Sedevacantism

[Azureknight 773]

I suggest that you look it up upon this link. http://www.angilella.it/missa/missa_en2_la.pdf

 

[Jonathan95]

SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The form of this sacrament (Tertia Pars, Q. 78)

Thanks.

I think a mountain out of a mole hill is being done here. We still pray for the Jews on Good Friday. Yes the wording has changed no doubt, but that wording is NOT dogmatically sealed and unchangeable.

Well, doesn't the new wording contradict the Council of Trent which condemns observance of the law etc? Wouldn't that mean that they didn't believe Jews were still in covenant with God back then?

Didn't they believe Jews had to abandon their observance of the law?

The Church has full liberty to add, subtract, or change any of those intercessions we recite on Good Friday.

What if it contradicts already declared dogma?

The situation today is that there are many Christians who believe IN Jesus Christ, and strive to be disciples of Him, who are not convinced that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ. In fact many honest Christians who love Christ dearly have a negative view of the one True Church, through no fault of their own.

I used to have a negative view of what I (wrongly) thought was the Catholic Church (maybe you've read the quote regarding that by Fulton J. Sheen).

I guess I am missing something.

If you are convinced of the Catholic Faith, then why would you even read anything by those who call the pope an anti-pope. You must understand that there is one Church.

Because their arguments seemed compelling, and I'm still not sure if they're right or wrong.

Books by Scott Hahn are most readable are good for exploring the faith.

I've heard about him, yes. I've been recommended stuff by him.

 

[Rhamiel]

the Church does not hold duel covenant theology

we have said, and have always said

Jesus founded the Church so that all mankind, Jew and Gentile, might come into friendship with God

 

[Erose]

Well, doesn't the new wording contradict the Council of Trent which condemns observance of the law etc? Wouldn't that mean that they didn't believe Jews were still in covenant with God back then?

No. Jews are unique. The NT never recommends the Jewish people to reject the law. But rather Gentiles are not required to follow the law. The Apostles including St. Paul, still followed the Mosaic covenant. The New Covenant for them put the Old Covenant in perspective.

Didn't they believe Jews had to abandon their observance of the law?

No.

What if it contradicts already declared dogma?

It doesn't.

I used to have a negative view of what I (wrongly) thought was the Catholic Church (maybe you've read the quote regarding that by Fulton J. Sheen).

Not all are as you. Like I said we don't have the ability to make judgements on other's relationship with Christ. Only person we can judge is our own relationship.

 

[Jonathan95]

No. Jews are unique. The NT never recommends the Jewish people to reject the law. But rather Gentiles are not required to follow the law. The Apostles including St. Paul, still followed the Mosaic covenant. The New Covenant for them put the Old Covenant in perspective.

What about this?:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments… after our Lord’s coming… ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began… All, therefore, who after that time (the promulgation of the Gospel) observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, the holy Roman Church declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation.”

Pope Benedict XIV, Ex Quo Primum (# 61), March 1, 1756: “The first consideration is that the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law were abrogated by the coming of Christ and that they can no longer be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel.”

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (#’s 29-30), June 29, 1943: “And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished… on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees [Eph. 2:15]… establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. ‘To such an extent, then,’ says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, ‘was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.’ On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death…”

 

[Ave Maria]

I would stay away from Sedevacantist sites if I were you. They are schismatic and are preaching false doctrine. They teach that Vatican II is invalid and they are wrong. I don't understand why they think this. Do they not trust the wisdom of the Pope and the leaders of the Catholic Church when Vatican II was held? I guess they trust their own wisdom more than theirs. It sounds to me like they are prideful. They are following in the same steps that other heretics and schismatics have throughout history. Never leave the Catholic Church's fold. I guarantee you that the Pope and Magisterium know what they are doing. We have the guarantee of the protection of the Holy Spirit.

 

[ebia]

What about this?: Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments… after our Lord’s coming… ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began… All, therefore, who after that time (the promulgation of the Gospel) observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, the holy Roman Church declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation.” Pope Benedict XIV, Ex Quo Primum (# 61), March 1, 1756: “The first consideration is that the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law were abrogated by the coming of Christ and that they can no longer be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel.” Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (#’s 29-30), June 29, 1943: “And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished… on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees [Eph. 2:15]… establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. ‘To such an extent, then,’ says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, ‘was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.’ On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death…”

What's the context of those quotes? Who are they addressed to and what question are they answering?

