to unfalsifiability or untestability. It is an inconsequential appeal since it constitutes an abandonment of the realm of rational discourse. If the model is unfalsifiable because there can always be something out there that we don't know, then it is essentially worthless.

Now, in all fairness, is the Catholic model falsifiable? It is. If it can be demonstrated that Rome contradicted herself on a point of official doctrine, the model collapses. Rome is the unfailing oracle of truth, she can never defect until the Parousia. The question is whether we have enough information to reach such a conclusion. I leave that to the personal judgement of each one.
DISPOSE OUR DAYS IN THY PEACE, AND COMMAND US TO BE DELIVERED FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION, AND TO BE NUMBERED IN THE FLOCK OF THINE ELECT.
 

Offline lauermar

  • "Fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy night!" from 'All About Eve' (1950).
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1186
  • Thanked: 330 times
  • Baby Boomer
  • Religion: Traditional Diocesan Catholic
Re: Is rejecting this institution really "apostasy"?
« Reply #20 on: October 12, 2019, 01:19:15 PM »
Mgr. Fulton J. Sheen
Communism and the Conscience of the West (1948)

“[Satan] will set up a counterchurch which will be the ape of the [Catholic] Church. . . . It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content.”

The Antichrist will not be so called; otherwise he would have no followers. He will not wear red tights, nor vomit sulphur, nor carry a trident nor wave an arrowed tail as Mephistopheles in Faust. This masquerade has helped the Devil convince men that he does not exist. When no man recognizes, the more power he exercises. God has defined Himself as “I am Who am,” and the Devil as “I am who am not.”

Nowhere in Sacred Scripture do we find warrant for the popular myth of the Devil as a buffoon who is dressed like the first “red.” Rather is he described as an angel fallen from heaven, as “the Prince of this world,” whose business it is to tell us that there is no other world. His logic is simple: if there is no heaven there is no hell; if there is no hell, then there is no sin; if there is no sin, then there is no judge, and if there is no judgment then evil is good and good is evil. But above all these descriptions, Our Lord tells us that he will be so much like Himself that he would deceive even the elect — and certainly no devil ever seen in picture books could deceive even the elect. How will he come in this new age to win followers to his religion?

The pre-Communist Russian belief is that he will come disguised as the Great Humanitarian; he will talk peace, prosperity and plenty not as means to lead us to God, but as ends in themselves. . . .

. . . The third temptation in which Satan asked Christ to adore him and all the kingdoms of the world would be His, will become the temptation to have a new religion without a Cross, a liturgy without a world to come, a religion to destroy a religion, or a politics which is a religion — one that renders unto Caesar even the things that are God’s.

In the midst of all his seeming love for humanity and his glib talk of freedom and equality, he will have one great secret which he will tell to no one: he will not believe in God. Because his religion will be brotherhood without the fatherhood of God, he will deceive even the elect. He will set up a counterchurch which will be the ape of the Church, because he, the Devil, is the ape of God. It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content. It will be a mystical body of the Antichrist that will in all externals resemble the mystical body of Christ. . . .

. . . But the twentieth century will join the counterchurch because it claims to be infallible when its visible head speaks ex cathedra from Moscow on the subject of economics and politics, and as chief shepherd of world communism.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2019, 01:24:12 PM by lauermar »
"I am not a pessimist. I am not an optimist. I am a realist." Father Malachi Martin (1921-1999)
 

Offline Sempronius

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 658
  • Thanked: 361 times
Re: Is rejecting this institution really "apostasy"?
« Reply #21 on: October 12, 2019, 01:58:57 PM »
Or

4. See Gerard's post above.

Yeah, its tiresome with Vetus ordo’s ”three options”

And yet true.

Gerard's post does not address the key issue, though. The recognition that there can be morally flawed prelates and popes, like Julius II or Alexander VI, is uncontroversial. What can't exist, otherwise the whole edifice collapses, is official apostasy from the top. According to the Catholic model, everyone can lose the faith except the rock upon which Christ built His Church.

I dont see this as an ”official apostasy”. I see psychologically weak men, and thats why they have my sympathies. If we ever live holy lives either they will be edified by our examples or their hearts will be hardened. But God is waiting.. and thats why I think its wrong to have this dogmatic attitude; ”either this or that..” You can’t know God plans.
 

