OH YES IT DOESLet me show you something regarding jurisdiction
"That’s right. Our sede priests and bishops have ordinary jurisdiction!"Because sspx are not followers of the good archbishop . All evidence shows he died a sede. Apparently he didn’t say una cuм.
In all my years of tradition, this is the first time I've ever heard this. Is this legit? Why wasn't SSPX ever acknowledging this?
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/90a441_e8deb766dbdc463bacb1e31922cf4f48~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_350,h_708,al_c,lg_1,q_80,enc_avif,quality_auto/90a441_e8deb766dbdc463bacb1e31922cf4f48~mv2.jpg)I don't mean to be rude or attack you personally, so please forgive me jf it comes across that way dye to the format of communication. That being said, this is a very silly argument. First of all, ordinary jurisdiction belongs to a bishop of a diocese (a very specific territory) or an abbot of a monastery (over his monks only.) Which diocese did Thuc Reign over after he was removed from Vietnam? Over which diocese do the sede vagrant bishops rule? None of the bishops respected as such on this site or mainstream sedevacantism so much as claim jurisdiction of any kind besides supplied. Neither did any of their Consecration bishops intend to give them jurisdiction, and many explicitly stated that they intend NOT to do so.
Translation of the Latin Original(Above)"By virtue of the Plenitude of the powers of the Holy Apostolic See, we appoint as our Legate Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc, titular bishop of Saigon, whom we invest with all the necessary powers, for purposes known to us."Given at Rome at Saint Peter's, on 15 March 1938, the seventeenth year of our pontificate. Pope Pius XI,Explanation of these powersWhat does this docuмent mean ? Let us examine a parallel case in which Pius XI conceded identical powers to another prelate. On 10 March 1920, the same pope Pius XI dictated the same motu proprio for Mgr d'Herbigny (S.J.). The account is recorded in the book of Father Paul Lesourd, published by Lethielleux Editions under the title "Le Jesuite clandestine"Here is the translationMotu Proprio By virtue of the plenitude of the Apostolic power, we appoint as our Delegate Michel d'Herbigngy (S.J.), titular bishop of Troie, whom we invest with all the appropriate and necessary powers, for purposes known to us.Given at Rome at Saint Peter's, on 10 March 1926, the fifth year of our pontificate. Pius XI, PopeThe two cases are analogous. With this Act of the Holy See, the two bishops received pontifical powers, similar to those of Patriarchs. The details of these powers are explained by Pius XI himself, as reported by Father Lesourd in the following terms:"Orally, the Holy Father first enumerated in detail all the powers which he conferred, including the selection of priests to be ordained and to confer on them the episcopate without the need for them to have pontifical bulls, nor therefore to give their signatures inviting them to act accordingly on the strength of the oath.""Then, after having at length set out in detail by word of mouth all the powers which were really extraordinary, the Pope resumed them most solemnly as follows"
"In one word, we grant to you all the pontifical powers of the Pope himself, which are not incommunicable by divine right."(translation from the French)
Canon 199
§ 1. Whoever has ordinary power of jurisdiction can delegate it to another in whole or in part, unless it is expressly provided otherwise by law.
§ 2. Even the power of jurisdiction delegated by the Apostolic See can be subdelegated either for an act or even habitually, unless [the one with the power] was chosen because of personal characteristics or subdelegation is prohibited.
§ 3. Power delegated for a universe of causes by one below the Roman Pontiff who has ordinary power can be subdelegated for individual cases.
§ 4. In other cases, delegated power of jurisidiction can only be subdelegated by a concession expressly made, although delegated judges can delegate the non-jurisdictional elements [of their work] without express commission.
§ 5. No subdelegated power can be subdelegated again, unless this was expressly granted.
That’s right. Our sede priests and bishops have ordinary jurisdiction!
I don't mean to be rude or attack you personally, so please forgive me jf it comes across that way dye to the format of communication. That being said, this is a very silly argument. First of all, ordinary jurisdiction belongs to a bishop of a diocese (a very specific territory) or an abbot of a monastery (over his monks only.) Which diocese did Thuc Reign over after he was removed from Vietnam? Over which diocese do the sede vagrant bishops rule? None of the bishops respected as such on this site or mainstream sedevacantism so much as claim jurisdiction of any kind besides supplied. Neither did any of their Consecration bishops intend to give them jurisdiction, and many explicitly stated that they intend NOT to do so.Apostolic delegate is an office.
If your theory requires you to allege that men claiming no jurisdiction and assigned no jurisdiction in fact have ordinary jurisdiction, simply in order to maintain the intrinsic quality of the Church that is active jurisdiction, I humbly submit that you have lost the plot and need to reevaluate the entire question.
Furthermore, roman catholic canon law is explicit that only a pope can assign a diocese to a bishop. While I know many like to simply dodge such facts by claiming epikeia, I would again insist that if your pet theory requires you to ignore the explicitly taught ecclesiology of the Church in order to maintain some semblance of authority and visibility, your theory is in fact obviously wrong and you are lying to yourself. Mental gymnastics are very tiring.
May I ask OP why is this anonymous
I've been SSPX (20 years) and Resistance (2012) and I've read a lot about the errors of Vatican II and the last few popes. In a nutshell, sedevacantism is looking more and more legitimate because it addresses the issue of Indefectibility. But how does it work with jurisdiction? I think this is the last piece of the puzzle that doesn't make any sense or maybe I haven't come across that yet. Does it solve or how does it solve the problem of jurisdiction? Or is there anything else I should look into as well? Feels like a big leap so just trying to understand it right.
Canon 2261 (1983 CIC 1331, 1335) Cross-Refs.: 1917 CIC 2264, 2275, 2284
§ 1. One excommunicated is prohibited from confecting and administering licitly the Sacraments
and Sacramentals, except for the exceptions that follow.
§ 2. The faithful, with due regard for the prescription of § 3, can for any just cause seek the
Sacraments and Sacramentals from one excommunicated, especially if other ministers are lacking,
and then the one who is excommunicate and approached can administer these and is under no
obligation of inquiring the reasons from the one requesting.
§ 3. But from a banned excommunicate and from others excommunicated after a condemnatory
or declaratory sentence has come, only the faithful in danger of death can ask for sacramental
absolution according to the norm of Canons 882 and 2252 and even, if other ministers are lacking,
other Sacraments and Sacramentals.
The jurisdiction problem is solved with the concept of limited supplied jurisdiction. In Canon Law there are many exceptional cases mentioned in which the circuмstances allow a priest to dispense Sacraments without having normal jurisdiction.
These Canon Law exceptions are on a case-by-case basis. For example, see 1917 Canon 2261.2, where it states that a Catholic can licitly receive the Sacraments from a priest who has been excommunicated.
Canon 844
§1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and can. 861, §2.§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.§5. For the cases mentioned in §§2, 3, and 4, the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops is not to issue general norms except after consultation at least with the local competent authority of the interested non-Catholic Church or community.
Papal legate is an office which the holder has ordinary jurisdiction over . Our bishops are apostolic delegatesThis is false. Firstly, papal Legate have delegated jurisdiction, not ordinary. This is basic canon law stuff. Delegated jurisdiction must be DELEGATED legally and explicitly by a holder of ordinary jurisdiction. So yes, if Thuc was Delegated as a papal Legate (explicit evidence is lacking so this is a non starter) he would have had thay as long as the pope remained alive and didn't revoke the privilege.
I've been SSPX (20 years) and Resistance (2012) and I've read a lot about the errors of Vatican II and the last few popes. In a nutshell, sedevacantism is looking more and more legitimate because it addresses the issue of Indefectibility. But how does it work with jurisdiction? I think this is the last piece of the puzzle that doesn't make any sense or maybe I haven't come across that yet. Does it solve or how does it solve the problem of jurisdiction? Or is there anything else I should look into as well? Feels like a big leap so just trying to understand it right.The Resistance does not have any jurisdiction, so why it bothering you now about sedevacantis not having jurisdiction?
