GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs


Author Topic: Questions for AnnaM  (Read 972 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5519
  • Manna: 93
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Questions for AnnaM
« on: Sat Sep 21, 2013 - 14:02:09 »
Anna,

I'm interested in why you think that the Catholic Church now only consists of your small sect.

Perhaps you could start with answering these questions and we can take it from there.

When do you think the Chair of Peter became empty?

Why do you think it became empty?

Was Vatican II a validly constituted Council? If not why not?

Thanks



Christian Forums and Message Board

Questions for AnnaM
« on: Sat Sep 21, 2013 - 14:02:09 »

Offline AnnaM

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 200
  • Manna: 3
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Questions for AnnaM
« Reply #1 on: Sun Sep 22, 2013 - 11:31:48 »
Winsome,

Sedevacantism is not a sect. It's a position held by traditional Catholics.

Sedevacante; sedevacantist position - Sede is Latin for "chair" and Vacante is Latin for "empty." A sedevacante period is a period when there is no pope: the Chair of St. Peter is empty. This usually occurs after the death of a pope or after a pope's resignation; this has occurred over 200 times in Church history, and has lasted for years at time. The doctors of the Church also teach that the Chair of Peter would become vacant if the pope were to become a manifest heretic. The sedevacantist position describes the position of traditional Catholics who hold that the Chair of St. Peter is presently vacant because the man in Rome can be proven to be a public heretic, and therefore not a true pope.

Vatican II - A council which took place from 1962-1965. Vatican II purported to be a general council of the Catholic Church, but actually was a revolutionary "robber council" which taught doctrines condemned by the Catholic Church. Vatican II brought in a new religion, and was responsible for the incredibly rotten fruits and revolutionary changes that ensued in its aftermath.

Vatican II sect - this phrase describes the counterfeit Church that has arisen since Vatican II, which was prophesied in Catholic prophecy and Sacred Scripture. This counterfeit sect is rife with heresy, apostasy and the most outrageous scandals, as this book [The Truth About What Really Happened the the Catholic Church After Vatican II] proves in tremendous detail. This book proves that the Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church, but the Devil's counterfeit to lead people astray during the Great Apostasy. vaticancatholic.com

When do you think the Chair of Peter became empty?
Why do you think it became empty?


The present vacancy began with John XXIII. It's a proven fact. Here's why:  http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/13_JohnXXIII.pdf

Was Vatican II a validly constituted Council? If not why not?


No, it was not a valid council as briefly explained above. Here's why: http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/8_VaticanII.pdf



Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Questions for AnnaM
« Reply #1 on: Sun Sep 22, 2013 - 11:31:48 »

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5519
  • Manna: 93
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Questions for AnnaM
« Reply #2 on: Sun Sep 22, 2013 - 12:02:46 »
Winsome,

Sedevacantism is not a sect. It's a position held by traditional Catholics.

Sedevacante; sedevacantist position - Sede is Latin for "chair" and Vacante is Latin for "empty." A sedevacante period is a period when there is no pope: the Chair of St. Peter is empty. This usually occurs after the death of a pope or after a pope's resignation; this has occurred over 200 times in Church history, and has lasted for years at time. The doctors of the Church also teach that the Chair of Peter would become vacant if the pope were to become a manifest heretic. The sedevacantist position describes the position of traditional Catholics who hold that the Chair of St. Peter is presently vacant because the man in Rome can be proven to be a public heretic, and therefore not a true pope.

Vatican II - A council which took place from 1962-1965. Vatican II purported to be a general council of the Catholic Church, but actually was a revolutionary "robber council" which taught doctrines condemned by the Catholic Church. Vatican II brought in a new religion, and was responsible for the incredibly rotten fruits and revolutionary changes that ensued in its aftermath.

