Author Topic: 61 year sede-vacantism has already become proximately heretical (leads to EVism) (Read 10615 times)

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #120 on:** December 30, 2019, 08:50:24 PM »

Quote from: Bellator Dei

Quote from: Bellator Dei The link you provided is just Bishop Fellay granting himself "Ordinary Jurisdiction"

Hi Bellator Dei. It's not about granting himself. It's about Bp. Fellay's understanding of what the Pope has granted him: "As a result of the Pope’s act, during the Holy Year, we will have ordinary jurisdiction" https://damselofthefaith.wordpress.com/2015/12/01/ordinary-jurisdiction-for-the-year-of-mercy-bishop-fellay-says/ Now, you can disagree with Bp. Fellay if you want, and perhaps someone can email or write him to clarify if they're unsure. For myself, I believe Bp. Fellay; and Bp. Fellay has often been proven right in the past subsequently. One example is when Bp. Fellay said some Bishops told him privately the Tridentine Mass was never banned years before Summorum Pontificuм. That was later verified by Pope Benedict XVI. Another example when Bp. Fellay gave the example; that in some cases like abortion etc which until recently incurred censures reserved to the Pope (so Priests have to right to Rome after giving absolution), whenever SSPX Bishops or Priests would so write, "every time, absolutely every time, Rome would say it was perfectly in order. Rome would then comment on the penance (for the absolved censure), whether it was sufficient or not enough" etc. This was years before Pope Francis' recent act above. So, I believe Bp. Fellay's understanding that he now has OJ and don't believe His Excellency would infer that lightly. But someone is free to question H.E. more about that; what is certain is that the conferral of OJ requires Papal confirmation.

This is evident from Fr. Woywod: "Every candidate to the episcopate ... needs the canonical provision or institution in order to be the lawful bishop of a vacant diocese. The only one to institute a bishop is the Roman Pontiff" and Pope Pius IX: "When this is done, the Roman pontiff will choose one of those recommended and put him in charge of the vacant see". So there is a difference between consecration of a Bishop-elect, which can be done by another, and appointment of that person to an episcopal see, which the Pope does. An auxiliary bishop has not yet succeeded to the episcopal see; but if the Pope appoints him to it, he will. It comes down really to the Pope's Universal Jurisdiction in the Church.

Over whom would Bp. Fellay have Ordinary Jurisdiction? The Priests and Faithful of the Society, I believe; like the Bishops of a Prelature or Ordinariate would. Maybe if someone emails Bp. Fellay, or asks him in person, about this, we could have greater clarity about it. But it is tangential to the issue; I'm sure Bp. Fellay does not believe a 60+year vacancy is possible. Bp. Fellay has mentioned the "jurisdiction problem" before, both in commenting on True or False Pope, if I recall right; as well as in saying the Hierarchy of today remains the Catholic Hierarchy, because only the Catholic Hierarchy can have OJ. There are many valid Bishops in the world; there are Orthodox Bishops, Old Catholic etc. But there can be only one line, the line of Bishops appointed by the Pope, with Ordinary Jurisdiction.

As Van Noort explains, we can have valid Bishops anywhere; but Successors of the Apostles only in the Catholic Church, by legitimate authorization from a Superior, the Pope. "Obviously a man does not become a genuine successor to the apostles merely by arrogating to himself the title of “bishop,” or by carrying on in some fashion a function once performed by the apostles. Neither is it enough for a man merely to possess some one, individual power, say for example, the power of orders. - The power of orders can be acquired even illicitly, and once acquired can never be lost. - What is required for genuine apostolic succession is that a man enjoy the complete powers (i.e., ordinary powers, not extraordinary) of an apostle. He must, then, in addition to the power of orders, possess also the power of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction means the power to teach and govern. - This power is conferred only by a legitimate authorization and, even though once received, can be lost again by being revoked."