 

[Rhamiel]

What about this?:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments… after our Lord’s coming… ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began… All, therefore, who after that time (the promulgation of the Gospel) observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, the holy Roman Church declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation.”

Pope Benedict XIV, Ex Quo Primum (# 61), March 1, 1756: “The first consideration is that the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law were abrogated by the coming of Christ and that they can no longer be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel.”

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (#’s 29-30), June 29, 1943: “And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished… on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees [Eph. 2:15]… establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. ‘To such an extent, then,’ says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, ‘was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.’ On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death…”

I agree with all of this, what is your point?

The Church is Israel, the people of God

a remnant of the Jews and a remnant of the Gentiles have been saved by being Baptized into the Body of Jesus

 

[packermann]

Jonathan
My prayers are with you. I would recommend "More Catholic Than The Pope" by Patrick Madrid.

I also would recommend that you study the heresy Donatism. This heresy said that if a bishop fell into sin then the sacraments were invalid. The Church declared that the gifts of God are without repentance. Even if a bishop falls into mortal sin, the sacraments done by him are valid. Ex oper operato. This makes a lot of sense. How would we laymen know if a priest is in mortal sin? If this make his absolution in confession invalid, how could we ever know our sins were absolved?

The Sedevacantists argue that Pope John XXIII was a freemason, which is a sin. Therefore, he was an invalid pope. But even if the pope was a freemason, that would not disqualify his popishness. The gifts of God are without repentance.

There has been some popes who were downright scoundrels in the middle ages. Some had mistresses. One had a nephew who murdered someone and he covered it up. Some popes will probably go to hell. But Christ promised that on Peter He will build his church. If Sedevacantists were right then Jesus broke His promise.

As far as the Norvis Ordo Mass and the new rite of ordination, Christ said to Peter that whatever Peter binds on earth will be bound in heaven. The first Mass was not in the Latin Mass. The first Mass was in the upper room in Jersalem. Jesus and his apostles spoke Hebrew - it was a Hebrew Mass. And when it spread to other parts, it was no doubt in Greek (Greek was their universal language). Then later the successor of Peter delared the Latin Mass to be trhe universal Mass for all Catholic. He was in his rights to do this because Christ declared what he bound on earth will be bound in heaven. And then with Pope Paul VI we have the Norvus Ordo Mass. Again, it is his right to change the Mass, because Christ said what he bound on earth will be bound in heaven.

Christ said that the kingdom of God is a mustard seed, the smallest seed, but grows into the largest tree. The Church is constantly growing, having a fuller understanding of the deposit once delivered to the saints. There is a growth in Catholic doctrine. The Church had a better understanding of the Trinity now then it did in the second century. That is because the Church was still a kernel back then. But the Holy Spirit is leading it into fuller truth as time goes by. But how we know the Devil is not leading us into heresy? By the pope along with his bishops. Jesus promised them that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all the truth.

These Sedevacantists are falling into the same mistake that Protestants do. They are exalting their own private opinion over the authority of the pope, who was instituted by Christ. It is their own opinion that the popes since Pope John XXIII were invalid popes. Their reason is their own private reason. Their preference of the Latin Mass is based on their own private opinion. Their dismissal of the new ordination rite is based on their own opinion. If the Protestants are wrong for holding their private interpretation over the pope's interpretation of the Bible, then the Sedevacantists are wrong for holding their private interpretation over the pope's interpretation of tradition - of what can be changed and what cannot be changed. The Protestants believe that only what is in the Bible can be believed. The Sedevacantists believe only in the way it was before Vatican II should be practised.

 

[Jonathan95]

The Sedevacantists argue that Pope John XXIII was a freemason, which is a sin. Therefore, he was an invalid pope. But even if the pope was a freemason, that would not disqualify his popishness. The gifts of God are without repentance.

If a pope would become a freemason, wouldn't this be heresy? Aren't heretics automatically ex-communicated?

There has been some popes who were downright scoundrels in the middle ages. Some had mistresses. One had a nephew who murdered someone and he covered it up. Some popes will probably go to hell. But Christ promised that on Peter He will build his church. If Sedevacantists were right then Jesus broke His promise.