Vatican II sect - this phrase describes the counterfeit Church that has arisen since Vatican II, which was prophesied in Catholic prophecy and Sacred Scripture. This counterfeit sect is rife with heresy, apostasy and the most outrageous scandals, as this book [The Truth About What Really Happened the the Catholic Church After Vatican II] proves in tremendous detail. This book proves that the Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church, but the Devil's counterfeit to lead people astray during the Great Apostasy. vaticancatholic.com

When do you think the Chair of Peter became empty?
Why do you think it became empty?


The present vacancy began with John XXIII. It's a proven fact. Here's why:  http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/13_JohnXXIII.pdf

Was Vatican II a validly constituted Council? If not why not?


No, it was not a valid council as briefly explained above. Here's why: http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/8_VaticanII.pdf





I'm not interested in what the Dimond brothers think about the matter.

This is a discussion forum and I'm asking you.

1. On your own terms you are in error. If the vacancy begins when a Pope dies then, assuming you think that John XXIII was not a valid Pope, it did not begin with John XXIII but with the death of Pius XII. Or possibly you mean it began with the death of John XXIII. Please clarify.


2. "The doctors of the Church also teach that the Chair of Peter would become vacant if the pope were to become a manifest heretic"
Are Doctors of the Church the magisterium?
Are Doctors of the Church infallible?

Moreover you provided no evidence that any Doctors of the Chhurch taught such a thing.


3. You have not answered my question as to why Vatican II was not a validly constituted council
« Last Edit: Sun Sep 22, 2013 - 12:08:54 by winsome »

Offline AnnaM

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 200
  • Manna: 3
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Questions for AnnaM
« Reply #3 on: Sun Sep 22, 2013 - 14:34:16 »
Winsome,

I must say you're very arrogant in your response.  If that's the level of debate you're expecting us to have then I'm not interested.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Questions for AnnaM
« Reply #3 on: Sun Sep 22, 2013 - 14:34:16 »

Offline BlackSepulcher

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 600
  • Manna: 5
  • Lantern in the Dark
    • View Profile
Re: Questions for AnnaM
« Reply #4 on: Sun Sep 22, 2013 - 14:37:28 »
Quote
The sedevacantist position describes the position of traditional Catholics who hold that the Chair of St. Peter is presently vacant because the man in Rome can be proven to be a public heretic, and therefore not a true pope.

This is counter intuitive to the very dogmas of Peter's Seat.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Questions for AnnaM
« Reply #4 on: Sun Sep 22, 2013 - 14:37:28 »



Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5519
  • Manna: 93
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Questions for AnnaM
« Reply #5 on: Mon Sep 23, 2013 - 04:30:34 »
Winsome,

I must say you're very arrogant in your response.  If that's the level of debate you're expecting us to have then I'm not interested.

 I do not consider it arrogant. I asked you some simple questions which failed to answer. Your answer contained many derogatory opinions backed up by no evidence whatsoever. If you think links to other people’s opinions as evidence I do not.
 
If you come to a discussion forum like this I expect you to be to defend your position in your own words and provide evidence to back up your opinions. Is that expectation arrogant?
 
Or rather is it arrogant to dismiss me by pointing me to other people’s opinions as though I am not worth a serious answer?
 
You claim "the Chair of St. Peter is presently vacant because the man in Rome can be proven to be a public heretic" but you appear to be unable to provide such evidence.
 
You appear to be claiming that John XXIII was a heretic but are unable to provide evidence for that claim.
 
I wonder if you actually know what a heretic is. Is it just a word you throw at people with whom you disagree?
 
You have made what could be the most serious decision of your life - to leave the Catholic Church - yet you seem unable to explain the basis for that decision.
 

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5519
  • Manna: 93
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Questions for AnnaM
« Reply #6 on: Tue Sep 24, 2013 - 04:34:44 »
Since AnnaM declines to continue this discussion here are a few final points regarding Sedevacantism – or at the Dimond brothers sect version of it.