The Resistance does not have any jurisdiction, so why it bothering you now about sedevacantis not having jurisdiction?
The Resistance make it public that they (Resistance clergy) refuse any jurisdiction coming from Rome until they (Pope, Cardinals, Bishops) convert.
This is the thinking that's making me rethink the resistance. They say they accept the pope and his authority but of course do not - not his local rep, not his mass, not his laws,etc. But to say the rites are defective and there is no ordinary jurisdiction is in another league. Basically I'm thinking the back-and-forth theology of the SSPX mentality is no longer cutting it. Putting a photo in the vestibule so you can say 'we're with him' is no longer getting it done. It doesn't bother me that they claim no jurisdiction. I'm wondering about the stability of the Church with jurisdiction and sedevacantism.Many trads misunderstand the matter of priestly faculties / jurisdiction, which is and will always be a very important matter, even in these days. But the matter becomes more clear when one knows that the reason for these laws is for the good of the faith, for the good of the souls of the people, and for our salvation. Also note that in Her wisdom, Holy Mother the Church allows for "supplied jurisdiction" in emergencies - which is the situation we are in today - and for the foreseeable future. In my opinion, valid trad priests today have supplied jurisdiction.
This is the thinking that's making me rethink the resistance. They say they accept the pope and his authority but of course do not - not his local rep, not his mass, not his laws,etc. But to say the rites are defective and there is no ordinary jurisdiction is in another league. Basically I'm thinking the back-and-forth theology of the SSPX mentality is no longer cutting it. Putting a photo in the vestibule so you can say 'we're with him' is no longer getting it done. It doesn't bother me that they claim no jurisdiction. I'm wondering about the stability of the Church with jurisdiction and sedevacantism.Thanks for the explanation, you might want to consider browsing the topics of "What Catholics Believe" as some of these topics are discussed, and you might find some answers to your questions.
I've been SSPX (20 years) and Resistance (2012) and I've read a lot about the errors of Vatican II and the last few popes. In a nutshell, sedevacantism is looking more and more legitimate because it addresses the issue of Indefectibility. But how does it work with jurisdiction? I think this is the last piece of the puzzle that doesn't make any sense or maybe I haven't come across that yet. Does it solve or how does it solve the problem of jurisdiction? Or is there anything else I should look into as well? Feels like a big leap so just trying to understand it right.
Just understand this: sedevacantism doesn't address the issue of indefectibility, as the Church would not have any bishops that fulfill the continuing existence of the Church - i.e., the Church, under its own understanding of "indefectibility," has defected.
As I said elsewhere, "the indefectibility of the Church requires a hierarchy with the power of jurisdiction or rule/governance, which means legislative, judicial, coercive, and administrative power - the power to make laws, mandate liturgical and sacramental norms and rules, make binding discipline, and the power to punish those who violate the laws, rules, etc."
That conclusion of "defect" follows from the lack of the characteristics of "indefectibility," as the Church has limned it.
I discuss it here, and so link it, as you appear to care seriously about the issue:
Indefectibility requires a hierarchy with the power of jurisidisdiction - page 1 - Crisis in the Church - Catholic Info
(https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/indefectibility-requires-a-hierarchy-with-the-power-of-jurisidisdiction/#:~:text=The Catholic Encyclopedia makes clear that the indefectibility,on matters involving faith and morals for mankind%3A)I don't say this to convince you not to become Sedevacantist, but just so that, if you do, you do so on a solid foundation, and not build on an imaginary foundation.
DR, I agree that for the Church to be indefectible it "requires a hierarchy with power of jurisdiction."Decem outlined clearly what is meant by a hierarchy with jurisdiction, and it is not fulfilled by the sede model whatsoever. There is no power to make laws, enforce liturgical norms, etc. The appeal to the end days is an admission that the sede theory is necessarily an end-times-cult theory, which should be a red flag to anyone who knows Church History and the injunctions of Christ concerning predicting the end. One's ecclesiological model cannot depend upon the assumption that we are in the end times, for we do not know when these times will come. Moreover, the Church is defined as indefectible not merely until the end times, but until the end itself. It has now been 70 years of these supposed "end times" to which the sedes appeal in order to justify a contradictory position.
The question is what must this "hierarchy" and "jurisdiction" look like.
1. Is it necessary that it look like the institutional apparatus circa 1960 AD in the Roman Catholic Church?
2. Or is it sufficient that it look like the institutional apparatus circa 33 AD in the early Church?
If you say #1, then it would seem that you are saying that the Church in the days after Pentecost was not the Church. Do you see the problem there?
In my opinion, the true Church at the end of the age (just before the Second Coming) will be very much like the true Church was at its beginning.
At that time, there were 11 bishops/priests (before the election of Matthias). There was no Canon Law and a certain degree of confusion about many things that were only clarified much later in the Church's history.
I've been SSPX (20 years) and Resistance (2012) and I've read a lot about the errors of Vatican II and the last few popes. In a nutshell, sedevacantism is looking more and more legitimate because it addresses the issue of Indefectibility. But how does it work with jurisdiction? I think this is the last piece of the puzzle that doesn't make any sense or maybe I haven't come across that yet. Does it solve or how does it solve the problem of jurisdiction? Or is there anything else I should look into as well? Feels like a big leap so just trying to understand it right.
As I said elsewhere, "the indefectibility of the Church requires a hierarchy with the power of jurisdiction or rule/governance, which means legislative, judicial, coercive, and administrative power - the power to make laws, mandate liturgical and sacramental norms and rules, make binding discipline, and the power to punish those who violate the laws, rules, etc."
Decem outlined clearly what is meant by a hierarchy with jurisdiction, and it is not fulfilled by the sede model whatsoever.
As I said elsewhere, "the indefectibility of the Church requires a hierarchy with the power of jurisdiction or rule/governance, which means legislative, judicial, coercive, and administrative power - the power to make laws, mandate liturgical and sacramental norms and rules, make binding discipline, and the power to punish those who violate the laws, rules, etc."
I've been SSPX (20 years) and Resistance (2012) and I've read a lot about the errors of Vatican II and the last few popes. In a nutshell, sedevacantism is looking more and more legitimate because it addresses the issue of Indefectibility. But how does it work with jurisdiction? I think this is the last piece of the puzzle that doesn't make any sense or maybe I haven't come across that yet. Does it solve or how does it solve the problem of jurisdiction? Or is there anything else I should look into as well? Feels like a big leap so just trying to understand it right.
Decem outlined clearly what is meant by a hierarchy with jurisdiction, and it is not fulfilled by the sede model whatsoever. There is no power to make laws, enforce liturgical norms, etc. The appeal to the end days is an admission that the sede theory is necessarily an end-times-cult theory, which should be a red flag to anyone who knows Church History and the injunctions of Christ concerning predicting the end. One's ecclesiological model cannot depend upon the assumption that we are in the end times, for we do not know when these times will come. Moreover, the Church is defined as indefectible not merely until the end times, but until the end itself. It has now been 70 years of these supposed "end times" to which the sedes appeal in order to justify a contradictory position.
Even if one were to allow the theory that the entire Church structure could revert back to as it was in the beginning, the date would have to be after the death of the last Apostle, not 33 AD. This is because the revelation of the New Testament was not yet complete. This is very important, because history shows clearly that there were bishops with sees (ordinary jurisdiction) at this time. Vatican 1 also declares that the model of papal supremacy detailed in its docuмents (universal ordinary jurisdiction, infallibility, indefectibility of the Roman See, etc) was in place since the beginning. In short, you cannot claim the early Church lacked ordinary jurisdiction as the sedes do.
