It is just more proof that the NO church is not the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church cannot possibly promote or approve of evil or sin.No pope for how many years now? As the years roll on this thesis seems to be more problematic.
.
This is bad news.
.
Three views of AL on the internet, but the most lengthy is that of "Brother Diamond."Meg, with all due respect, we don't hold that there is no magisterium, we believe that the magisterium is not readily accessible. No matter how strange this seems to you and to many people, it does not contradict Church teaching. What is absolutely impossible is that the Church can promote sin or evil. Do you see that?
Why should a sedevacantist care about this latest turn of events (which comes as no surprise) when sedevacantists believe that there IS NO MAGISTERUIM? Since they believe it's a completely false church and false pope, then why should they care about what they believe to be a false magisterium?
Meg, with all due respect, we don't hold that there is no magisterium, we believe that the magisterium is not readily accessible. No matter how strange this seems to you and to many people, it does not contradict Church teaching. What is absolutely impossible is that the Church can promote sin or evil. Do you see that?
Three views of AL on the internet, but the most lengthy is that of "Brother Diamond."Brother Dimond's has the most lengthy view because he wants to warn people who are under the misapprehension that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church. Sedevacantists believe that the post-Vatican II magisterium is not the magisterium of the Catholic Church. But they have to care as many of them were once either fully Novus Ordo or with R&R, and they feel it is their duty to inform others who are still stuck in those places. The Dimond brothers once attended SSPX chapels. Fr Morrison of Traditio once believed that the 1962 Missal was OK, but he doesn't any more.
Why should a sedevacantist care about this latest turn of events (which comes as no surprise) when sedevacantists believe that there IS NO MAGISTERUIM? Since they believe it's a completely false church and false pope, then why should they care about what they believe to be a false magisterium?
Brother Dimond's has the most lengthy view because he wants to warn people who are under the misapprehension that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church. Sedevacantists believe that the post-Vatican II magisterium is not the magisterium of the Catholic Church. But they have to care as many of them were once either fully Novus Ordo or with R&R, and they feel it is their duty to inform others who are still stuck in those places. The Dimond brothers once attended SSPX chapels. Fr Morrison of Traditio once believed that the 1962 Missal was OK, but he doesn't any more.
Do the R&R factions care? Why are they quiet?
Curious, you say, "an idiot conniving modernist pope" , "That's how modernism works"
My question would be: Modernism is defined as heresy by the Catholic Church, right?
As Catholics, shouldn't we say "an idiot conniving heretic..., and "That's how a false sect works'?
I asked a question, and it wasn't whether sedevacantists are going to hell, as you claim.
Sedevacantists say one thing....Catholics say another. I follow ABL's thinking on the matter.
ABL is not the Catholic Church. He was a fallible and heretical Bishop who believed souls could be saved dying in their false religions.
That's because he himself was a heretic. Whether he was truly a material heretic or not is not the concern of a Catholic (God knows).
What are you doubting exactly? The conclave? If he is accepted by all the Roman clergy then how can you have doubts?
ABL was a sede-doubtist ... just like myself.
What are you doubting exactly? The conclave? If he is accepted by all the Roman clergy then how can you have doubts?
Is that how +ABL described himself? I don't recall that he did.
In +ABL's last book, in 1986 (I think it was his last), which was called "Open Letter to Confused Catholics," he wrote this in the last chapter on page 175:
"I have not ceased repeating that if anyone separates himself from the Pope, it will not be I. The question comes down to this: the power of the Pope within that Church is supreme, but not absolute and limitless, because it is subordinate to the Divine authority which is expressed in Tradition."
+ABL wrote that he had not ceased to repeat that he will not separate himself from the Pope. Is that what sede-doubtists' believe? Though, of course, sede-doubtism is probably a recently made-up term, and may not have been in existence when +ABL was alive.
Ummm ... presumably because they actually care about people's souls? And this latest news constiutes not only proof that Frankie is a manifest heretic, but it is an unambiguous teaching of heresy through a popes authentic magisterium, which, at the very least if left unchallenged, unrecanted and uncorrected, violates indefectibility?The R&R can’t win here. Either they destroy what they were trying to protect (traditional doctrine) or they submit and lose their identity. It’s like a Vietnam: “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.”
There's no wiggle room for a get-out-of-jail-free card here as there arguably is for Vatican II. As a Catholic you HAVE TO submit to this teaching. Canon law DEMANDS that you do. The FSSP can't argue the "hemeneutic of continuity " here, because it's unambiguous. The SSPX can't say that this teaching is just some kind of list of suggestions from a get-together of bishops with the Pope. It's not a private opinion expressed in a letter. It's not an off-the-cuff remark during an interview. It's not a blunder in a sermon. This is the Pope teaching as pope and to the Church. It's AUTHENTIC MAGISTERIUM concerning FAITH AND MORALS, in particular the every nature of morality itself.
Submit to the pope's teaching.