1.
Sedevacante; sedevacantist position - Sede is Latin for "chair" and Vacante is Latin for "empty." A sedevacante period is a period when there is no pope: the Chair of St. Peter is empty. This usually occurs after the death of a pope or after a pope's resignation; this has occurred over 200 times in Church history, and has lasted for years at time.  (AnnaM)

Whilst it is true that there were a few gaps of several years between Popes, the longest being four years (304-308) during the persecution of Diocletian. In more normal times the longest is 2 yrs 9 months between  Clement IV and Gregory X  (1268-1271), due to deadlock between the voting Cardinals. However neither compares with the 55 years since the death of Pius XII in 1958

Catholics believe Jesus founded a hierarchically structured and visible Church. Leaving aside the persecution period of Diocletian, that visibility and structure remained in the sedevacante periods because the administration of the Holy See continued under the Cardinal Camerlengo until a new Pope was elected. Manifestly if there has been no Pope since 1958 there remains no structured and visible Church, nor can a new Pope be elected because there would be no visible source of authority to call a conclave, nor validly appointed cardinals to form one. In which case the Church has become defectable and overcome by Satan, thus contradicting Jesus’ promises that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it and that He would be with his Church to the end of time.

Sedevacantists have no valid and visible structure. The Holy Family Monastery (whom AnnaM links to for her views) consists of two “brothers” who are not even priests.

2.
The sedevacantist position describes the position of traditional Catholics who hold that the Chair of St. Peter is presently vacant because the man in Rome can be proven to be a public heretic, and therefore not a true pope.
(AnnaM).

Two questions arise here:
Firstly, what is a heresy, and therefore a heretic?
Secondly, who is in a position to declare someone a heretic?

Heresy
…..In the Roman Catholic Church, heresy has a very specific meaning. Anyone who, after receiving baptism, while remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is considered a heretic. Accordingly four elements must be verified to constitute formal heresy; previous valid baptism, which need not have been in the Catholic Church; external profession of still being a Christian, otherwise a person becomes an apostate; outright denial or positive doubt regarding a truth that the Catholic Church has actually proposed as revealed by God; and the disbelief must be morally culpable, where a nominal Christian refuses to accept what he knows is a doctrinal imperative….
(catholicreference.net)

Who is in a position to declare that someone is a heretic and therefore excommunicated form the Church? I would suggest that only someone who is in a formally appointed position to do so.  Thus for a lay person this would be his/her bishop. For a bishop this would be the Pope or a commission to whom he entrusts the matter, for example the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).

The only possible body for declaring a Pope a heretic would be a Council of the Church, as happened in the case of Pope Honorius I.
[A] General Council could announce to the Church that the Pope, as a notorious heretic, had ceased to be a Catholic and hence had ceased to be Pope. It is important to note that the Council would neither be judging nor deposing the Pope, since it would not possess the authority for such an act. It would simply be making a declaratory sentence, i.e. declaring to the Church what had already become manifest from the Pope’s own actions. This is the view taken in the classic manual on Canon Law by Father F.X. Wernz, Rector of the Gregorian University and Jesuit General from 1906 to 1914. This work was revised by Father P. Vidal and was last republished in 1952. It states clearly that an heretical Pope is not deposed in virtue of the sentence of the Council, but "the General Council declares the fact of the crime by which the heretical pope has separated himself from the Church and deprived himself of his dignity."

(http://olrl.org/misc/sedevacant_md.shtml)

Have any of the Popes from Pope John XXIII to Pope Francis been pronounced a heretic by a General Council? NO!

3.
The doctors of the Church also teach that the Chair of Peter would become vacant if the pope were to become a manifest heretic. (AnnaM).

Doctors of the Church have only taught this as hypothetical possibilities but they believe that it would not actually be possible for a Pope to be a manifest heretic in practice.