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Ladislaus So there must be other criteria to determine when the succession would cease. XavierSem claims that there have to be legitimate electors still alive and appointed by the last reining Pope. This is one possible opinion

"Possible opinion", ok. Yes, electors among the Roman Clergy to elect. And Ordinary Bishops, in the special case of a Pope-heretic which SVism claims, in order to make a binding judgment first. That's the "possible opinion" as you call it. Now, even if one believe Ordinaries already appointed to sees by prior Popes are not necessary for Apostolicity of the Church, Ladislaus, can he deny they are at least needed for a declaration? Imo, there would be both a doctrinal and a practical requirement for Ordinaries; if 61 year SVism is true, which is why I don't believe it is. What I do believe is that, as Pope St. Pius X saw in a vision; we will get to the point of something like an invasion of Rome one day, when the Pope will have to flee. Then, he will be caught and killed, along with many Clergy. And then we will see the temporary triumph of evil.

Then, God will miraculously intervene for His Church; as many Mystics have said. And, after some chastisement and purification, after they finally repent and Consecrate Russia, as Our Lord said they would to Sr. Lucia, but very late; He will bring about the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart. I believe we will either have Popes; or, alternately, if the Popes are killed etc, then some Cardinals or other electors, and some ordinary bishops, until the end. But let us see how it all unfolds.

Pope St. Pius X: "I have seen one of my Successors, of the same name, who was fleeing over the bodies of his brethren. He will take refuge in some hiding place; but after a brief respite, he will die a cruel death. Respect for God has disappeared from human hearts. They wish to efface even God's memory. This perversity is nothing less than the beginning of the last days of the world."

Partial Third Secret: "And we saw in an immense light that is God: ‘something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it' a Bishop dressed in White ‘we had the impression that it was the Holy Father'. Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God."

Yeti · « **Reply #121 on:** January 01, 2020, 09:33:42 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 30, 2019, 04:11:25 PM

I believe that there are likely still Bishops in the world who have the faith and therefore still formally exercise their office, that they are in material error only.

.
This is certainly one of the more compelling and plausible explanations of what is going on in the Church right now, but I have a hard time with the idea of someone being part of the hierarchy who preaches heresy, even if he does not know it is heretical. The very notion of the hierarchy and the magisterium is that it publicly upholds the Faith. Someone who publicly upholds heresy, even if he thinks it is Catholicism, does not meet that definition.
.
I'm not saying I have a better answer, because I don't. Every idea people have come up with to explain what is going on now is open to objections.

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #122 on:** January 01, 2020, 10:35:31 AM »

Quote from: Yeti

Thank you very much for that link. I am reading through the article now, and plan to bookmark it for later examination.

Hi Yeti. To your earlier question, I believe this part from Fr. Fenton, contains the answer: "St. Robert explained this teaching by saying that the Roman clergy and the Roman laity, as a corporate unit, could never fall away from the faith.[35] The Roman Church, as an individual local institution, can never fall away from the faith. Manifestly the same guarantee is given to no other local Church." There will always be some Catholic Roman Clergy and Roman Laity. That is guaranteed by the Promise of Indefectibility to the Roman Church. But it can happen that, in case of war or invasion etc, the Roman Clergy themselves are dispersed. For e.g. if someone is a Diocesan Bishop in Europe, but is forced to flee to Asia because of a war; he does not cease to be Diocesan Bishop in that see to which he was appointed. Similarly, once a Roman Cleric was incardinated into the Roman Church by a prior Pope, even if forced to flee to some other country or continent, because e.g. of an invasion in Rome, he remains a truly incardinated Roman Clergy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incardination_and_excardination Only the Pope is able to incardinate Roman Clergy.

Does that answer your question? The idea that the Church of Rome can be deprived of Clergy incardinated into Her by prior Popes is very unlikely. Without Clergy, there is no Church. Without at least some Roman Clergy, and no Roman Bishop, there is no Roman Church. Hence, even in an interregnum, at least some Roman Clergy must remain. Otherwise, how could what Msgr. Fenton writes above be true: How could at least some Catholic Roman Clergy not remain alive and in the Faith?