Offline Michael Wilson

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 6960
  • Thanked: 4708 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Is rejecting this institution really "apostasy"?
« Reply #22 on: October 12, 2019, 02:12:49 PM »
There is nothing against Catholic doctrine that states that a heretic will not be elected Pope. Francis was clearly a public heretic before and after his election; nobody truly follows Francis as their "proximate rule of faith"; even on this forum; maybe with the exception of Tanny, and he isn't posting on here anymore. Does anybody here hold that Christ was not God while he lived on Earth? Or that Our Blessed Mother accused God of lying to her on Mt. Calvary? Or that God willed all the different religions? Etc. Etc. 
"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: Blue Violet

Offline John Lamb

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 1527
  • Thanked: 1708 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Is rejecting this institution really "apostasy"?
« Reply #23 on: October 12, 2019, 02:32:36 PM »
The Israelites often gave into idolatry, but they were still the chosen people of God, the Israelites. An evil priest is still a priest, an idolatrous pastor is still a pastor. No you don't have to give into idolatry because the pope does, anymore than you have to give into sodomy because a priest does. Pray for the gift of faith and don't commit the mortal sin of passive scandal (losing faith by being scandalised). Pope Marcellinus gave in to idolatry. He later repented and became a saint. In any case, the Roman Church did not fall when the Pope committed the sin of idolatry.
As many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name. (John 1:12)
 
The following users thanked this post: Blue Violet, Philip G.

Offline St.Justin

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2251
  • Thanked: 920 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Is rejecting this institution really "apostasy"?
« Reply #24 on: October 12, 2019, 05:16:46 PM »

Fundamentally, there are only 3 options:

1. You accept that the tridentine faith is the unblemished truth but you'll have to deal with the irresolvable paradox that the foundation of that very truth, according to its own parameters, is now gone (Rome);

2. You accept that what fundamentally matters in the Christian faith is obedience to Rome, regardless of the contents of the faith that seem to be ever mutable and susceptible to development or revision (this actually predates Vatican II, as we know);

3. If you still believe in the person of Jesus Christ as the Incarnate Word, you reject Catholicism altogether and opt either for a western variety of Eastern Orthodoxy or a brand of Protestantism.

My question for Keutzritter goes to you as well.

In your assesment of the Church, how do you account for unknown variables?

The impossibility of Rome losing the faith is not an unknown variable. It is the key doctrine of the Catholic edifice.

That's not a response to the question you were asked.
But it is 100% correct.
 

Offline TheReturnofLive

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 611
  • Thanked: 185 times
  • Saint Cyprian, pray for me, a sinner!
  • Religion: Eastern Orthodox Inquirer
Re: Is rejecting this institution really "apostasy"?
« Reply #25 on: October 12, 2019, 05:33:58 PM »
If we had photos and videos of the Borgia Popes we could easily be just as offended. 

As far as I know, this group of apostates, liberals and commies has not bound anyone universally to anything. 


Except for Vatican II, all subsequent encyclicals, the prohibition of the death penalty as the death penalty is morally repugnant, and Amoris Lataetia.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2019, 05:36:50 PM by TheReturnofLive »
 
The following users thanked this post: Padraig

Offline Gerard

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3796
  • Thanked: 1456 times
  • .. and his raiment became white and glittering
Re: Is rejecting this institution really "apostasy"?
« Reply #26 on: October 12, 2019, 11:04:33 PM »
If we had photos and videos of the Borgia Popes we could easily be just as offended. 

As far as I know, this group of apostates, liberals and commies has not bound anyone universally to anything. 


Except for Vatican II, all subsequent encyclicals, the prohibition of the death penalty as the death penalty is morally repugnant, and Amoris Lataetia.

"All Vatican II" is sheer hyperbole for one thing.  Second Vatican II did not officially bind the Church to anything new.  Paul VI explicitly stated that Vatican II was simply an exercise of the "authentic" Magisterium. 
I know, it's a tired old horse to beat on, but it's what happened. 

The subsequent encyclicals are doctrinally sound in places with personal ambiguous ramblings in them.  Nothing binding anyone in them. 

Same thing with Francis' personal opinion on the death penalty.  Nowhere does it state or can it state that the Catholic faithful are bound under pain of mortal sin to oppose the death penalty.

Just because something is an encyclical doesn't mean it's infallible or binding.  It's literally just an open letter. 

Literally.  The ONLY Post Vatican II thing that has been absolutely bound on the Catholic faithful as an exercise of the infallible Magisterium of the Church was Pope John Paul II's declaration that the Catholic Church does not have the power to ordain women. 

That alone makes a clean "apostasy" sticky.  I belong to the Catholic Church that contains every binding declaration from the Creed to the Assumption of Mary and the infallible decree that women cannot be ordained.  That now becomes a DOCTRINAL difference between the sedevacantists and the R&R trads and Neo Catholics.  One believes the Church has an immemorial custom and doctrinal tradition of only ordaining men and the other holds that the ordination of men only is absolutely dogmatic. 



 

Offline Gerard

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3796
  • Thanked: 1456 times
  • .. and his raiment became white and glittering
Re: Is rejecting this institution really "apostasy"?
« Reply #27 on: October 12, 2019, 11:16:19 PM »
If we had photos and videos of the Borgia Popes we could easily be just as offended. 