St. Robert Bellarmine taught: "The manifestly heretical pope ceases per se to be pope and head as he ceases per se to be a Christian and member of the Church, and therefore he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the early Fathers."(3) Saint Robert was, of course, discussing a theoretical possibility, and believed that a pope could not become an heretic and thus could not be deposed, but he also acknowledged that the more common opinion was that the pope could become an heretic, and he was thus willing to discuss what would need to be done if, per impossible, this should happen: "This opinion (that the Pope could not become an heretic) is probable and easily defended . . . Nonetheless, in view of the fact that this is not certain, and that the common opinion is the opposite one, it is useful to examine the solution to this question, within the hypothesis that the Pope can be an heretic."
(http://olrl.org/misc/sedevacant_md.shtml)

The great Jesuit theologian, Francisco de Suarez (1548-1617) was also sure that God’s "sweet providence" would never allow the one who could not teach error to fall into error, and that this was guaranteed by the promise Ego autem rogavi pro te . . . (Luke 22: 32). But, like Bellarmine, Suarez was willing to consider the possibility of an heretical pope as an hypothesis, particularly in view of the fact, he claimed, that several "general councils had admitted the hypothesis in question".(5) Saint Alphonsus Liguori (1696-1787) did not believe that God would ever permit a Roman Pontiff to become a public or an occult heretic, even as a private person: "We ought rightly to presume as Cardinal Bellarmine declares, that God will never let it happen that a Roman Pontiff, even as a private person, becomes a public heretic or an occult heretic."
(http://olrl.org/misc/sedevacant_md.shtml)

Are any of the Popes from Pope John XXIII to Pope Francis manifest heretics?
Only in the mind of sedevacantists and what right do they have to make such a judgement? Non whatsoever!

Why are these heresies only manifest to them and not to the 1.1 billion Catholics throughout the world?

More pertinently why are these heresies not manifest to the Bishops and theologians of the Catholic Church? Have any bishops or theologians raised the issue of Papal heresy in the last 55 years?

4.
Vatican II sect - this phrase describes the counterfeit Church that has arisen since Vatican II, which was prophesied in Catholic prophecy and Sacred Scripture. This counterfeit sect is rife with heresy, apostasy and the most outrageous scandals, …... the Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church, but the Devil's counterfeit to lead people astray during the Great Apostasy.  (AnnaM)

AnnaM would have us believe that over 2,000 bishops from around the world, plus their theological advisors (periti), entered into a giant conspiracy to pervert the Catholic Church by changing infallibly declared dogma. Or at the very least a groups of bishops, led by Pope John XXIII and later by Paul VI, duped over 2,000 assembled bishops and their periti in to doing just that. Moreover 1.1 billion Catholics (including priests and theologians) went along with it apart from a tiny group of dissidents who could see the errors that no-one else could.
« Last Edit: Tue Sep 24, 2013 - 04:37:07 by winsome »

Offline AnnaM

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 200
  • Manna: 3
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Questions for AnnaM
« Reply #7 on: Tue Sep 24, 2013 - 17:16:19 »
If you come to a discussion forum like this I expect you to be to defend your position in your own words...

I reserve every right to post links or quotes I agree with and which are relevant to the discussion. An honest person is more interested in the truth of what is being said rather than the one saying it.

Since AnnaM declines to continue this discussion here are a few final points regarding Sedevacantism...

Then you proceed to post links and quotes combined with your erroneous opinions. Winsome, it seems you don't hold yourself to the same standards you wish to hold me to. You weren't interested in my source (which, by the way, provides irrefutable facts) and you refused even to consider what's been presented. You aren't being fair and that's why I decline continuing the discussion.

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5519
  • Manna: 93
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Questions for AnnaM
« Reply #8 on: Wed Sep 25, 2013 - 05:01:55 »
If you come to a discussion forum like this I expect you to be to defend your position in your own words...

I reserve every right to post links or quotes I agree with and which are relevant to the discussion. An honest person is more interested in the truth of what is being said rather than the one saying it.

No problem with posting quotes as evidence for your opinions - see below. But to merely say:"The present vacancy began with John XXIII. It's a proven fact" and then point me to a 14 page tract on the matter is not a reasonable way for a dialogue to proceed.