Well, they reason that if someone who teaches heresy as a pope is a true pope, then the gates of hell would have prevailed, or similar.

They refer to statements talking about how heretics are automatically ex-communicated or similar.

Also, do you believe that there have been "anti-popes"?

He was in his rights to do this because Christ declared what he bound on earth will be bound in heaven. And then with Pope Paul VI we have the Norvus Ordo Mass. Again, it is his right to change the Mass, because Christ said what he bound on earth will be bound in heaven.

But if a pope declared the Latin mass to be the official mass, then how can another pope change this, since I thought declared dogma cannot contradict earlier dogma?

 

[Jonathan95]

the Church does not hold duel covenant theology

we have said, and have always said

Jesus founded the Church so that all mankind, Jew and Gentile, might come into friendship with God

If the Church doesn't hold dual covenant theology, then what does the part of the Good Friday prayer where one prays that Jews will grow, "in faithfulness to his covenant."?

Are the Jews part of the New Covenant?

How can the Jews still be allowed to keep the Mosaic law, when the Council of Florence declares that the Mosaic law came to an end?

 

[Rhamiel]

If the Church doesn't hold dual covenant theology, then what does the part of the Good Friday prayer where one prays that Jews will grow, "in faithfulness to his covenant."?

Are the Jews part of the New Covenant?

How can the Jews still be allowed to keep the Mosaic law, when the Council of Florence declares that the Mosaic law came to an end?

the prayer is still a prayer for the enlightenment of the Jews

Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant. (Prayer in silence. Then the priest says Almighty and eternal God, long ago you gave your promise to Abraham and his posterity. Listen to your Church as we pray that the people you first made your own may arrive at the fullness of redemption. We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen

I do agree with you that the wording is a bit unclear and imprecise... just like so many theological things have become after Vatican II...

here is the revised prayer used in the Latin Mass

Let us also pray for the Jews: That our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men. (Let us pray. Kneel. Rise.) Almighty and eternal God, who want that all men be saved and come to the recognition of the truth, propitiously grant that even as the fullness of the peoples enters Thy Church, all Israel be saved. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.

I think this prayer is a little more clear, while still being respectful to the Jews

is there a church near you that is communion with the Pope but has a traditional Latin Mass?

maybe that might be more to your liking?

 

[ebia]

while still being respectful to the Jews

And that's hitting the nail on the head - since the holocaust it's become imperative that anything said about Jewish Christian relationship be very sensitively worded. Saying everything that might be said, especially in a public prayer, must take second place to that.

 

[Rhamiel]

And that's hitting the nail on the head - since the holocaust it's become imperative that anything said about Jewish Christian relationship be very sensitively worded. Saying everything that might be said, especially in a public prayer, must take second place to that.

well I think that is a bit silly
nothing should take second place to our fidelity to God

1John 2:22-23
[22] Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son. [23] Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son, hath the Father also.

 

[packermann]

If a pope would become a freemason, wouldn't this be heresy? Aren't heretics automatically ex-communicated?

I don't think so.

To give you an example: the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has as its official platform that it endorses a woman the right to choose to abort her unborn child, which is against the teaching of the teaching of the Catholic Church. So the Democratic Party is in hersy. But does that mean that anyone who is a member of Democratic Party is automatically excommunicated by the Catholic Church. Of course not! A Democrat can be pro-life and be trying to change the Democratic party from within. But if he proclaims that a woman has the right to have an abortion, then he would be excommunicated.

So it is not enough that Pope John XXIII joined the freemasons. It must be showned that the Pope actually taught heresy.

But here is gets very dicey. If you can show me that the pope taught heresy, then I think we might as well be Protestants. The gates of death and hell did prevail against the Church. On second thought, I could not even be a Protestant. I could not see why I would still be a Christian. Christ would then be wrong! He promised that the gates of death and hell would not prevail, and that is exactly what happened!

Well, the reason that if someone who teaches heresy as a pope is a true pope, then the gates of hell would have prevailed, or similar.

He did not say that the gates of death and hell would not prevail against the pope, but against His Church founded upon Peter. Now, if the Church founded upon Peter is no longer the true Church, then that would mean to me that the gates of death and hell HAS prevailed against it.