Also, the appeal to there being "a certain amount of confusion" in the early days does not justify outright contradictions and a defected Church. Furthermore, whatever "confusion" you refer to innthe early Church was capable of being settled by bishops and synods with authority. This does not exist in the sede model, and can never exist again.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm
...towards the end of the second century the canonical minimum was enlarged and, besides the Gospels and Pauline Epistles, unalterably embraced Acts, I Peter, I John (to which II and III John were probably attached), and Apocalypse. Thus Hebrews, James, Jude, and II Peter remained hovering outside the precincts of universal canonicity, and the controversy about them and the subsequently disputed Apocalypse form the larger part of the remaining history of the Canon of the New Testament. However, at the beginning of the third century the New Testament (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm) was formed in the sense that the content of its main divisions, what may be called its essence, was sharply defined and universally received, while all the secondary books were recognized in some Churches. A singular exception to the universality of the above-described substance of the New Testament (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm) was the Canon of the primitive East Syrian Church, which did not contain any of the Catholic Epistles (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03453a.htm) or Apocalypse.
Of course, I passed over initially what a joke this statement is. So let's see, this hierarchy has to have power to rule and govern, to legislate, coerce, mandate liturgical and sacramental norms and rules, make binding discipline, and have the power to punish ... except when you decide that you don't like said rules, mandates, legislation, coercion, discipline, liturgical/sacramental norms, etc.
So basically the "authority" you grant (and it is you who grant it, since you're also at liberty to take it away) to this hierarchy is utterly meaningless and consists of nothing more than lip-service, since they have no authority in any meaningful way, if you decide that these laws, mandates, and liturgical norms don't conform to your perception of being good or Catholic.
In other words, you grant them no real authority and are "preserving" absolutely nothing, but gutting the "authority" you grant them of any real meaning or efficacy, i.e. you grant them a non-authority.
So what's the difference if they have an SV non-authority or an R&R non-authority? At least in the SV paradigm, when there is an actual legitimate pope, that pope has REAL ACTUAL AUTHORITY to do all those things you listed, not some mythical, made-up. lip-service authority that any Catholic can take or leave at his pleasure.
It is YOU AND YOUR ILK that undermine and reject the indefectibility of the Church, not the SVs, for if we do have a legitimate Pope and bishop subject to said pope, and they can wreck the faith with this authority and you are free to take or leave any act of their authority based on your own personal/private judgment ... then that authority is meaningless, and why do we even care if it exists? Oh, yeah, true, once or twice a century on average, they may say something with the notes of infallibility that you're required to accept, but the rest is fair game and up for grabs.
You set up a non-sensical and non-Catholic notion of papal authority, jurisdiction, and Magisterium that you claim SVs must also adhere to or otherwise THEY undermine the authority of the hierarchy? It's so pathetically laughable that you have to be pertinaciously dishonest to buy such excrement.
First, show me where I said this current band of usurpers have true jurisdiction. Here, I’ll save you some time: I never said they did.
It’s virtually impossible to engage with you. You do not respond to what is actually written. In this instance, you imagine I was defending the current den of thieves, and heard or rather read something in accord with one presenting such a defense, and spoke to that imaginary argument.
You’re a dummy sitting on the lap of an idiot, who speaks to a bugbear in his mind.
There should be in a padded cell “forum” here for you: we could call it the island, or forum, of abandoned thought.
Decem outlined clearly what is meant by a hierarchy with jurisdiction, and it is not fulfilled by the sede model whatsoever. There is no power to make laws, enforce liturgical norms, etc..
.I agree. Neither position is tenable.
Every answer to the crisis has this same problem, though. Recognize-and-resist people do not treat their bishops or popes as if they had jurisdiction. Theoretically the indult does do this, but they have other problems besides that.
Sedevacantists are really the only group to admit that there isn't authority functioning in the Church the way it normally does.
What I mean is that R&R groups operate without the permission of the local bishop; they reject liturgical norms approved by what they call the Church; they reject many of its laws; they do not accept all its teachings or canonizations. They operate in practice as if the new church had no jurisdiction, which is the same as saying it doesn't have any jurisdiction.
I agree. Neither position is tenable.What position is tenable of neither Sedevacantism/Sedeprivitioism or Recognize and Resist is tenable?
.
Every answer to the crisis has this same problem, though. Recognize-and-resist people do not treat their bishops or popes as if they had jurisdiction. Theoretically the indult does do this, but they have other problems besides that.
Sedevacantists are really the only group to admit that there isn't authority functioning in the Church the way it normally does.
What I mean is that R&R groups operate without the permission of the local bishop; they reject liturgical norms approved by what they call the Church; they reject many of its laws; they do not accept all its teachings or canonizations. They operate in practice as if the new church had no jurisdiction, which is the same as saying it doesn't have any jurisdiction.
Decem outlined his own gratuitous assertion resting on fabricated principles. See the refutation above in my previous post.
Sorry, but you really are a moron.
If I have a discussion with a member on a topic, I retain at least a general idea of their position, and can pick up a discussion with them in light of that background. Or I'd refresh myself if they post a link to the discussion.
We've discussed this - I even posted the link.
Fabricated principles? I stated the "principles," and the sources from which they were derived. Fabricated my butt. In light of the "facts, you have to be disingenuous. Sorry. Although you could truly be a dummy sitting on the lap of an idiot ventriloquist.
Here's the link again. I dealt with all your lame arguments there. As usual, you walked away when it got rough. Here's the link:
Indefectibility requires a hierarchy with the power of jurisidisdiction - page 1 - Crisis in the Church - Catholic Info (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/indefectibility-requires-a-hierarchy-with-the-power-of-jurisidisdiction/#:~:text=The Catholic Encyclopedia makes clear that the indefectibility,on matters involving faith and morals for mankind%3A)
I'd repeat them here, but it shouldn't be necessary. And you'd just say "what a joke" to save face without dealing with the substance of the response, and then disappear again anyway.
Here's the link:.
Indefectibility requires a hierarchy with the power of jurisidisdiction - page 1 - Crisis in the Church - Catholic Info (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/indefectibility-requires-a-hierarchy-with-the-power-of-jurisidisdiction/#:~:text=The Catholic Encyclopedia makes clear that the indefectibility,on matters involving faith and morals for mankind%3A)
The indefectibility of the Church requires a hierarchy with the power of jurisdiction or rule/governance, which means legislative, judicial, coercive, and administrative power - the power to make laws, mandate liturgical and sacramental norms and rules, make binding discipline, and the power to punish those who violate the laws, rules, etc.
Sorry, but you really are a moron.I think they did a pretty good job answering you in general. The criticisms against Sedes always seem to fall flat. I say this as someone who isn't a Sede but who is curious of their views on this crisis.
If I have a discussion with a member on a topic, I retain at least a general idea of their position, and can pick up a discussion with them in light of that background. Or I'd refresh myself if they post a link to the discussion.
We've discussed this - I even posted the link.
Fabricated principles? I stated the "principles," and the sources from which they were derived. Fabricated my butt. In light of the "facts, you have to be disingenuous. Sorry. Although you could truly be a dummy sitting on the lap of an idiot ventriloquist.
Here's the link again. I dealt with all your lame arguments there. As usual, you walked away when it got rough. Here's the link:
Indefectibility requires a hierarchy with the power of jurisidisdiction - page 1 - Crisis in the Church - Catholic Info (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/indefectibility-requires-a-hierarchy-with-the-power-of-jurisidisdiction/#:~:text=The Catholic Encyclopedia makes clear that the indefectibility,on matters involving faith and morals for mankind%3A)
I'd repeat them here, but it shouldn't be necessary. And you'd just say "what a joke" to save face without dealing with the substance of the response, and then disappear again anyway.
Sorry, but you really are a moron.
If I have a discussion with a member on a topic, I retain at least a general idea of their position, and can pick up a discussion with them in light of that background. Or I'd refresh myself if they post a link to the discussion.
We've discussed this - I even posted the link.
Fabricated principles? I stated the "principles," and the sources from which they were derived. Fabricated my butt. In light of the "facts, you have to be disingenuous. Sorry. Although you could truly be a dummy sitting on the lap of an idiot ventriloquist.