Quote from: Ladislaus

No, there can't be a requirement to have Successor of Peter at every moment in time. Otherwise, Apostolic Succession would cease during every papal interregnum, and this would negate the "Perpetual Succession" teaching of Vatican I

Even in the above, you're not distinguishing (1) a Bishop being appointed to a see in the first place and (2) a new Bishop needing to be appointed to a see. A Bishop who is already appointed to a see does not somehow vacate that see or fall from it just because the Pope dies. All Diocesans already appointed remain in office and retain the jurisdictional powers already communicated to them by the Pope before he died. It is new Ordinaries or Diocesans who are not appointed in that time. If consecrated, they can be appointed only by a new Pope. But if not already appointed, they cannot pass judgment. It is a vicious circle for SVism

Cardinal Franzelin: "Then indeed [during tempe sede vacante] the divine law and institution of perpetuity remains, and by the same reason the right and duty in the Church of procuring the succession according to the established law; there remain also the participations in the powers [of the papacy] to the extent they are communicable to others [e.g. to the Cardinals or bishops], and have been communicated by the successor of Peter while still alive, or have been lawfully established and not abrogated [thus the jurisdiction of bishops, granted by the Pope, does not cease when he dies]; but the highest power itself, together with its rights and prerogatives, which can in no way exist except in the one individual heir of Peter, now actually belong to no one while the See is vacant."

Quote

So there's no specific divinely-constituted MANNER of designating or selecting a Pope, nor does a participation in the election require ordinary jurisdiction.

Even if I accept all the other things (like the MAPCAD theory, that a Material Pope can appoint Diocesans, which is really absurd; because nemo dat quod non habet, he who lacks Universal Jurisdiction cannot confer Particular Jurisdiction on a Bishop, as is also evident from Cardinal Franzelin above; and Cardinal Journet; and cuм Ex for that matter), how are you going to answer the requirement of Ordinaries in the special case of Pope-heretics? You need Ordinaries to pass judgment.

Without Ordinaries passing judgment, and making it binding and definitive on the Church, the Church cannot proceed to elect. Thus, SVism is already caught in a vicious circle; and should foreseen this problem and tried to resolve it decades ago. But it is too late now for that. God shows, as by a clear sign, all who wish to see where Truth lies, that SVism is not where it's at.

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #123 on:** January 01, 2020, 10:48:13 AM »

From Cardinal Journet, Church of the Incarnate Word:

Quote

The consequence of this doctrine is that as time went on the jurisdictional power would devolve differently on the Pope and on the other bishops. On the Pope it is bestowed immediately by Christ as soon as he is validly elected. To the bishops it is given mediately, through the Pope: the Saviour, says Cajetan, sends down His power first on the head of the Church, and thence to the rest of the body[1].

When a Pope is created the electors merely designate the person, and it is Christ who then confers on him immediately his dignity and power. But, when the Sovereign Pontiff, either of himself or through others, invests bishops, the proper jurisdiction they receive does not come to them directly from God, it comes directly from the Sovereign Pontiff to whom Christ gives it in a plenary manner, and from whom it comes down to the bishops: somewhat after the manner of the life-pulse that begins in the heart and is transmitted thence to the other organs. And that is why the Sovereign Pontiff must not be conceived as merely designating bishops who then receive directly from Christ their proper and ordinary authority; but as himself conferring the episcopal authority, having first received it from Christ in an eminent form.

The Encyclical Satis Cognitum of the 29th June 1896 confirms all this. Two passages are cited from St. Leo the Great on the eminent dignity of the Apostle Peter: "The divine condescension. . . if it willed that the other princes [of the Church] should have certain privileges in common with him, has never given save through him what it has not refused to the others [nunquam nisi per ipsum dedit quidquid aliis non negavit] and "Although he received many things for himself alone, nothing was granted to any other without his participation [cuм multa solus acceperit, nihil in quemquam sine ipsius participatione transierit]

Footnote: [1] “ Ita in caput primo, quod, per caput, in corpus reliquum, potestatem diffundit Salvator noster “ (Cajetan, De Comparatione Auctoritatis Papae et Concilii, cap. vi, no. 78)"

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #124 on:** January 18, 2020, 03:08:04 AM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

You can’t possess that authority unless you can prove that either you have been legitimately elected bishop of Rome or you have been authorized by the Bishop of Rome. To be a Successor of the Apostles you also have to be validly and licitly consecrated by another Catholic Bishop.

Yes, that's correct. Consequently sede Bishops have no Apostolic authority. Also, they falsely and schismatically claimed the See of Peter is vacant, in contravention to the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the whole Church Teaching that recognizes the Popes as Popes - on account of which all their further actions are schismatic, illicit and sacrilegeous, just as your last Pope Pius XII teaches of such schismatic consecrations that deny the Holy Father's authority.