They refer to statements talking about how heretics are automatically ex-communicated or similar.

Theoretically, yes. But unless the Church officially declares someone a heretic and ex-communicate him, I have no right to separate myself from him.

15 If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. 16 But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Mattew 18: 15-17

This passage has traditionally used against heresy. If someone preaches something that offends you, go to him privately. If he still does not listen, bring another. Then bring him before the church. Only then, if the church declares him wrong, can treat him as a tax collector.

This passage only makes sense if it is impossible for the pope himself to teach heresy. What then can you do. You cannot bring pope up before the Church, which is embodied in the pope! I doubt the pope would declare himself a heretic!

But this is the problem with the Sedevacantist. They do not have the authority to label anyone, let alone the pope, to be a heretic and excommunicate him from themselves. That can only be done by the Church. Now someone may be a heretic, but I have no right to declare that person as a heretic unless the Church has proclaimed him a heretic. Until the Church condemns I have no right to treat him as a vile tax collector. Instead, I am commanded to maintain the the bond of love with my brother in Christ.

Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.…
Ephesian4:1-3

I must be diligent to preserve the unity with every Catholic, which includes the pope, unless officially excommunicates. He may have done something that automatical excommunicates him. Actually, any mortal automatically excommunicates him. But Jesus said judge not, lest you be judge. I cannot judge who is automatically excomunicated unless the Church automatically excommunicates him.

The Sedevacantist is usurping the authority of the pope in order to excommunate a pope. How is that any different than what the Protestant Reformers did? They declared the pope to be invalid because he did not agree with their view of the gospel. Both Sedevacantist and the Protestant refuse to submit to the Church that was founded by Christ upon Peter.

18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
Matthew 16:18-20

Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter. The word "Peter" means "Rock". So Jesus is says "You are Rock, and upon this Rock I build my Church". Unless the Church is built on the rock of Peter, it is not the true church. The Sedevacantist church is not a true church. It is just another Protestant church, but it deceptive because its practices are Catholic. Jesus said to Peter that whatever he binds on earth will be bound in heaven.

Also, do you believe that there have been "anti-popes"?

Sure. But the anti-popes were selected by sects that broke off from the Catholic Church. The Arian Church had its own pope, which from the Catholic perspective was an anti-pope.

Any successor of Peter cannot possibly be an anti-pope. Sedevacantists selected their own pope. But that pope is an anti-pope. Their pope lacks the succession to go all the way to Peter. He is only their pope because he agrees with them.

[dogma]
But if a pope declared the Latin mass to be the official mass, then how can another pope change this, since I thought declared dogma cannot contradict earlier dogma?
[/quote]

That is not matter of dogma, but of church discipline. The pope is only infallible in matters of dogma and morality. Dogma can never changed. You cannot have God being three persons on one day and have God being four persons in the future. You cannot have Mary being immaculately conceived one day and change it to Mary being a sinner in the future. Truth is unchanging.

Morality is tied to the character of God, so it also is unchanging. Abortion will always be immoral. Murder is always wrong, etc.


But church discpline can change. What are considered the holy days of obligation can change. For instance, the Church can saying that the Feast of the Assumption is no longer a holy day of obligation. Whether priest can be married can change. Peter had a mother-in-law, so he was probably married. I remeber reading that the first 1,000 years of the church priest could be married. But then the Church changed that. For the first three centuries, confess had to done publicly during Mass. But the Church in its wisdom realized that it prudent to change it to confessing your sins privately to a priest. It is used to be that you had to fast for three hous before communion. Now you only have to fast for an hour. And it used to be that you could meat on Fridays for the whole year round. Now it is only on Lent. So the Church has always changes the rules on matters of church discipline.


Think of when you were growing up. As you grew older, the parents changed the rules. When you were 5, may be the rule was he had to be in bed by 8:00. At 10 years old, maybe the rule was to be in bed by 10:30. Once you were of college age, they probably left it to you.

The Church established the Latin Mass to be used everywhere throughout the Roman Empire in the middle ages. That made sense, since Latin was the universal language. But things changed just as your bedtime rules changed as you grew older. Latin is no longer a universal language. What is more, starting at the 16th century, the Church started to be very agressive in its missionariy work to the Americas. There were many different languages that Catholics spoke. So eventually the Church decides it would be good to use whatever language the people spoke. I do not see anything wrong with that. The Holy Spirit leads in different situations at different times. If this were not true, then we all would be having Mass in Hebrew, because the first Mass was done in Hebrew. Then it was done in Greek. And then in Latin.

