There are obvious differences in how these claims are in plausibility, since a recent one with a Remnant still existing is not in conflict with Matthew 28:16—20, while an early one with a Restoration happening long after the Church was gone is in such conflict. There are also obvious differences in how these work out, since the Mormon or Churches of God claim make anything from Sts Bernard and Thomas to Pius XI "tainted by apostasy" and the Sede claim could just possibly have some shades over parts of the pontificate of Pius XII. Note, I was a Young Earth Creationist and Geocentric well before accepting Pope Michael I, and while I became Geocentric only weeks before becoming Palmarian, for a while, having already accepted YEC well before, I also left Palmar de Troya (the group, I've never been to the location) 14 months later over Palmar de Troya, as believing in 8 Dimensions, obviously was not Geocentric.
Did the Church Have a Great Apostasy?
Catholic Answers Live | 3 May 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-IW-jgKwZI
4:37 The classical example is a tract by Jack Chick.
The Death Cookie. No Protestant, not just Jack Chick, but as far as I know no other Protestant either has made any realistic or even half unrealistic attempt at defining when a Pope did that.
Obviously, pointing to councils defining Transsubstantiation won't do, as there already were Popes before that.
There is a very different story whether a large portion of Catholics today have entered a Great Apostasy. I can show you a continuity of Catholics who believed Young Earth Creationism, I can point you to decades (1830 to 1895) when Catholic authors were divided between Young Earth Creationism, Gap Theory (Cardinal Wiseman, now agreed with by Kenneth Copeland), Day Age theory (Fulcran Vigouroux, now agreed with by the Watchtower Society) and then a disaster in two steps, 1920, Eugène Mangenot proposes Framework theory in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, 1992, Wojtyla says "Evolution is more than a Theory" and I can also point to the Church surviving this disaster, coexisting with Apostates, since 1920, Paris was not the only Archdiocese, 1992, Wojtyla was not the only man accepted as Pope. Two years earlier, Pope Michael I had been elected and he was Young Earth Creationist.
- Pax
- @pax1566
- I researched a bit about what you say. Took me less than a minute to find out, that Michael I had declared HIMSELF to be the pope, in 1990, within a small separatist group that did not recognize any pope since Pius XII (1939-1958).
This kind of spiritual behavior has been witnessed by the Holy Catholic Church since the very beginning. Those people have left the union with the Church or have been thrown out. The group you mention here has a few hundred members. This is a false and misled splinter group. Jesus is the good shepherd and God is the God of order. He does not want his sheep to be in confusion or having to randomly choose between two or more people claiming to be the successor of Peter, whom Jesus himself gave the big keys to the house.
So, if you don‘t mind.. I don‘t take more time to look up the rest of your claims.
The Catholic Church has problems to work on, but is on its way. And the dimension of confusion and schism you depict is not real.
I appreciate any meaningful response and counter-argument from your side. Take care
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @hglundahl
- @pax1566 "Took me less than a minute to find out, that Michael I had declared HIMSELF to be the pope, in 1990,"
That bad info is what "one minute" could lead you to.
He convoked an emergency "conclave" (emergency papal election), according to his own words and what at least the other electors believed, after inviting sedevacantist bishops and perhaps some other conservative clergy to the event.
This means, that at least to the mind of the five finally electing him, he had counted on a person already a bishop being elected over himself. They didn't turn up, though.
"Those people have left the union with the Church or have been thrown out."
As he claimed to be Pope, he certainly didn't claim to be outside communion with the Pope. So much for "left the Church" .. As to "thrown out" can you point to any act of excommunication striking him or his followers? There is one (though partly reversed, and declarative only) about a similar event in 1988, also through the claim of emergency priming over positive Church Law.
"The group you mention here has a few hundred members."
I think "300 members" was about ten years ago. I'm not sure how much or little we have grown since then.
"This is a false and misled splinter group"
On your assessment.
"He does not want his sheep to be in confusion or having to randomly choose between two or more people claiming to be the successor of Peter, whom Jesus himself gave the big keys to the house."
What was happening when St. Hippolytus was a rival claimant to another Pope?
What was happening when Liberius was highly suspect of Arian heresy and therefore loss of office and Felix II appeared to be Pope?
What happened in 1400?
These occasions have nevertheless occurred, and dismissing one claimant as false because his very existence repeats the situation is bad faith.
- Pax
- @hglundahl Thank you for your answer. In part, there are many good examples and you point to some details I find interesting. You are actually leading me on a direct path to learn more about my faith and try it out, if it can stand the reality check. Thank you!
Right now I have to admit I‘m not able to give you answers that are on the same level as your questions. You are right with some of your funny statements towards my first comment, where I obviously did not make strong and convincing points.
Thanks again, your detailed answer gave me something to learn. God bless you.
Right now, I cannot argue with you on your level.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @pax1566 Nearly acceptable. One exception:
"on the same level as your questions."
I didn't just ask, I ended with providing a conclusion.
- Pax
- @hglundahl it‘s a bit early to state so proudly that you provided the conclusion, my dear friend.. 😅
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @pax1566 I did not say I provided THE conclusion, I said I provided A conclusion.
If it's the right one or not you can argue, but in order to argue it, you need to acknowledge I did provide it, and not just questions.
[I'm not sure what he meant with "respectful" ... he has not replied by next day, even if it was in the afternoon I answered yesterday. Did he mean "respecting his correction as correction" ... because that not what "respectful" usually means when applied to discussions? Did he mean "discreet"? Because I published quickly, I'd have been happy to update you with more, but perhaps he didn't care for the publicity? Or is he seriously "grappling with" my objections to his points and just hasn't found an answer yet? We'll see ...]
"We can talk about the earliest Christians, 5:39 people like Saint Polycarpus Smyrna, Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Saint Irenaeus of Lyon, 5:45 and Saint Justin Martyr, all before the year 200, who look and sound astonishingly Catholic."
And who were Young Earth Creationists.
No comments:
Post a Comment