But even beside that, (1) it is heretical to say the Catholic Church can cease to be Apostolic even for a minute. (2) Ecclesia-Vacantists falsely claim the Church now lacks Apostolic Authority. (3) Consequently, Ecclesia-Vacantists are manifest heretics outside the Catholic Church, where there is no salvation; until they return to the Church, and receive authorization from Her.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #125 on:** January 18, 2020, 04:32:32 AM »

Quote from: XavierSem on January 18, 2020, 03:08:04 AM

hey falsely and schismatically claimed the See of Peter is vacant

No, sir, you are demonstrably the schismatic.

Besides that, if you had bothered to actually study the notion of schism, you would understand that schism entails a principled refusal to accept papal authority. Your attempt to characterize sedevacantists, who accept papal authority according to the teaching of the Church, with, say, groups like the Orthodox is utterly absurd ... and dishonest, due to your emotional contempt for sedevacantism in order to rationalize your own schism.

Should I dig up all the quotes from +Lefebvre asserting that it is the Conciliar Church that's in schism, and people are in schism to the extent that they adhere to this false Conciliar Church?

When there are grave reasons to doubt the legitimacy of these popes, not adhering to them is no more schismatic than St. Vincent Ferrer was in adhering to a false pope. It's a material schism at best.

You, on the other hand, are formally in schism by your adherence to the SSPX when you have no theological reason for doing so. At least the sedevacantists have serious theological reasons for refusing submission to the V2 putative hiearachy. You have none. So it is you who are the schismatic.

Not to mention that for all your lip service to Archbishop Lefebvre, you have nothing to do with him. By declaring the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants to be dogmatically certain, you are at the same time accusing +Lefebvre of heresy, because he publicly entertained grave doubts about their legitimacy. And the various statements about the Conciliar Church being in schism would in fact be schismatic according to you.

Sedevacantists refuse submission to papal authority based on the conclusion that these men are not legitimate popes ... not unlike how St. VIncent Ferrer refused submission to the actual pope on account of his conclusion that he was not the pope.

You refuse submission to papal authority because you like the size of the SSPX apostolate.

Who, pray tell, is the real schismatic?

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #126 on:** January 18, 2020, 06:18:09 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on January 18, 2020, 04:32:32 AM

No, sir, you are demonstrably the schismatic.

Besides that, if you had bothered to actually study the notion of schism, you would understand that schism entails a principled refusal to accept papal authority. Your attempt to characterize sedevacantists, who accept papal authority according to the teaching of the Church, with, say, groups like the Orthodox is utterly absurd ... and dishonest, due to your emotional contempt for sedevacantism in order to rationalize your own schism.

Should I dig up all the quotes from +Lefebvre asserting that it is the Conciliar Church that's in schism, and people are in schism to the extent that they adhere to this false Conciliar Church?

When there are grave reasons to doubt the legitimacy of these popes, not adhering to them is no more schismatic than St. Vincent Ferrer was in adhering to a false pope. It's a material schism at best.

You, on the other hand, are formally in schism by your adherence to the SSPX when you have no theological reason for doing so. At least the sedevacantists have serious theological reasons for refusing submission to the V2 putative hiearachy. You have none. So it is you who are the schismatic.

Not to mention that for all your lip service to Archbishop Lefebvre, you have nothing to do with him. By declaring the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants to be dogmatically certain, you are at the same time accusing +Lefebvre of heresy, because he publicly entertained grave doubts about their legitimacy. And the various statements about the Conciliar Church being in schism would in fact be schismatic according to you.

Sedevacantists refuse submission to papal authority based on the conclusion that these men are not legitimate popes ... not unlike how St. VIncent Ferrer refused submission to the actual pope on account of his conclusion that he was not the pope.

You refuse submission to papal authority because you like the size of the SSPX apostolate.

Who, pray tell, is the real schismatic?

This 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 except I don’t believe that he is truly a schismatic.

It seems to me, what saves XavierSem and others from actually being in schism, is the reality that Bergoglio and his successors are/were, in fact, NOT true popes and because of the confusion caused by this unprecedented crisis. No Catholic, in normal times, would or could ignore and treat a real pope in the same manner without being at least suspect of schism.