Here's the link again. I dealt with all your lame arguments there. As usual, you walked away when it got rough. Here's the link:
Indefectibility requires a hierarchy with the power of jurisidisdiction - page 1 - Crisis in the Church - Catholic Info (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/indefectibility-requires-a-hierarchy-with-the-power-of-jurisidisdiction/#:~:text=The Catholic Encyclopedia makes clear that the indefectibility,on matters involving faith and morals for mankind%3A)
I'd repeat them here, but it shouldn't be necessary. And you'd just say "what a joke" to save face without dealing with the substance of the response, and then disappear again anyway.
From the link:If these requirements in the quote are the requirements for the Church's indefectibility, then either the Church has defected, or that said hierarchy does maintain the power and authority, but uses it against the Church's indefectibility to no avail, thus proving nothing can destroy the Church and proving the whole idea in the quote is blatantly false.QuoteThe indefectibility of the Church requires a hierarchy with the power of jurisdiction or rule/governance, which means legislative, judicial, coercive, and administrative power - the power to make laws, mandate liturgical and sacramental norms and rules, make binding discipline, and the power to punish those who violate the laws, rules, etc.Then who are the people who have these powers you describe? :confused:
:sleep:
I refuted every piece of nonsense you threw out there ... hoping it would stick to the wall. Yes, made-up fabricated and nonsensical self-contradictory non-Catholic / heretical garbage ... that about sums up your post.
1) SPism and SVism (by color of title) doesn't completely eliminate the possibility of there being an actual ordinary jurisdiction
2) There's absolutely nothing that says there must be actual Ordinary jurisdiction at all times, just that the Church has it essentially at least in potency during interregna (even when a pope dies)
3) This authority you claim the Popes have is a joke and is nothing more than sophistic lip-service where your cardboard pope has no more real/actual (non-potential) authority than an SV non-pope. What a joke.
You may consider Catholic theology regarding the Church and the real (not lip-service) authority of the papacy to be "moronic". Well, then, I'm happy to be a moron rather than a non-Catholic heretic such as yourself who have thrown in your lot with Luther and the Old Catholics.
At least the Motarians are not heretics regarding the nature of the Catholic Church and the papacy and are merely in material error as they try desperately to apply the hermeneutic of continuity to Vatican II.
Then of course, the hermeneutic is quite easy if, as most Trads believe, non-Catholcs can be saved, since that then means non-Catholics can be in the Church, and that is THE essence of the Vatican II novelty and heresy. If you believe non-Catholics can be saved, then you're just a run of the mill schismatic for rejecting the teaching of Vatican II for teaching the same thing that you actually believe yourself, even if you're too dumb and / or intellectually dishonest to even know it. There remains only the subject of the new Mass, which you could also hermeneut away by seeing examples of it as implemented at St. John Cantius where very few could tell it apart from a similar implementation of the Tridentine Mass.
Then who are the people who have these powers you describe? :confused:
If these requirements in the quote are the requirements for the Church's indefectibility, then either the Church has defected, or that said hierarchy does maintain the power and authority, but uses it against the Church's indefectibility to no avail, thus proving nothing can destroy the Church and proving the whole idea in the quote is blatantly false.
It means that the Church is not "indefectible" in the manner its theologians and hierarchy have maintained. Nothing more, nothing less.Very well stated and I agree 100%.
The Church, like Israel, is not indefectible in its High Priest, its Pharisaical rulers and priests, but unfortunately they convinced Christ's Sheep that they were indefectible, and now we are here, with the "conundrum" they left us.
It means that the Church is not "indefectible" in the manner its theologians and hierarchy have maintained..
The "Thesis" does not solve the problem of Indefectibility in light of the post-Vatican II hierarchy, not as the Church has understood the principles necessary for the Church's continuing Indefectibility - which requires such a hierarchy with the three powers - as understood and expressed by the non-fabricated sources I quoted from.
Hmm. I think the key here -- and this is how I try to approach this question -- is to try to figure out which elements of indefectibility are of faith, or are part of Catholic teaching, and which are mere opinions. Obviously the Church can never change her inherent structure or nature until the end of time. But the question is, what features does this include? And how do we know this?From the Catholic Dictionary (1958)
I also am a huge fan of the idea that no argument can refute a fact. A lot of people try to answer problems like this by denying public facts, such as that Novus Ordo bishops all accept, at least by their silence, Vatican 2 and all the errors of the new church. This is a fact that I don't think can be denied, as a fact.
Nothing but more heretical blabbering. With every post you increase the condemnation upon you for spreading your heresies. This "power of ruling", jurisdiction, you don't accept anyway since you don't believe that they bind you at all, i.e. it's something that is meaningless and therefore who cares if it somehow continues in perpetuity so you can pay lip service to it "yep, has authority -- which we're free to reject". There's no need for this. It's there just so you can put Jorge's picture in the vestibule. You're just a run of the mill Old Catholic heretic
Once again, your fundamental problem: you live in a hall of mirrors, where all you see is yourself, or the images that your project from your obsessed brain.
I don't recognize Bergolio, nor pay any lip service to him.
Yet again, you've failed to disprove the major or the minor, and of course couldn't respond to the conclusion derived therefrom.
Your inability to engage the argument becomes more glaring with each of your childish use of epithets.
This is the third or fourth time you've responded to "me" by not responding to what I've said, but some SSPX supporter that is waving Recognize and Resist banners in your head.
Change your psychiatrist, and therapist.
Another empty rant.
DR, I agree that for the Church to be indefectible it "requires a hierarchy with power of jurisdiction."
The question is what must this "hierarchy" and "jurisdiction" look like.
1. Is it necessary that it look like the institutional apparatus circa 1960 AD in the Roman Catholic Church?
2. Or is it sufficient that it look like the institutional apparatus circa 33 AD in the early Church?
If you say #1, then it would seem that you are saying that the Church in the days after Pentecost was not the Church. Do you see the problem there?
In my opinion, the true Church at the end of the age (just before the Second Coming) will be very much like the true Church was at its beginning.
At that time, there were 11 bishops/priests (before the election of Matthias). There was no Canon Law and a certain degree of confusion about many things that were only clarified much later in the Church's history.
But that does not address the issue of what we have been told about "Indefectibility" by those we all agree had authority, as, for example, the hierarchy and the theologians who worked with, and under the auspices of, Cardinals Franzelin and Ottaviani in the Vatican I and Vatican II schemas I referenced, and the theologians of the Catholic Encyclopedia.
It is what they told us about Indefectibility, for example, that has us all tied up into knots regarding the status of the Catholic Church since Vatican II and its developments.
Angelus,I agree with most everything you have said in this thread, but I don't thunk indefectibility is merely the braincells kf these relatively recent theologians. Perhaps defined and outlined as such, yes. But the principle that the Church of Christ will always teach, rile, and sanctify is ancient. St Ignatius famously says "where the bishop is, there is the Church." He is speaking of a bishop in the full sense, with territory. Priests are delegated by the bishops and within each diocese the Church Catholic is present. This is apostolic. It is bishops lacking jurisdiction and territory thay is the later invention.
Forgive me for not responding sooner. My CI time has been preoccupied with responding to a minor, idiotic irritant in this thread.
You make some valid points, and I think your argument sound.
However, you would have to move the benchmark forward to a time when the apostles were dead - not 33 A.D. They clearly are a different case, having direct revelation from the mouth of Our Lord. However we certainly do see a structure with popes and bishops exercising the power of jurisdiction some time thereafter - but was that before we had the structure of ordinaries with demarcated jurisdictions? I don't know.
But that does not address the issue of what we have been told about "Indefectibility" by those we all agree had authority, as, for example, the hierarchy and the theologians who worked with, and under the auspices of, Cardinals Franzelin and Ottaviani in the Vatican I and Vatican II schemas I referenced, and the theologians of the Catholic Encyclopedia.
