1
2

Anti-Catholic posts threaten to overtake r/Catholicism (reddit.com)

fakeproxyaccount が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]luke-jr -3ポイント-2ポイント  (36子コメント)

/r/Catholicism has always been anti-Catholic AFAIK.

[–]fr-josh 5ポイント6ポイント  (35子コメント)

There have always been anti-Catholic sorts around, but you're thinking of /r/Catholic, which was taken over by trolls some time ago.

Source: I'm a mod and a Catholic priest and I know the community well.

[–]luke-jr -5ポイント-4ポイント  (34子コメント)

No, I mean just click on /r/Catholicism; there is a picture of an anti-Catholic (Francis) right there in the sidebar. I do not believe your claim to be a Catholic priest (can any Catholic bishop vouch for you?).

[–]heatdeath[M] 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

I am the moderator of this sub and I am a Vatican II Catholic. I'm ok with sedevacantists in this sub, and Protestants and Eastern Orthodox, as this is not a strictly Vatican II sub, but rather an ecumenical sub for those identifying as "Christian" who together oppose modern distortions such as same-sex marriage or the common threat of Islam.

I want you to be able to continue here, but I ask you to please try and set aside your differences with your allies, or at least go about it with friendlier wording. This board is not for in-fighting and is not, generally, aligned with sedevacantism.

[–]luke-jr 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Perhaps this thread would have been better named "Pro-homosexual..." or "Pro-Islam...posts threaten to overtake /r/Catholicism" so as to distinguish from the norm there. Regardless, I will try to be friendlier.

In kind, I respectfully ask that the derogatory and inaccurate (among other things) term "sedevacantist" not be used to refer to me.

[–]heatdeath 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thank you. I appreciate you also correcting my usage of "sedevacantist", particularly that it is technically inaccurate. I cannot simply call you "Catholic" without confusion, though, and I don't think most people would recognize "sede-impeditist," so I suppose I'll just have to make it clear through context that you oppose Vatican II and the current men who are called Popes.

[–]otiac1 3ポイント4ポイント  (29子コメント)

You're not Catholic.

[–]luke-jr 0ポイント1ポイント  (28子コメント)

I believe everything the Church teaches, and submit to all Church authority. For what cause do you level such a serious accusation?

[–]fr-josh 2ポイント3ポイント  (6子コメント)

You submit to the Pope's authority, except when you don't like the past few popes?

[–]luke-jr -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

I submit to the authority of every pope, regardless of whether I like them. You're confusing heretical antipopes with popes - but the Church clearly teaches that a heretic cannot hold the papacy.

[–]fr-josh 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

Actually, the Church teaches that the popes won't promulgate heresy. They won't say anything heretical ex cathedra. They can have whatever personal ideas they want (and at least one way back in the past has been a heretic).

[–]luke-jr -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

No, this is not the limit of the Church's teaching on the subject. Even as recently as the [First] Vatican Council:

The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself.

Notice the council also refutes your false claim that a past pope had been a heretic.

[–]fr-josh 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Here's where your quote is from:

In a conference given after his return from the council, Archbishop John Baptist Purcell of Cincinnati related the following

That's not an official church document.

Even in this denial of their heresy it talks about the different kinds of their authority and that no pope has promulgated heresy, which we agree on.

So, quick question- is Francis the Pope? Is he your pope? If the answer to either is 'No', then you're not Catholic. Full stop.

[–]otiac1 2ポイント3ポイント  (20子コメント)

You believe 99%+ of the Church abandoned the Faith at a Council. Your belief is, effectively, that Christ failed to protect His Church.

You're not Catholic. You parrot Catholicism. Trent taught that to deny the grace of the sacraments is heresy; you are anathema.

[–]Partoghimeos 1ポイント2ポイント  (13子コメント)

Christ has not and will not abandon His Church, but it is not a farfetched concept for most of the Church to abandon Christ. One look at Ireland would back this up. There will always be the Church, but that doesn't mean she has over a billion followers.