May I add these quotes:

F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicuм, 7:398, 1943)

Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948

De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter'] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-)

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #127 on:** January 18, 2020, 07:43:50 AM »

Quo Vadis Domine, I agree with you that there is no schism if someone is genuinely confused, and in good faith, as I believe you may be, about whether a certain Papal candidate was validly elected or not. But the issue here is, once there is unanimous acceptance of a single candidate, all such doubts are about to cease. For this reason, Cardinal Billot called Savonarola's denial of Pope Alexander VI's Papacy to be schismatic? Do you believe Cardinal Billot was mistaken. Fr. Gueranger and John of St. Thomas have taught the same thing.

Obviously, St. Vincent Ferrer was in perfect good faith and there was no schism. But once the GWS ended, and Pope Martin V was elected, wasn't it obligatory on all Catholics thereafter to recognize him as the validly elected Successor of St. Peter? Do you believe, if someone had said "I doubt whether Pope Martin V is Pope", that would be ok. What if someone says he or she doubts Pius IX or Pius XII?

Your thoughts?

God Bless.

2Vermont · « **Reply #128 on:** January 18, 2020, 07:46:54 AM »

Round and round. Where we stop nobody knows.

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #129 on:** January 18, 2020, 08:08:05 AM »

John of St. Thomas: "“Whoever would deny that a particular man is pope after he has been peacefully and canonically accepted, would not only be a schismatic, but also a heretic ... whoever would deny the proposition just stated would not be a pure schismatic, but also a heretic, as Suarez also reckons" http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/john-of-st.html

Fr. Hunter: "the Church is infallible when she declares what person holds the office of Pope ... it affords an answer to ... writers who think ... the Papacy has been vacant ever since that time ... it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their Head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined." If the Body of the Bishops cannot be separated from their Head, we are separated from the Church if we are separated from the Body of the Bishops united to a Head recognized by them.

Cardinal Billot: "But whatever you finally think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis, at least one point must be maintained as completely unshaken and firmly placed beyond all doubt: the adherence alone of the universal Church will always be of itself an infallible sign of the legitimacy of the person of the Pontiff, and, what is more, even of the existence of all the conditions requisite for legitimacy itself ... Therefore, from the time he has been accepted and joined to the Church as the head to the body, we cannot further consider the question of a possible mistake in the election or of a [possible] deficiency of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy, because the aforementioned adherence of the Church radically heals the mistake in the election and infallibly indicates the existence of all requisite conditions. And let this be an incidental remark against those who want to join in giving a respectable appearance to the undoubted schismatic efforts made in the time of Alexander VI ... his opinion of his could be easily refuted, this one [argument] alone is sufficient: It is certainly well known that in the time in which Savanarola was writing his letters to princes, all Christendom adhered to and obeyed Alexander as the true pontiff. Therefore, by that fact, Alexander was not a false pontiff. Therefore he was not a heretic ..."

Why then does Cardinal Billot call Savonarola's efforts "undoubted schismatic efforts"?

Edit: And to Ladislaus, whom John of St. Thomas calls not only "a pure schismatic but also a heretic".

" if you had bothered to actually study the notion of schism".

I have studied the Thomistic definition of schism and that's why I know you're the schismatic. Schism is defined as (1) the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff, or (2) the refusal to communicate with [or be in subjection to] the members of the Church subject to him. You've refused submission to 6 universally accepted Popes. You've also refused to communicate with the Bishops and other members of the Church subject to and appointed to him. Thus, you are schismatic on both counts.

Yeti · « **Reply #130 on:** January 18, 2020, 03:34:53 PM »

Quote from: XavierSem on January 18, 2020, 08:08:05 AM

John of St. Thomas: "“Whoever would deny that a particular man is pope after he has been peacefully and canonically accepted, would not only be a schismatic, but also a heretic ... whoever would deny the proposition just stated would not be a pure schismatic, but also a heretic, as Suarez also reckons" http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/john-of-st.html