It is what they told us about Indefectibility, for example, that has us all tied up into knots regarding the status of the Catholic Church since Vatican II and its developments.
From the Catholic Dictionary (1958).
Indefectibility: The quality of unfailingness in the Church, her constitution and ministration, promised by Jesus Christ in the words "behold I am with you all days, even to consummation of the world" (Mat. 28:20). Her indefectibility is seen externally by her triumph over the most terrible trials and dangers and her abounding life and health after 1900 years of history; internally it has preserved her super natural life and channels of grace intact through all the dangerous possibilities arising from human indifference, carelessness and ill will. The special providence of God is technically called assistentia; we are aware of it both by faith and sight, but the manner in which it works is a matter of speculation.
Anyone with discernment and honesty can see that Decem is correct in stating that sedevacantism and privationism fail to maintain the indefectibility of the Church. Lad is also correct that the vatican 2 hierarchy fails to meet the same requirements on different grounds, and they also introduce condemned heresies..
There is no reconciling either the novus ordo position, the motu position, the R&R position, or the sede/semi-vacantist positions with Vatican 1 and the indefectibility of the Church. Those with eyes to see can read this whole thread and see that.
Vatican 1 and the indefectibility of the Church
There is no reconciling either the novus ordo position, the motu position, the R&R position, or the sede/semi-vacantist positions with Vatican 1 and the indefectibility of the Church. Those with eyes to see can read this whole thread and see that..
.Quote from: Yeti 3/28/2025, 7:14:28 PM
It is not defined dogma that there will always be bishops in the Church with jurisdiction. I have asked people who make this claim for a canon from a council, or a dogmatic definition from any pope to this effect, and no one has ever been able to provide it.
What exactly from Vatican I are you referring to? And what definition of the indefectibility of the Church are you referring to? Which pope defined your definition?
Evidently I failed to post properly and it is very hard to read. Here is my last post done properly:What would those same theology manuals say if they were to be written today? IOW, no theologian foresaw the aftermath of the situation in the Church after V2, this total lack of foresight is reflected in what those theology manuals teach.
Forgive me for not having quotes on hand. It has been some time since I studied these things. The requirement for ordinary bishops (bishops in the full sense of the word is all this is) is contained in the very Nicene Creed. It is part of the mark of Apostolicity. Mere vagrant "bishops" who dispense sacraments are not properly successors of the apostles. This is common teaching in any dogmatic theology manual. And despite what guerardians claim, this intrinsic part of apostolicity can no more be present "merely in act" than can the mark of catholicity, holiness, or unity. It is absurd to think so, and such a theory is the result of a desperate mind. (As a side note for Lad and others, Fr Desposito himself acknowledges the need for this and thus when pressed states that the modernist hierarchy possesses jurisdiction not merely in potency but in "first act.") Rationalist sophistry.
If this was not repeated over and over if would be quite astounding, but, as the Book says, "we've been told this before."
Luke 16:29 And Abraham said to him: They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
It has been revealed by sacred Scripture that the saints would be overcome by the beast/antichrist/man of sin (for example, in Daniel and the Apocalypse), and that this would happen "in the holy place" (Mt24:15) or the "temple of God" (2 Thess. 2:4).
But evidently that's not good enough, since we gotta follow man's teaching that the Church and its hierarchy would be "indefectible" until the Lord's return. Why, well, the "indefectible" ones told us so. Right. Got it.
I'll listen to the direct revelation of God, since He told us before. Mt 24:15.
But hey, let's twist ourselves into pretzels about these guys who have betrayed their commission and mandate, and placed the "abomination" in the holy place.
Or pretend that they really aren't who they say they are . . . yeah, that's better. :confused:
2 Cor. 11:3 But I fear lest, as the serpent seduced Eve by his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted, and fall from the simplicity that is in Christ.
Maybe tomorrow, St. Paul. Maybe.
The sun doesn't usually stand still in the sky, and men don't usually rise from the dead . . . but it happens, according to the will of God. Not really that complicated after all.
Quote from: DecemRationis on Today at 08:28:51 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/anonymous-posts-allowed/considering-sedevacantism-and-jurisdiction/msg978283/#msg978283)
If this was not repeated over and over if would be quite astounding, but, as the Book says, "we've been told this before."
Luke 16:29 And Abraham said to him: They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
It has been revealed by sacred Scripture that the saints would be overcome by the beast/antichrist/man of sin (for example, in Daniel and the Apocalypse), and that this would happen "in the holy place" (Mt24:15) or the "temple of God" (2 Thess. 2:4).
But evidently that's not good enough, since we gotta follow man's teaching that the Church and its hierarchy would be "indefectible" until the Lord's return. Why, well, the "indefectible" ones told us so. Right. Got it.
I'll listen to the direct revelation of God, since He told us before. Mt 24:15.
But hey, let's twist ourselves into pretzels about these guys who have betrayed their commission and mandate, and placed the "abomination" in the holy place.
Or pretend that they really aren't who they say they are . . . yeah, that's better. (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/confused1.gif)
2 Cor. 11:3 But I fear lest, as the serpent seduced Eve by his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted, and fall from the simplicity that is in Christ.
Maybe tomorrow, St. Paul. Maybe.
The sun doesn't usually stand still in the sky, and men don't usually rise from the dead . . . but it happens, according to the will of God. Not really that complicated after all.
SSPX/R'n'R - He's a legitimate pope but we make our own rules.
So these are the positions and none of them are legit?Indult - Not sure which way to go / "It's the best I can do for now" / "I can go here and still be a good Catholic" / etc.
Indult - There is no problem with Vatican II.
SSPX/R'n'R - He's a legitimate pope but we make our own rules.
SVPriv - Heretics and Apostates can't be popes/Church can't teach error, so no way can he be pope VII clearly isn't the Church.
Other - None of these work.
So what is the alternative if someone is seriously looking to find the Church?
Forgive me, but I only now realized how to not post anonymously. This has been me, Univocity, arguing against the various trad positions.
---------- Here is what you said------
I would say that you've accurately presented the inherent errors of indult and R&R, but not sede theories. I would revise as follows:
SVPriv - Heretics and Apostates can't be popes/Church can't teach error, so no way can he be pope VII clearly isn't the Church. There are no longer any bishops in the world with the power to teach and rule which is called ordinary jurisdiction. The Church currently lacks these powers.
All I can say is that if no position can reconcile both Vatican 1 teaching on the papacy and the perennial understanding of apostolicity, then we must scrutinize those doctrines themselves.
In other words: papal supremacy and infallibility as defined in Vatican 1 is incompatible with Vatican 2 popes. Denying their validity as popes can save the Vatican 1 doctrine, but it results in a defected Church with no power to teach and rule. Neither is possible. Therefore either the pope is not infallible as taught in Vatican 1, or the Church of Christ does not inherently have teaching and governing authority.
The solution is Holy Orthodoxy.
Decem, I will explain where I think you and I disagree.
In my opinion, you are not distinguishing between the true Church vs the counterfeit Church.
The true Church is "indefectible." That is the Catholic dogma. The people who make up the true Church are referred to as the "wheat," who will be collected by the angels and put into "the barn."
The Counterfeit of the Church, that institution composed of what St. Augustine and other called the "false brethren," is not "indefectible." They will definitely "defect" from the true Faith in the end times and follow the Antichrist to their own destruction. These people are the "tares" or the "cockle," which will be burned.
The word "Church" comes from the New Testament Greek word "ecclesia," meaning those who are "called out," as in called out of "the world." Metaphorically, the "Church" is also called the "mystical body of Christ."
The institution that we call "the Church" is made up of two parts: those who are truly members and the false members. Again, this is Augustine and others, not me.
Defection means that one deviates from the true Faith. The person who "defects" is a heretic or an apostate or a true schismatic. An institution cannot "defect." Individual people "defect" from the Faith. Defection requires acts of intellect and will. Only individual people have those faculties.