I can imagine the first time the people heard the Mass in Latin. I am sure that some hated it. They wanted to go back to the old Greek Mass. They may have even left the Church and started their own church, one that still gave Masses in Greek.

 

[ebia]

well I think that is a bit silly nothing should take second place to our fidelity to God 1John 2:22-23 [22] Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son. [23] Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son, hath the Father also.

Being careful about what you say and don't say - that's not lack of fidelity, it's recognising that saying something that is factual, but saying it at the wrong time, can be a bad action.

 

[Jonathan95]

here is the revised prayer used in the Latin Mass

Thank you.

I think this prayer is a little more clear, while still being respectful to the Jews

I agree.

is there a church near you that is communion with the Pope but has a traditional Latin Mass?

maybe that might be more to your liking?

The only Catholic church there is in my town/"small city" is a Maronite church. However, I read on a Catholic forum that the mass in Maronite churches is more like Novus Ordo now. However, I don't believe that is the case for every single Maronite church. Also, I live in Sweden, not USA.

However, I'm open to visiting a Novus Ordo mass too. For example, I read that SSPX find many problems with it, but they still consider it doubtfully valid.

But here is gets very dicey. If you can show me that the pope taught heresy, then I think we might as well be Protestants. The gates of death and hell did prevail against the Church. On second thought, I could not even be a Protestant. I could not see why I would still be a Christian. Christ would then be wrong! He promised that the gates of death and hell would not prevail, and that is exactly what happened!

Well, that's how sedevacantists argue, since they believe that the gates of hell would not prevail, then if the VC 2 popes were true popes, then the gates of hell would have prevailed since they (according to them) taught heresy.

I agree that the gates of hell wouldn't prevail.

He did not say that the gates of death and hell would not prevail against the pope, but against His Church founded upon Peter. Now, if the Church founded upon Peter is no longer the true Church, then that would mean to me that the gates of death and hell HAS prevailed against it.

Did the faithful Catholic remnant have a Pope during the Arian crisis?

St. Athanasius: “Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition were reduced to a handful, they would be the true Church.”

I believe the Church founded upon Peter is the true Church.

Theoretically, yes. But unless the Church officially declares someone a heretic and ex-communicate him, I have no right to separate myself from him.

But I read this:

Canon 2314, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “All apostates from the Christian faith and each
and every heretic or schismatic: 1) Incur ipso facto [by that very fact]
excommunication…”

The excommunicated person is already severed from the Church. Most heretics are known to be
heretics without a trial or declaratory sentence, and must be denounced as such.

But this is the problem with the Sedevacantist. They do not have the authority to label anyone, let alone the pope, to be a heretic and excommunicate him from themselves. That can only be done by the Church. Now someone may be a heretic, but I have no right to declare that person as a heretic unless the Church has proclaimed him a heretic. Until the Church condemns I have no right to treat him as a vile tax collector. Instead, I am commanded to maintain the the bond of love with my brother in Christ.

Wasn't Martin Luther a heretic even before he was formally condemned as a heretic by the pope?

Actually, any mortal automatically excommunicates him. But Jesus said judge not, lest you be judge. I cannot judge who is automatically excomunicated unless the Church automatically excommunicates him.

You mean any mortal sin?

Any successor of Peter cannot possibly be an anti-pope. Sedevacantists selected their own pope. But that pope is an anti-pope. Their pope lacks the succession to go all the way to Peter. He is only their pope because he agrees with them.

Do they even have an alleged pope?

Whether priest can be married can change. Peter had a mother-in-law, so he was probably married. I remeber reading that the first 1,000 years of the church priest could be married. But then the Church changed that.

But I think in the Maronite rite, or in another rite, a married man can be ordained as a Priest. That's officially approved right? I think the Byzantine rite has it like that too, or similar.

What is more, starting at the 16th century, the Church started to be very agressive in its missionariy work to the America

What do you mean they started to be very aggressive? In which way?

I do not see anything wrong with that.

