I just can't help myself, sometimes I feel Tradition in Action is there for me to convert to convert them! Here is a copy of the latest email I sent them:
"Dear TIA,
I have been looking through your link page, and found that you link to Catholic Insight (http://www.cathinsight.com/.) As sedevacantists, they are heretics as defined by the first Vatican council.
"Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that Blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema." - Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus (emphasis added)
As you have pointed out several times on your website, the code of Canon law of 1917 states:
"A person who of his own accord and knowingly helps in any manner to propagate heresy, or who communicates in sacred rites with heretics, incurs suspicion of heresy" (Canon 2316).
By linking to a website which propagates a heresy, you have brought yourselves under suspicion o of heresy. I am sending this email with the hope that you were not aware of the position of Catholic Insight. I also hope that now that you know of their position, you will immediately remove the link, and publicly declare their views to be contrary to the the teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church."
TIA constantly says that it is not enough for someone suspect of heresy to stop associating with those propagating the heresy, that person must also publicly denounce the heresy. That is all I am asking TIA to do. Comments on this would be most appreciated.
Yours in Christ,
Thursday
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
As a Protestant with a strong curiosity about the Catholic Church, I am curious how you justify the doctrine you stated today with your linking to the Chesterton and Friends website, which often praises Lewis (who clearly stated his disbelief in the Pope's authority) and George MacDonald (a Universalist)?
This really isn't an attack -- I just haven't had much exposure to Catholics who care deeply enough about what they believe for me to understand the RCC's official relationship to Protestants such as myself.
I'm glad you asked! The truth of the matter is, the code of Canon Law of 1917 is no longer in effect. It was supplanted by the code of Canon Law of 1983. There is no Canon 2316 in the code of 1983. Tradition in Action still clings to the code of 1917, so I used it to show by their reasoning, they are suspect of heresy. I accept the code of Canon Law of 1983, as every Catholic should. That's pretty much the long and the short of it. Canon Law is not Dogma, and can be changed.
Yours in Christ,
Thursday
It is not exactly true that the 1917 cannon law was replaced in entireity by that of 1983.
Canon 20 says "A later law [laws in the 1983 code] abrogates, or derogates, an earlier law if it states so expressly, is directly contrary to it, or completely reorders the entire matter of the earlier law."
Of course, denying the legitimacy of 1983 code would send one into heresy because to do so would be to deny the authority of the magisterium to administer the Church.
Canon 6:
Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:
1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;
2/ other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws;
3/ any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code;
4/ other universal disciplinary laws regarding matter which this Code completely reorders.
§2. Insofar as they repeat former law, the canons of this Code must be assessed also in accord with canonical tradition.
/1 says that the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917 has been abrogated.
Yours in Christ,
Thursday
I stand happily corrected. Gotta brush up on my canon law I guess.
I didn't know about canon 6 until about 24 hours ago, so I too have to brush up on my Canon Law. It does seem strange to have canon 6 and canon 20...
Yours in Christ,
Thursday
Post a Comment