.
I think everyone agrees with this, but we do not agree that Francis has been peacefully and canonically accepted. This has already been stated more than once. I'm not sure why we have to keep going over this.
.
Do you understand how a debate works? Each side must prove their arguments by appealing to common ground, i.e. to some source that is accepted by both sides. If you appeal to an authority or source that I (or we) do not accept, you prove nothing. This means that, if we reject Pope Francis as a modernist heretic, and you support his papacy by appealing to other people that we also consider to be modernist heretics. What is common ground? Any pre-Vatican 2 theologian, Vatican I or any other council, and pope including and prior to Pius XII, and so on. All of that is fair game. But saying that Francis must be the pope because people that sedevacantists don't consider to be hierarchs think he is does not prove anything.
.
I'm sorry to sound testy, and I don't want to be disrespectful to you, but we keep going in circles here because you keep arguing on the basis of things like this. Now, if you want to say that these people must be true cardinals and bishops because of some argument based on Cardinal Billot or Vatican I, then we might actually start getting somewhere. Then we'd have a starting point to work from. But we're just talking past each other if you argue on the basis of an authority that sedevacantists don't accept, just as much as sedevacantists would be wasting your time if we expected you to take the word of John Lane or Bp. Sanborn or some other current sedevacantist as an authority as if he were a theologian. No one could logically expect you to take the word of someone you disagree with in a debate, so it would be nice if you would stop doing that to sedevacantists.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #131 on:** January 18, 2020, 05:56:33 PM »

Quote from: XavierSem on January 18, 2020, 08:08:05 AM

John of St. Thomas: "“Whoever would deny that a particular man is pope after he has been peacefully and canonically accepted, would not only be a schismatic, but also a heretic ... whoever would deny the proposition just stated would not be a pure schismatic, but also a heretic, as Suarez also reckons" http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/john-of-st.html

#1) there's no Universal Acceptance of the V2 papal claimants

#2) if you say there is, then you are alleging that +Lefebvre is a heretic and schismatic. But you absolutely dodge this problem like Superman avoids kryptonite.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #132 on:** January 18, 2020, 05:57:43 PM »

Quote from: Yeti on January 18, 2020, 03:34:53 PM

I think everyone agrees with this, but we do not agree that Francis has been peacefully and canonically accepted. This has already been stated more than once. I'm not sure why we have to keep going over this.

Universal Acceptance = like 1950 during the reign of Pius XII.

We're going round and round because XavierSem just keeps spamming the same nonsense in over and over again. I too have told him repeatedly that most of us concede the notion of Universal Acceptance but deny that Bergoglio has it. Somehow it is unable to penetrate his thick schismatic skull.

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #133 on:** January 19, 2020, 03:27:11 AM »

Quote

Quote I think everyone agrees with this

Actually, they don't. The schismatic Ladislaus has claimed he has a right to refuse Cardinal Billot's teaching that unanimous acceptance provides a sanatio in radice of an unanimously accepted candidate. So it's just a lip service he gives, but when really pressed, is forced to acknowledge he disagrees with the teaching itself, owing to various absurd rationalizations.

But supposing you accept the teaching, but claim you deny it applies today - then you are on par with someone who denies the Catholic Church teaches the dogma of the Assumption. For that was unanimously accepted, and it is a fact so unanimously known that the world acknowledges it - just as the whole world knows and acknowledges that Pope Francis and his 5 predecessors have been the Popes and Heads of the institution known as the Roman Catholic Church. Now, if you've read Fr. Hunter, and agree with him also, that if the Bishops recognize the Pope, he is the Pope, hear Pope Benedict XIV on the subject:

"it suffices Us to be able to state that a commemoration of the supreme pontiff and prayers offered for him during the sacrifice of the Mass is considered, and really is, an affirmative indication which recognizes him as the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter, and is the profession of a mind and will which firmly espouses Catholic unity. This was rightly noticed by Christianus Lupus in his work on the Councils: “This commemoration is the chief and most glorious form of communion” (tome 4, p. 422, Brussels edition). This view is not merely approved by the authority of Ivo of Flaviniaca who writes: “Whosoever does not pronounce the name of the Apostolic one in the canon for whatever reason should realize that he is separated from the communion of the whole world” (Chronicle, p. 228); or by the authority of the famous Alcuin: “It is generally agreed that those who do not for any reason recall the memory of the Apostolic pontiff in the course of the sacred mysteries according to custom are, as the blessed Pelagius teaches, separated from the communion of the entire world” (de Divinis Officiis, bk. 1, chap. 12).