Me neither. I don't believe the Mass is required to be in Latin.

 

[Rhamiel]

the Maronite Church is an Eastern Church that has stayed in communion with Rome since the beginning

because of this long history, some of their practices are a bit more "Western" then the other Eastern Catholic Churches (most of which have only been in communion with Rome for 300 years or so)

 

[Erose]

What about this?:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments… after our Lord’s coming… ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began… All, therefore, who after that time (the promulgation of the Gospel) observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, the holy Roman Church declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation.”

Pope Benedict XIV, Ex Quo Primum (# 61), March 1, 1756: “The first consideration is that the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law were abrogated by the coming of Christ and that they can no longer be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel.”

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (#’s 29-30), June 29, 1943: “And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished… on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees [Eph. 2:15]… establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. ‘To such an extent, then,’ says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, ‘was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.’ On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death…”

Jonathan,

Very good question. I think to understand fully the point that I was trying to make, there needs to be a differentiation understood between dogmatic and moral theology. The comments by the popes above are dogmatic statements. In other words they are black and white statements. And they are all true statements, outlining contrary acts to the gospel, and in a black and white world, one can say that that following the Mosaic Law, I.e. Being a Jew, puts you in the wrong and thus condemnable.

Moral theology though deals in shades of gray, and due to the complexity of a human psyche, when dealing with individuals you have to think in shades of gray. For example, for someone to be culpable of sin (I think we already discuss this but it warrants repeating), there are two components needed. 1) knowledge that it is a sinful act; and 2) Free will. For it to be a mortal sin a third requirement of greviousness is needed as well. Thus in the case of Jews they do not have the knowledge to know that Jesus Christ is the savior. Because of this their culpability is minimized, or even eliminated.

I would recommend you to spend some time studying concepts of moral theology, and this may start making some sense to you. Not an easy topic to discuss in such a short format. A good book you can get cheap or even for free if you have iBooks or Kindle is Explanation of Catholic Morals.

 

[Erose]

The only Catholic church there is in my town/"small city" is a Maronite church. However, I read on a Catholic forum that the mass in Maronite churches is more like Novus Ordo now. However, I don't believe that is the case for every single Maronite church. Also, I live in Sweden, not USA.

Go! Jonathan do yourself a favor, stop just reading and experience.

However, I'm open to visiting a Novus Ordo mass too. For example, I read that SSPX find many problems with it, but they still consider it doubtfully valid.

There is nothing wrong with the Novus Ordo. The New Mass is getting back to the roots of the Liturgy. Are there some Catholics including priests that don't celebrate it correctly? Yes! But that has always been the case, including with the Tridentine Mass. Again, go and experience it. Give yourself to God in that liturgy. Worship Him! Experience Him.

Well, that's how sedevacantists argue, since they believe that the gates of hell would not prevail, then if the VC 2 popes were true popes, then the gates of hell would have prevailed since they (according to them) taught heresy.

Sedevacantist are...sad. Why separate yourself from the fullness of the Church. No pope has ever taught heresy. Ever. Even the bad popes were never able to teach what was counter to the faith. Seriously what evidence do they have that Pope John XXIII was a mason?

I agree that the gates of hell wouldn't prevail.

Amen!

Did the faithful Catholic remnant have a Pope during the Arian crisis?

Yes. Rome held to orthodoxy throughout every heresy.

St. Athanasius: “Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition were reduced to a handful, they would be the true Church.”

Amen!

I believe the Church founded upon Peter is the true Church.

Amen! Welcome to the Catholic Church!

Wasn't Martin Luther a heretic even before he was formally condemned as a heretic by the pope?

Yes.

You mean any mortal sin?

Yes! All mortal sin separates you from God. Knowingly teaching heresy is a mortal sin, so heresy separates you from God.

Do they even have an alleged pope?

I don't think so.

But I think in the Maronite rite, or in another rite, a married man can be ordained as a Priest. That's officially approved right? I think the Byzantine rite has it like that too, or similar.

Yes. Priestly celibacy is a "practice" not a doctrine. The pope tomorrow can change the Roman practice and married men could become priests. But don't think it is going to happen in the Roman Patriarchate because of the long tradition it has.

Me neither. I don't believe the Mass is required to be in Latin.

Amen!