Therefore, the "indefectibility of the Church," in its dogmatic meaning derived from Jesus's "gates of Hell" comment, is true. But it is only applicable to the true believers, not the false members who posture as Catholics. And "indefectiblity" is not a thing that can be accomplished by in impersonal institution. It is the triumph of the true believers, the faithful remnant.
The purpose of the end times is to allow Satan to sift the Church so that the true wheat is separated from the false wheat through voluntary, individual decisions. The true wheat will choose to follow Our Lord's instructions and commandments. The false, the cockle, will follow the Antichrist in his contradictions of Our Lord's teachings.
Does this make sense? Have I misunderstood you? If so, I apologize.
Therefore, the "indefectibility of the Church," in its dogmatic meaning derived from Jesus's "gates of Hell" comment, is true.
Mt 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
2 Cor. 10:4-5 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty to God unto the pulling down of fortifications, destroying counsels, 5 And every height that exhalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ;
Dan 7:21 I beheld, and lo, that horn made war against the saints, and prevailed over them,
Apoc. 11
7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast, that ascendeth out of the abyss, shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them. 8 And their bodies shall lie in the streets of the great city, which is called spiritually, Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord also was crucified. 9 And they of the tribes, and peoples, and tongues, and nations, shall see their bodies for three days and a half: and they shall not suffer their bodies to be laid in sepulchres. 10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry: and shall send gifts one to another, because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt upon the earth. 11 And after three days and a half, the spirit of life from God entered into them. And they stood upon their feet, and great fear fell upon them that saw them.
Apoc. 13
6 And he opened his mouth unto blasphemies against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. 7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them. And power was given him over every tribe, and people, and tongue, and nation.
Apoc. 5:9 And they sung a new canticle, saying: Thou art worthy, O Lord, to take the book, and to open the seals thereof; because thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God, in thy blood, out of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.
1 Cor. 6:15-18 -
15 Know you not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. 16 Or know you not, that he who is joined to a harlot, is made one body? For they shall be, saith he, two in one flesh. 17 But he who is joined to the Lord, is one spirit. 18 Fly fornication.
No man could break through that circle of omnipotence until the hour came, when by His own will He opened the way for the powers of evil. For this reason He said in the garden, “This is your hour, and the power of darkness.” [60] For this reason, before He gave Himself into the hands of sinners, He exerted once more the majesty of His power, and when they came to take Him, He rose and said, “I am He,” [61] and “they went backward, and fell to the ground.” Having vindicated His divine majesty, He delivered Himself into the hands of sinners. So too, He said, when He stood before Pilate, “Thou shouldst not have any power against Me, unless it were given thee from above.” [62] It was the will of God; it was the concession of the Father that Pilate had power over His incarnate Son. Again, He said, “Thinkest thou that I cannot ask My Father, and He will give Me presently more than twelve legions of angels? how then shall the Scripture be fulfilled?” [63] In like manner with His Church. Until the hour is come when the barrier shall, by the Divine will, be taken out of the way, no one has power to lay a hand upon it. The gates of hell may war against it; they may strive and wrestle, as they struggle now, with the Vicar of our Lord; but no one has the power to move Him one step, until the hour shall come when the Son of God shall permit, for a time, the powers of evil to prevail. That He will permit it for a time stands in the book of prophecy. When the hindrance is taken away, the man of sin will be revealed; then will come the persecution of three years and a half, short, but terrible, during which the Church of God will return into its state of suffering, as in the beginning; and the imperishable Church of God, by its inextinguishable life derived from the pierced side of Jesus, which for three hundred years lived on through blood, will live on still through the fires of the times of Antichrist.
Manning, Archbishop Henry. The Present Crisis of the Holy See . Desert Will Flower iPress. Kindle Edition.
I'm not sure we disagree.
Of course I am talking about the institutional church, the church that unfortunately contains the hierarchs with the power of jurisdiction, the pope, the bishops over dioceses, etc. They have overrun and taken over the "temple."
I am not talking about the wheat, the elect, the "the church of the firstborn, who are written in the heavens." Heb. 12:23. God forbid; I would never.
I do not believe that verse has been dogmatically interpreted. Very few verses have been, and I do not think that among them.
Gates are defensive tools. The verse means that nothing will stop the God via the Institutional church from gathering the elect members of the "church of the firstborn." Nothing can prevent that. For example -
The sheep will be gathered, and the "gates of hell" cannot prevent it.
But Scripture clearly tells us that the institutional church will be overrun:
What does that mean, since none of Christ's sheep can be lost? It means the institutional church, which they must "flee from" in the Great Apostasy. Accord:
The "every tribe, and people, and tongue, and nation" is the institutional church of corrupt hierarchs sitting in the seat of the formerly faithful descendants of the apostles. Cf. the institutional Church, always comprised of wheat and tares, but overrun by the heresiarchs in the end times -
I think we agree, Angelus, as usual.
All of those who have "fled" the Apostate Whore, the false institutional Church of heresiarchs, Sedes under independent bishops, SSPX, Resistance, home aloners, contain many obviously among the "church of the firstborn." Indeed, I allow that there are Catholics in the NO who are largely ignorant of these more arcane issues, who look to the Cross for their redemption and simply "repent, and believe the gospel."
But the Corporate, Institutional church is gone, has become the Whore, having merged with the world so that it is "one flesh" with it, ignoring among other Scriptures -
I do not think we disagree.
While I could quibble with a few things, I think we are in basic agreement.
And you are correct, the concept of "indefectibility of the Church" has not been precisely defined as a dogma. So it is lacking clarity on the exact boundaries of the concept. This is part of the problem with the disagreements on this forum.
Some define "indefectibility" as if it means the Vatican can't make any errors in governing the Church. While others, like me, define "indefectibility" as if it means defection from the true Faith and Morals (heresy, apostasy, schism). The former is much too broad of a definition, in my opinion, and is not consistent with the facts that we can see if we study Church history. The latter definition fits perfectly with the boundaries of membership in the Church spoken of by other doctrines.
Similarly, some define "the Church" in an overly sociological-institutional way, which I think obscures the meaning of the word "defection," which is a term doctrinally applicable only to individual believers, not to a non-personal institution. And the end time prophecies are specifically talking about the ruination of that sociological-institutional apparatus by the Antichrist, who does his work from within the institutional Church acting as an Antipope.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the "institutional Church," the apparent, counterfeit of the Church, has been hijacked by those who have "defected" from the true Faith. Yes, I agree. Furthermore, you say that the correct response to this situation should be something like "Sedes under independent bishops, SSPX, Resistance, home aloners." I agree.
I think maybe where you and I disagree with people in those categories is that many of them think we are living through a situation that can be overcome by "taking back our Church" from the bad guys. While you and I are saying, that is a pipe dream. Rather, we are at the end of Salvation history and the sooner we acknowledge that the better we can prepare spiritually for what we will soon face.
What will traditional Catholics face? Not a Mad-Max scenario. No, Catholics who are in a state of grace and pray their Rosary every day do not need to worry about that. We need to foster our Charity for God and neighbor, so that when we see Our Lord face to face, we will be ready to enter the "wedding supper of the lamb" rather than needing a period of purgatory to cleanse us of our bad venial sins and habits.
In the Apocalypse, read what Our Lord says to the Church of Ephesus. This is for the traditional Catholic who zealously stands up for the truth of the Faith. But we, at times, are lacking in the practice of charity towards our neighbor, i.e., treating others as we want to be treated.
Please let me know if I have misunderstood.
Well, yes, we are largely in agreement.
Where we disagree a bit is regarding the institutional church, which as an entity indeed "defects." The "two witnesses" lie "dead" on the streets of the
"great city":
Apoc. 11:8 And their bodies shall lie in the streets of the great city, which is called spiritually, Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord also was crucified.