Sedevacantists say one thing....Catholics say another. I follow ABL's thinking on the matter.This site calls itself catholic-hierarchy.org and it says that ABL left the Church.
Meg, with all due respect, we don't hold that there is no magisterium, we believe that the magisterium is not readily accessible. No matter how strange this seems to you and to many people, it does not contradict Church teaching. What is absolutely impossible is that the Church can promote sin or evil. Do you see that?Meg is blinded by her rabid dogmatic anti-sedevacantism.
So Bergoglio's predecessors subjectivized faith and doctrine. Now Bergoglio finishes the job by subjectivizing morality.Exactly.
Sedevacantists say one thing....Catholics say another. I follow ABL's thinking on the matter.Show me where ABL stated that sedevacantists are non-Catholic, out of the Church or going to Hell.
From Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, Pope Paul IV, 1559...And yet, Cum Ex assumes a trial.
In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy: the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless; it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation.
Show me where ABL stated that sedevacantists are non-Catholic, out of the Church or going to Hell.
I didn't say that I take +ABL's view of whether or not sedes are Catholic or not, or out of the Church. That in itself wasn't the point of the argument.I was wondering where he came up with that considering what you actually said.
And I never said that sedes are going to hell. They are just nuts, that's all. And the dogmatic ones aren't Catholic.
I was wondering where he came up with that considering what you actually said.
And yet, Cum Ex assumes a trial.
Cum Ex...
"(vii) if perchance they shall have been Judges, their judgements shall have no force, nor shall any cases be brought to their hearing.;"
So, an HEARING is presumed in Cum Ex. That means, this declaration is only a guideline for determining within an hearing that someone proven guilty of heresy, Pope included, must be treated as written. But an hearing is presumed.
Bellarmine’s thinking regarding this matter is perfectly consistent with the mind of the Church, as we see expressed in Canon 10 of the Fourth Council of Constantinople. In response to the schism of Photius, the Council attached the grave penalty of excommunication to any layman or monk who, in the future, separated himself from his patriarch (the Pope is Patriarch of the West) before a careful inquiry and judgment by a synod.
“As divine scripture clearly proclaims, ‘Do not find fault before you investigate, and understand first and then find fault’. And does our law judge a person without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does? Consequently this holy and UNIVERSAL SYNOD justly and fittingly declares and lays down that no lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself from communion with his own patriarch before a careful inquiry and judgment in synod, even if he alleges that he knows of some crime perpetrated by his patriarch, and he must not refuse to include his patriarch's name during the divine mysteries or offices. (…) If anyone shall be found defying this holy synod, he is to be debarred from all priestly functions and status if he is a bishop or cleric; if a monk or lay person, he must be excluded from all communion and meetings of the church [i.e. excommunicated] until he is converted by repentance and reconciled”.
So non-Catholics aren't going to Hell?
Meg,
Yesterday you made this comment... this is why you are being questioned.
You are saying sedevacantists are not Catholics... non-Catholics are not saved... or are they?
Repeat after me: nobody can judge of a pope.
That means that nobody is invested with the authority level official judgments against a pope. It's not possible to drag someone recognised as the Pope before the Inquisition or to have a body of bishops judge him. He can be corrected, but he cannot be judged.
Pope St. Nicholas, epistle (8), Proposueramus quidem, 865: “… Neither by Augustus, nor by all the clergy, nor by religious, not by the people will the judge be judged… ‘The first seat will not be judged by anyone.’"
Pope St. Leo IX, In terra pax hominibus, Sept. 2, 1053, Chap. 32: “… As the hinge while remaining immoveable opens and closes the door, so Peter and his successors have free judgment over all the Church, since no one should remove their status because ‘the highest See is judged by no one.’”
Canon 1556, 1917 Code of Canon Law, On trials in general: “The First See is judged by no one.”
No. You've totally misread those words.Ok, I'll accept that. What about the Council of Constantinople?
What they plainly state is that if the person in question is a judge, then he has henceforth lost all power to judge and no cases are to be brought before him for judgment.
The "hearing" mentioned is not a hearing held in order to judge the judge; it is rather a case brought before that judge for judgment (case brought to their hearing).
Is English not your first language?
Yes Meg, we're aware that you have a level of reading comprehension similar to happenby's.Calm down, you're so crotchety.
Calm down, you're so crotchety.
Your comment is much kinder than that which I was contemplating.Temporary insanity
... We enact, determine, decree and define ... that if ever at any time it shall appear that ... the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy ...
How should Joe Sixpack in the pew decide which declarations from which bishops to believe?
Repeat after me: nobody can judge of a pope.
That means that nobody is invested with the authority level official judgments against a pope. It's not possible to drag someone recognised as the Pope before the Inquisition or to have a body of bishops judge him. He can be corrected, but he cannot be judged.
Pope St. Nicholas, epistle (8), Proposueramus quidem, 865: “… Neither by Augustus, nor by all the clergy, nor by religious, not by the people will the judge be judged… ‘The first seat will not be judged by anyone.’"