'These are evil times, a century full of dangers and calamities. Heresy is everywhere, and the followers of heresy are in power almost everywhere. Bishops, prelates, and priests say that they are doing their duty, that they are vigilant, and that they live as befits their state in life. In like manner, therefore, they all seek excuses. But God will permit a great evil against His Church: Heretics and tyrants will come suddenly and unexpectedly; they will break into the Church while bishops, prelates, and priests are asleep. They will enter Italy and lay Rome waste; they will burn down the churches and destroy everything." (Apocalypsis, Bartholomew Holzhauser).

The Ven. Bartholomew Holzhauser prophesied hundreds of years ago about a time coming when orthodoxy would be thrown out the window. It's not far off from what Luke is saying. If you want to argue that sedevacantism is heresy, go ahead; but I see no condemned heresy that it falls under.

[–]otiac1 -1ポイント0ポイント  (12子コメント)

The Council of Trent anathematizes denial of the grace present in sacraments; those who deny the grace present in the Ordinary Form of the Mass are anathema.

[–]Partoghimeos 0ポイント1ポイント  (11子コメント)

Luke does not deny the grace present in the sacraments. He rejects the validity of the Novus Ordo in its entirety.

According to the late canon lawyer Fr Hesse, the validity of Eucharist in the English translation of the Novus Ordo was doubtful as a result of a mistranslation of the canon, though iirc the error was fixed in 2011. Fr Hesse was not a sedevacantist. In fact, he was ordained by John Paul II himself. The validity of the Novus Ordo can be questioned within a sedeplenist view without necessarily being athenematized.

Luke takes the sedevacantist position on the crisis. His position, in nearly two millennia of ecclesiastical history, has never received any official condemnation and has been occasionally hypothesized as a potential situation by various saintly theologians. If his position is correct, then he is right in rejecting the Novus Ordo.

[–]otiac1 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (10子コメント)

Luke does not deny the grace present in the sacraments. He rejects the validity of the Novus Ordo in its entirety.

These two statements are contradictory. One cannot at once reject the validity of the sacraments (in the Ordinary Form of the Mass) and accept the validity of the sacraments. Trent makes no exception for "halfway accepting the grace of certain sacraments." The view he holds is anathema.

The Ordinary Form of the Mass is the Ordinary Form of the Mass; it is the product of a Council of the Church presided over by the Roman pontiff - to hold that it is in error, that the Mass is invalid, is to cease to be Catholic. He is not Catholic. He, like the so-called "Reformers" before him, parrots Catholicism. No doubt Luther, et al, gave some explanation for their heresy. So it was, so it is, so it will be.

One may issue criticism of the Mass, the translation of the Mass, or those celebrating the Mass. Dissent is different than criticism.

[–]luke-jr -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

You believe 99%+ of the Church abandoned the Faith at a Council. Your belief is, effectively, that Christ failed to protect His Church.

No, that is the effective claim of those who purport that the Church teaches heresy and gives evil disciplines.

You're not Catholic. You parrot Catholicism.

This is just ad hominem.

Trent taught that to deny the grace of the sacraments is heresy; you are anathema.

Except, I do not deny the grace of the Sacraments.

[–]fakeproxyaccount[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

The pope and the hirearchy are an integral part of being a Catholic, and an absolutely integral part of catholic doctrine - it is literally the seat of St. Peter established by Jesus. I find it difficult to understand how someone can deny these institutions and still consider themselves catholic.

Anyways the focus of this thread was supposed to be about the catholic forum being attacked, not about bashing the pope.

[–]luke-jr 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The pope and the hirearchy are an integral part of being a Catholic, and an absolutely integral part of catholic doctrine - it is literally the seat of St. Peter established by Jesus. I find it difficult to understand how someone can deny these institutions and still consider themselves catholic.

I absolutely do not deny these institutions.

[–]otiac1 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Did Vatican II teach error?

[–]luke-jr -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

It is a fact that Vatican II, as interpreted by the antipopes whom promulgated it, contradicts doctrines taught by the Catholic Church.

[–]otiac1 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Everything I said applies.

You are not Catholic.

[–]fr-josh 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

You can believe whatever you like, but it won't stop you from being wrong. I have verified AMAs as a Catholic priest. No Catholic bishop is on reddit, as far as I'm aware.