Our Lord was crucified in Jerusalem, the place of the Temple, the center of external, corporate worship in the Old Covenant. That is a group, or institutional,not an individual, entity. Of course individuals "defect" but the prophecy concerns a "mass" of individuals gathered in an apostate entity. It is the institutional church of the Vatican at Rome in the New Covenant. That is the "temple" that the "son of perdition" reigns in during the Great Apostasy. The institution defects.
You call it "counterfeit," and, yes, in the sense of being false, apostate, etc. But it is what the institutional church has become, as prophesied.
The prophecy conflicts with what the manualists and theologians have said about the Institutional church, and hence the great confusion. Their description of Indefectibility doesn't square with the circle of fact. One can knee jerk say this is heretical, like Ladislaus, but it is what it is. Facts, and truth - and God's will and plan - do not bend to manualists and theologians, or wishful thinking, and cannot be evaded.
But it is what the institutional church has become, as prophesied.
Well, yes, we are largely in agreement.
Where we disagree a bit is regarding the institutional church, which as an entity indeed "defects." The "two witnesses" lie "dead" on the streets of the
"great city":
Apoc. 11:8 And their bodies shall lie in the streets of the great city, which is called spiritually, Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord also was crucified.
Our Lord was crucified in Jerusalem, the place of the Temple, the center of external, corporate worship in the Old Covenant. That is a group, or institutional,not an individual, entity. Of course individuals "defect" but the prophecy concerns a "mass" of individuals gathered in an apostate entity. It is the institutional church of the Vatican at Rome in the New Covenant. That is the "temple" that the "son of perdition" reigns in during the Great Apostasy. The institution defects.
You call it "counterfeit," and, yes, in the sense of being false, apostate, etc. But it is what the institutional church has become, as prophesied.
The prophecy conflicts with what the manualists and theologians have said about the Institutional church, and hence the great confusion. Their description of Indefectibility doesn't square with the circle of fact. One can knee jerk say this is heretical, like Ladislaus, but it is what it is. Facts, and truth - and God's will and plan - do not bend to manualists and theologians, or wishful thinking, and cannot be evaded.
Okay DR. I'm not sure how much we disagree. Let me explain my position again.
1. Following St. Augustine, I believe that "the Church," in the "wayfaring state" in this world is bi-partite: it is a mixture of the citizens of the Heavenly City and of the citizens of the Earthly City. This "wayfaring" Church includes the people and all of the visible, institutional aspects necessary to thrive in "the world." But the institution in this world is a means to the end, not the end itself. Eternal life in Paradise is the ultimate goal for the "citizens of the Heavenly City."
2. The entire Church, the institution in the wayfaring state, does not defect. Otherwise, no one would be saved in the end times. Rather, the part of the wayfaring Church that is, what Augustine calls, the false brethren, the "citizens of the earthly city," are the ones who defect. Why? Because they were never really Catholic anyway. They just pretended to be Catholic for marriage or cultural reasons. When the going gets tough, the "false brethren" defect.
3. The end times "Counterfeit Church" is the body of "false brethren" within the SAME institution as the body of "the true Catholics." Augustine refers to the Parable of the Cockle as a figure of this. But Augustine makes it clear than even in his time, the Church had this same bi-partite character. It is not just an end times phenomenon.
4. So, the "two witnesses" are "citizens of the heavenly city" while living on earth. Why? Because they love heavenly things more than earthly things. They are willing to die for the Faith. The persecutors who "kill" the two witnesses are the "false brethren," who are the majority of institutional Catholics, but who are just posers, "cockle" who try to remake the ordered garden (what the Church was intended to be) into a chaotic mess. The "son of perdition," the Antichirst, is a cockle plant, posing as a wheat plant, who tells the other cockle to rise up and strangle the wheat. They can do this successfully because heretics have been nurtured in the institutional wayfaring Church for decades, instead of being cast out.
5. So, to conclude, the entire institutional, wayfaring Church, if understood in its members, has not defected and will never defect. But, rather, the overwhelming majority of the institution with almost the entire hierarchy will defect. But, in the end times, they don't defect and leave the premises to become "Anglican" or "Lutheran." The defectors claim the Roman Catholic Church as their own, renewed by Synodality. They are squatters. Jesus then has to return to cast them into hell and remake Paradise for the part of the wayfaring Church that did not defect, the faithful remnant.
Please let me know, again, where we differ.
I think the difference between us is mostly semantic, subtle differences in the meaning and use the terms, such as "institutional," but we should continue the dialogue as I think we both sharpen our understandings thereby.
The shepherd being struck, the sheep are "scattered." Zech. 13:7. This scattering can be witnessed today: those united in faith but separated, Sedes, Resistance, SSPX, etc. There is no organized structure; their union is not "institutional" or organizational, but by doctrine or faith.
These sheep were indeed formally part of an institution called the Catholic Church; they existed within the institution, with, as you say, "tares" among them in the kingdom. This is no longer the case. To the extent there are the elect within the NO, their election is no longer institutional in any sense, as the institution has been abandoned by the other elect sheep with whom they remain united in faith. Again, the union of the sheep now is doctrinal, in Christ by the Spirit, and not organizational or institutional, as they are disparate and scattered, and not united in a single organized institution, as formally.
If you want to call this union of the faithful the Catholic Church, and identify the Catholic Church with the "church of the firstborn," fine, but as you yourself concede, within that Catholic Church were individuals who were not Christ's Sheep, who were not in fact true members of the "church of the firstborn."
The fact that the institution is not coextensive with the "church of the firstborn" is now made clear by history and circuмstance. The institution was used indeed used by God for the spread of the Gospel and the gathering of the wheat; it was the external representation or figure of the "church of the firstborn," but the institution was NOT strictly speaking the "church of the firstborn."
We know this now because the "church of the firstborn" still exists on earth, members of it on this forum, discussing and sharing the faith of Christ, but not united in an organized body, an institution with spiritual authority over each of the members. Your "bishop" has no authority over me, even if we were in the same geographical location, even if we were next door to each other. I could worship God in a different Catholic Church in the same city as you, with a different organizational structure.
The Novus Ordites, however, are in an institution under a central, organized authority, the institution we all - or our families - were members of. That institution has defected.
The "true church" was found in the institution formerly, but no longer. Just as the elect were found in Jeruslam/Israel, but after Christ's advent and the "calling out" from that defected institution, it was no longer.
Again, I think we agree. This is just a different use and understanding of some of the tags or terms used to describe the current experience.
Rev 12:14
And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, G5117 where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
Mat 24:15
When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, G5117 (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
You can see quite clearly and vividly the portrayal of the institutional defect in Scripture through the use of the word "place," or, in the original Greek, using the Strong's identification system for the Greek words of the New Testament, Strong's G5117 - topos.
I'm going to use the Blue Letter Bible Study site and the KJV translation for ease of use.
Without getting into the "time, and times, and half a time," which is half of the last week of Daniel's 70 week prophecy in Daniel 9, the "place" to which the "woman" flees after Christ's life on earth and Resurrection (Apoc. 12:5) and is "nourished" from the serpent is the Catholic Church, the institutional church which could be identified by its organization, structure of pope and bishops, etc.
That is the "place" where the "abomination of desolation" is set up. The institution that formerly was the place of "nourishment" from the serpent, where you could say the serpent now reigns temporarily, until Our Lord's return in the ultimate victory.
I think this quite clearly set forth in the two verses above.
I think the difference between us is mostly semantic, subtle differences in the meaning and use the terms, such as "institutional," but we should continue the dialogue as I think we both sharpen our understandings thereby.
The shepherd being struck, the sheep are "scattered." Zech. 13:7. This scattering can be witnessed today: those united in faith but separated, Sedes, Resistance, SSPX, etc. There is no organized structure; their union is not "institutional" or organizational, but by doctrine or faith.
These sheep were indeed formally part of an institution called the Catholic Church; they existed within the institution, with, as you say, "tares" among them in the kingdom. This is no longer the case. To the extent there are the elect within the NO, their election is no longer institutional in any sense, as the institution has been abandoned by the other elect sheep with whom they remain united in faith. Again, the union of the sheep now is doctrinal, in Christ by the Spirit, and not organizational or institutional, as they are disparate and scattered, and not united in a single organized institution, as formally.