Similarly with your statement "No, it was not a valid council as briefly explained above." and then a link to a 41 page tract.

Since AnnaM declines to continue this discussion here are a few final points regarding Sedevacantism...

Then you proceed to post links and quotes combined with your erroneous opinions. Winsome, it seems you don't hold yourself to the same standards you wish to hold me to. You weren't interested in my source (which, by the way, provides irrefutable facts) and you refused even to consider what's been presented. You aren't being fair and that's why I decline continuing the discussion.

Anna,

I post quotes as evidence for my claims. If I make a statement such as I did above - "Doctors of the Church have only taught this as hypothetical possibilities but they believe that it would not actually be possible for a Pope to be a manifest heretic in practice - I assume you would expect me to back that up in some way, otherwise I am merely giving you an unsubstantiated opinion.

Similarly if I give a definition of Heresy I assume you would prefer it to be from some authoritative Catholic source not just my personal opinion.

I give references for the quotes so that you can, if you wish to, check the source. I do not expect you to follow the links as a necessary part of the discussion.

I do not accept opinions by proxy as valid for a discussion forum.

If you cannot put forward your own case, with evidence to back it up (verifiable where possible), then literally you do not know what you are talking about.

Offline AVZ

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5462
  • Manna: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Questions for AnnaM
« Reply #9 on: Wed Sep 25, 2013 - 05:21:44 »
If you come to a discussion forum like this I expect you to be to defend your position in your own words...

I reserve every right to post links or quotes I agree with and which are relevant to the discussion. An honest person is more interested in the truth of what is being said rather than the one saying it.

Since AnnaM declines to continue this discussion here are a few final points regarding Sedevacantism...

Then you proceed to post links and quotes combined with your erroneous opinions. Winsome, it seems you don't hold yourself to the same standards you wish to hold me to. You weren't interested in my source (which, by the way, provides irrefutable facts) and you refused even to consider what's been presented. You aren't being fair and that's why I decline continuing the discussion.

Go girl!

Offline epiphanius

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 247
  • Manna: 11
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Questions for AnnaM (Sedevacantism)
« Reply #10 on: Thu Sep 26, 2013 - 07:40:46 »
If you come to a discussion forum like this I expect you to be to defend your position in your own words...

I reserve every right to post links or quotes I agree with and which are relevant to the discussion.  An honest person is more interested in the truth of what is being said rather than the one saying it.

Anna, I don't think you're grasping what it is that Winsome is critiquing you for.  It's not the fact that you included links with your reply, but that you didn't give us your own condensed version of how the document you linked to answered the question being posed, so we could then decide for ourselves if we want to read more.

In the post he was referring to, you did provide some definitions, which was helpful, but your answer to Winsome's question about the Chair of Peter was particularly abrupt:
When do you think the Chair of Peter became empty?
Why do you think it became empty?

The present vacancy began with John XXIII. It's a proven fact. Here's why:  http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/13_JohnXXIII.pdf

I think he found your assertion, "it's a proven fact" to be particularly problematic, as did I. I haven't read the whole (12-page) article, but I observed that the author gives a number of anecdotes with very little context, apparently expecting readers to conclude, "well, if he did that he *must* have been a heretic."  With anecdotes like this, it's important to understand that a critical study of the same facts *might* lead to an entirely different conclusion.  Told in this way, the anecdotes mean very little.

One anecdote I found to be particularly problematic was:
Quote
While in Turkey, Roncalli also stated: “You Irish are impossible. The moment you come into the world, even before you are baptized, you begin damning everybody who doesn’t belong to the Church, especially Protestants!”

Notice that there is *no* indication of to whom he was addressing these remarks, or to what they were in response.  Furthermore, the implication seems to be that it is perfectly OK for a Catholic to "damn everybody who doesn’t belong to the Church, especially Protestants"--I don't buy this at all.