Pope St. Leo IX, In terra pax hominibus, Sept. 2, 1053, Chap. 32: “… As the hinge while remaining immoveable opens and closes the door, so Peter and his successors have free judgment over all the Church, since no one should remove their status because ‘the highest See is judged by no one.’”
Canon 1556, 1917 Code of Canon Law, On trials in general: “The First See is judged by no one.”
Pope St. Nicholas
“… Neither by Augustus, nor by all the clergy, nor by religious, not by the people will the judge be judged… ‘The first seat will not be judged by anyone.’"
What is it about this quote that you don't understand, Meg?
They don't separate anyone; separation is ipso facto an immediate consequence of the heresy itself.
Canon 188.4
“Through tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric: ...n.4. Has publicly forsaken the Catholic Faith.”
(Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus: ...4 A fide catholica publice defecerit.)
There is no such doctrine. That it doesn't exist doesn't change any facts. It's like asking if doctrine existed specifically to deal with the Western schism and antipopes - that's probably also the best case to look at to guess how things might resolve themselves. If one denies valid orders to the Novus Ordo bishops, it becomes more difficult to imagine.
I'll tell you what wasn't anyone's position during those times, though: we recognise you as the true pope but refuse to submit to you and your teaching.
There is no doctrine, but there is a precedent that was established in the early Church, and Saint Robert Bellarmine uses this precedent as an example to back up his teaching on the Roman Pontiff.
Let's go back to your original statement where you said: "He can be judged by a body of men."
The POPE cannot be judged by any power on earth - period. Now, if a pope were to become a manifest (public) heretic, he ceases to be pope, thus he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine.
I understand that there are theologians with differing opinions, but St. Robert's teaching stems from a precedent established during the Arian crisis.
St. Roberts says in De Romano Pontifice:
"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction..."
He continues:
"The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union."
He goes on to further explain what happened to Pope Liberius during the Arian crisis:
"In addition, unless we are to admit that Liberius defected for a time from constancy in defending the Faith, we are compelled to exclude Felix II, who held the pontificate while Liberius was alive, from the number of the Popes: but the Catholic Church venerates this very Felix as Pope and martyr. However this may be, Liberius neither taught heresy, nor was a heretic, but only sinned by external act, as did St. Marcellinus, and unless I am mistaken, sinned less than St. Marcellinus.
Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic."
Seems pretty Catholic to me.
However, does anyone really believe that the heresiarchs in Rome are going to actually do anything about their fellow heretic?
Canon 2200.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “ When an external violation of the law has been committed, malice is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proven.
A commentary on this canon by Rev. Eric F. Mackenzie, A.M., S.T.L., J.C.L, states: “The very commission of any act which signifies heresy, e.g., the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity... Excusing circumstances have to be proved in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action has given rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of such proof, all such excuses are presumed not to exist.”
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30 : “... for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.
How so? A heretic is a heretic, no?
Pronouncing juridical judgment - making factual discernment: two different things.
Heresy is heresy no matter who preaches it. St. Paul said...
8. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. 9. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. (Gal 1:8-9)
This was so important, St. Paul said it twice. When he says "though we", he refers to the apostles (including St. Peter). He then says anyone in verse 9. So when he says, "we", "an angel" and then "anyone", it becomes obvious that Bergoglio is not excluded. He does not say to wait for an official judgement.
St. Francis De Sales (17 th century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic Controversy , pp. 305-306: " Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church ..."
Canon 2200.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “ When an external violation of the law has been committed, malice is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proven.
A commentary on this canon by Rev. Eric F. Mackenzie, A.M., S.T.L., J.C.L, states: “The very commission of any act which signifies heresy, e.g., the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity... Excusing circumstances have to be proved in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action has given rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of such proof, all such excuses are presumed not to exist.”
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30 : “... for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.
Again, you do not give ANY quotes regarding how to deal with a Pope who is in heresy. I specifically asked about Church teaching regarding how to deal with a Pope who is in heresy. When you provide the quotes I asked for, I'll respond to you further.
That's between him and God. But there is such a thing as manifest heresy which clearly and explicitly contrary de fide teachings. Why is the ability to know this constantly questioned in general because many people don't possess the necessary faculties to discern it?
If my priest stands before the congregation and says:" I've converted to Islam", is his apostasy, in good conscience, not to be taken as an objective fact? If a bishop states publically that Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh and die on the cross, is there some reaosonable doubt left somewhere as to my obligation to shun him as a heretic? And if an apparent pope teaches moral relativism and gradualism as part of his authentic magisterium and, after being corrected, persists in this, what am I to think?
I didn't say that I take +ABL's view of whether or not sedes are Catholic or not, or out of the Church. That in itself wasn't the point of the argument.Suddenly it's just the "dogmatic ones" that aren't Catholic.
And I never said that sedes are going to hell. They are just nuts, that's all. And the dogmatic ones aren't Catholic.