I'm not sure this speaks in favour of Rome. The usual argument is that, while morally abhorrent, they at least left doctrine intact. But how is one to be sure of that?

By "leaving doctrine intact" doesn't mean they were doctrinally sound. They may have expressed their personal heretical beliefs or their lack of faith on the regular basis.  They may have speculated on any number of areas of doctrine that were wrong.  John 22nd is one of the Popes who has left us a record of this with his errors. 

All of the Post Vatican II Popes have actually left "doctrine intact" They have disguised all too much their own personal opinions as far weightier in some cases, but they have actually admitted their musings were not on the level of Magisterially binding.  It is the proponents, the Neo Catholics, the lesser types who have put their thumb on the scales and made the false impression that these Popes have actually changed doctrine. They haven't. 
 
Quote
Quote
Hypothetically, imagine there is a faction in the hierarchy that is orthodox and gains a tenuous hold on power eventually. 

Hypothetically, I can imagine that unorthodox factions have gained a hold on power over and over again through the last thousand years and doctrine has been perverted and innovated in the past just as since Vatican II.

If that were true, the enemies of the Church would have ripped Her apart long before Vatican II.   

Again, Doctrine itself has not been changed by Vatican II.   The Church is still orthodox.  What has occurred is a deregulation of the praxis of the Church so you have orthopraxis in many places mixed in with heteropraxis and heterodox teaching and a great deal of outright ignorance. 

 

Offline Gerard

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3796
  • Thanked: 1456 times
  • .. and his raiment became white and glittering
Re: Is rejecting this institution really "apostasy"?
« Reply #28 on: October 12, 2019, 11:32:06 PM »
Or

4. See Gerard's post above.

Yeah, its tiresome with Vetus ordo’s ”three options”

And yet true.

Gerard's post does not address the key issue, though. The recognition that there can be morally flawed prelates and popes, like Julius II or Alexander VI, is uncontroversial. What can't exist, otherwise the whole edifice collapses, is official apostasy from the top. According to the Catholic model, everyone can lose the faith except the rock upon which Christ built His Church.

Popes aren't "Super Souls" or automatically saints when they accept the office.  They have free will, limited intellect and concupiscence.  You are equating "official apostasy" coming from the office of the Papacy, with "unofficial apostasy" of a single Pope. 

If a Pope "officially" apostatizes, if that is possible, (God may thwart him or kill him, in any number of ways.)  he pretty much becomes an Anti-Pope. We haven't had a case like that yet in 2000 years so it's purely speculative. 

But even in that case, "Rome" itself doesn't fall into apostasy.  Pius XII's declaration on the Assumption still binds, the Council of Florence still binds, and yes, JPII's declaration on men only ordinations still binds. 

There is a real doctrinal line that a Pope can't cross.  Now, if Francis wants to make an infallible declaration reversing JPII on women's ordination,  I'll be watching really closely to see if his intention manifests itself in the real world.  If it does, unambiguosly, we know one of two things will be true, the Church is either false or Francis is an Anti-Pope. (There will be a lot of factors to sift into that with another living man who has been recognized as Pope still in the picture)  But until that actually happens, the Church is still doctrinally sound. 


 

Offline TheReturnofLive

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 611
  • Thanked: 185 times
  • Saint Cyprian, pray for me, a sinner!
  • Religion: Eastern Orthodox Inquirer
Re: Is rejecting this institution really "apostasy"?
« Reply #29 on: October 12, 2019, 11:44:19 PM »
Quote
“All Vatican II" is sheer hyperbole for one thing.  Second Vatican II did not officially bind the Church to anything new.  Paul VI explicitly stated that Vatican II was simply an exercise of the "authentic" Magisterium.

Except it’s not.

Magisterium = protected by the Holy Spirit for Catholics. Repeat after me.

Quote
Same thing with Francis' personal opinion on the death penalty.  Nowhere does it state or can it state that the Catholic faithful are bound under pain of mortal sin to oppose the death penalty.

A change to the Catechism is not just “lol my personal opinion.”

And just because something doesn’t anathematize someone doesn’t mean it’s not Church dogma. See Pope John Paul II’s declaration on the ordination of women or the declaration on the Immaculate Conception.

Quote
Just because something is an encyclical doesn't mean it's infallible or binding.  It's literally just an open letter. 

Lol, see Humani Generis.

Quote
Literally.  The ONLY Post Vatican II thing that has been absolutely bound on the Catholic faithful as an exercise of the infallible Magisterium of the Church was Pope John Paul II's declaration that the Catholic Church does not have the power to ordain women. 

Except Vatican II.



As for your “authentic Magisterium,” Vatican II was still protected from error by the Holy Spirit, according to the one true Pope, Benedict
« Last Edit: October 12, 2019, 11:48:39 PM by TheReturnofLive »