If you want to call this union of the faithful the Catholic Church, and identify the Catholic Church with the "church of the firstborn," fine, but as you yourself concede, within that Catholic Church were individuals who were not Christ's Sheep, who were not in fact true members of the "church of the firstborn."
The fact that the institution is not coextensive with the "church of the firstborn" is now made clear by history and circuмstance. The institution was used indeed used by God for the spread of the Gospel and the gathering of the wheat; it was the external representation or figure of the "church of the firstborn," but the institution was NOT strictly speaking the "church of the firstborn."
We know this now because the "church of the firstborn" still exists on earth, members of it on this forum, discussing and sharing the faith of Christ, but not united in an organized body, an institution with spiritual authority over each of the members. Your "bishop" has no authority over me, even if we were in the same geographical location, even if we were next door to each other. I could worship God in a different Catholic Church in the same city as you, with a different organizational structure.
The Novus Ordites, however, are in an institution under a central, organized authority, the institution we all - or our families - were members of. That institution has defected.
The "true church" was found in the institution formerly, but no longer. Just as the elect were found in Jeruslam/Israel, but after Christ's advent and the "calling out" from that defected institution, it was no longer.
Again, I think we agree. This is just a different use and understanding of some of the tags or terms used to describe the current experience.
1 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=73&ch=11&l=1-#x)And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and it was said to me: Arise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar and them that adore therein.
Et datus est mihi calamus similis virgae, et dictum est mihi : Surge, et metire templum Dei, et altare, et adorantes in eo :
2 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=73&ch=11&l=2-#x)But the court, which is without the temple, cast out, and measure it not: because it is given unto the Gentiles, and the holy city they shall tread under foot two and forty months:
atrium autem, quod est foris templum, ejice foras, et ne metiaris illud : quoniam datum est gentibus, et civitatem sanctam calcabunt mensibus quadraginta duobus :
You can argue all you want. It is impossible for Roncalli through Bergoglio to have been popes, it is either sedevacantism or Catholicism is false, sede bishops have jurisdiction as I have provenBy this I mean it is either sedevacantism is true or Catholicism is false.
By this I mean it is either sedevacantism is true or Catholicism is false.Sedevacantism is new, not true, Catholicism is true.
and those who deny sedevacante are heretics either being modernists or gallicans
Sedevacantism is new, not true, Catholicism is true.First priest to go sede was under roncalli . Learn Catholic history
First priest to go sede was under roncalli . Learn Catholic historyCatholic history shows sedevacantism was started by a man some odd 60 years ago and it is not found in tradition, this makes it new, not true, this means it is certainly not Catholicism. Learn Catholic tradition.
Catholic history shows sedevacantism was started by a man some odd 60 years ago and it is not found in tradition, this makes it new, not true, this means it is certainly not Catholicism. Learn Catholic tradition.
Each SV group whole-heartedly believes it is true (i.e. the Remnant) and that every other SV group is heretical and going to hell (like the Vatican 2 conciliar church they love to hate on).This is untrue. The bishops of some Sedevacantist groups consecrated the bishops of others. Bishop Dolan of the sgg group was consecrated by Bishop Pivarunas of the CMRI and Bishop Davila of the sst was consecrated by these two. The clergy of the sgg work with the clergy of bishop Sanborn, and Bishop Sanborn's clergy work with the IMBC. The only truly insulated Sedevacantist group would be the SSPV.
hgodwinson, sadly, I think you backed up my point. CMRI, IMBC, SSG, SSPV, etc.As the name suggests, no Sedevacantist group has a "pope". Hope that helps.
What SV group is the true Catholic Church that Christ founded? Like the rest of the world, I didn't get a memo, so could you share the name of the Pope in this SV group that we should turn our attention to?
This is untrue. The bishops of some Sedevacantist groups consecrated the bishops of others. Bishop Dolan of the sgg group was consecrated by Bishop Pivarunas of the CMRI and Bishop Davila of the sst was consecrated by these two. The clergy of the sgg work with the clergy of bishop Sanborn, and Bishop Sanborn's clergy work with the IMBC. The only truly insulated Sedevacantist group would be the SSPV.From everything I read, despite minor spats between specific individuals now and then, most of the Sede groups of any relevance do have clergy that constantly mingle and cooperate with one another, except, as you pointed out, the SSPV who seem the most insular and absurd on their condemnations of others.
hgodwinson, sadly, I think you backed up my point. CMRI, IMBC, SSG, SSPV, etc.
What SV group is the true Catholic Church that Christ founded? Like the rest of the world, I didn't get a memo, so could you share the name of the Pope in this SV group that we should turn our attention to?
From everything I read, despite minor spats between specific individuals now and then, most of the Sede groups of any relevance do have clergy that constantly mingle and cooperate with one another, except, as you pointed out, the SSPV who seem the most insular and absurd on their condemnations of others.
Ladislaus, hgodwinson, I'm not trying to disrespectful. My apologies if my words betray me.
I'll ask again since my question hasn't been answered. What Sede group is the true Catholic Church? What is the name of the Pope? Prior to Vatican 2, I don't believe the papacy was empty for more than a few years (that I could find out). That's why I ask, surely by now there's a valid Pope in the church our Blessed Lord established. He tasked Peter to feed His sheep afterall!
There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.
No "sede" group and no "R&R" group ARE, as group, THE true Catholic Church, but they may all be Catholic and IN the Catholic Church.Careful Laddie boy, what about those pesky material heretics eh?
During the Great Western Schism, which group was THE true Catholic Church? Answer is that neither was THE Church, but that both were PART OF the Church, even if they were divided materially regarding the consideration of fact, i.e. who had been legitimately elected pope.This is a bad comparison, none of those then were divided on doctrine as the various sects are now. Even St. Vincent innocently erred for a time about who was the legitimate pope, but he proved his extraordinary mission with great miracles and was welcomed wherever he went. That material schism is nothing compared to what we are dealing with now - heresy, apostasy.
Ladislaus, hgodwinson, I'm not trying to disrespectful. My apologies if my words betray me.No Sedevacantist group in and of itself is the Catholic Church. It is my belief however that each (mainstream) group is Catholic, and therefore that they are each a part of the whole (body). Just speaking for myself, I see the Catholic church today as those who hold to all the of the dogmas of the Catholic Church (or what we can all agree was the Catholic church at the death of Pope Pius xii). Most important to the crisis are the dogmas surrounding salvation outside the church (eens) and around the papacy. I believe Sedevacantism to be the proper response to who what is going on in Rome currently but not a dogma that would make someone Catholic or not.
I'll ask again since my question hasn't been answered. What Sede group is the true Catholic Church? What is the name of the Pope? Prior to Vatican 2, I don't believe the papacy was empty for more than a few years (that I could find out). That's why I ask, surely by now there's a valid Pope in the church our Blessed Lord established. He tasked Peter to feed His sheep afterall!
This is a bad comparison, none of those then were divided on doctrine as the various sects are now. Even St. Vincent innocently erred for a time about who was the legitimate pope, but he proved his extraordinary mission with great miracles and was welcomed wherever he went. That material schism is nothing compared to what we are dealing with now - heresy, apostasy.Sedevacantist groups really are not too divided on doctrine. The biggest doctrinal divide the Cassiciacuм thesis but it is more a difference in how they view the current papal crisis. Bishop Sanborn of the Roman Catholic institute has a lot of online content but, to simplify the thesis, it is the belief that since John XXIII and his successors were never declared heretics by the church, their elections were valid, but that since they intent to - through Vatican ii - impose a false religion upon the Catholic church, that they never fully accepted papacy and the promise of maintaining the faith that comes with that.
Sedevacantist groups really are not too divided on doctrine. The biggest doctrinal divide the Cassiciacuм thesis ...