Pope Pelagius II who held the Apostolic See in the sixth century of the Church gives this weightier statement on Our present subject in his letter: “I am greatly astonished at your separation from the rest of the Church and I cannot equably endure it. For Augustine, mindful that the Lord established the foundation of the Church on the Apostolic sees, says that whosoever removes himself from the authority and communion of the prelates of those sees is in schism. He states plainly that there is no church apart from one which is firmly established on the pontifical bases of the Apostolic sees. Thus how can you believe that you are not separated from the communion of the whole world if you do not commemorate my name during the sacred mysteries, according to custom? For you see that the strength of the Apostolic See resides in me, despite my unworthiness, through episcopal succession at the present time” (Labbe, Conciliorum Collectione, vol. 5, col. 794f and 810)." https://www.papalencyclicals.net/ben14/b14exquo.htm

Therefore, when anybody drops the name of the Pope from the Canon who is recognized by the whole world as Pope, he is schismatic.

Major Premise: The Bishops of the world recognize the Pope (in the way Pope Benedict XIV says; this is proved from Ex Quo)
Minor Premise: If the Bishops of the world recognize the Pope, then he is certainly Pope (as per Fr. Hunter, Fr. Connell, Van Noort etc).
Conclusion: Therefore, the Pope is certainly the Pope. And the last six Popes have certainly been Popes. And to fail to recognize this is schismatic (and damnatory, for as Pope Boniface teaches, "we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.") http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_bo08us.htm
Corollary: Any schismatic, like Ladislaus, (also proved from Eighth Ecuмenical Council, and from Ex Quo above) is excommunicated and schismatic, if he "does not pronounce the name of the Apostolic one in the canon for whatever reason" or defends doing so.

Be wise and do what is necessary to save your souls. Because, in the Name of God I announce to you, out of Love and Charity for your souls, that you cannot save your souls in 62 year sedevacantism. I do you no favors by hiding this Truth from you. The rest is up to you, and your correspondence with God's Grace, given to you for the purpose of your humbly returning to the Catholic Church, by recognizing all Her Popes, who have been recognized by the Episcopate.

Like this woman wrote in the Remnant, it is best for svists and evists to face the facts now, and the clear Truth, after 62 years at last: "They told me what was necessary for salvation because I was their friend ... I just needed to be Catholic." https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/3931-where-have-all-the-catholics-gone You will certainly have to recognize the Popes recognized by the Magisterium before having to go to Heaven.

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #134 on:** January 19, 2020, 05:40:45 AM »

Quote from: XavierSem on January 19, 2020, 03:27:11 AM

Actually, they don't. The schismatic Ladislaus has claimed he has a right to refuse Cardinal Billot's teaching that unanimous acceptance provides a sanatio in radice of an unanimously accepted candidate. So it's just a lip service he gives, but when really pressed, is forced to acknowledge he disagrees with the teaching itself, owing to various absurd rationalizations.

But supposing you accept the teaching, but claim you deny it applies today - then you are on par with someone who denies the Catholic Church teaches the dogma of the Assumption. For that was unanimously accepted, and it is a fact so unanimously known that the world acknowledges it - just as the whole world knows and acknowledges that Pope Francis and his 5 predecessors have been the Popes and Heads of the institution known as the Roman Catholic Church. Now, if you've read Fr. Hunter, and agree with him also, that if the Bishops recognize the Pope, he is the Pope, hear Pope Benedict XIV on the subject:

"it suffices Us to be able to state that a commemoration of the supreme pontiff and prayers offered for him during the sacrifice of the Mass is considered, and really is, an affirmative indication which recognizes him as the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter, and is the profession of a mind and will which firmly espouses Catholic unity. This was rightly noticed by Christianus Lupus in his work on the Councils: “This commemoration is the chief and most glorious form of communion” (tome 4, p. 422, Brussels edition). This view is not merely approved by the authority of Ivo of Flaviniaca who writes: “Whosoever does not pronounce the name of the Apostolic one in the canon for whatever reason should realize that he is separated from the communion of the whole world” (Chronicle, p. 228); or by the authority of the famous Alcuin: “It is generally agreed that those who do not for any reason recall the memory of the Apostolic pontiff in the course of the sacred mysteries according to custom are, as the blessed Pelagius teaches, separated from the communion of the entire world” (de Divinis Officiis, bk. 1, chap. 12).

Pope Pelagius II who held the Apostolic See in the sixth century of the Church gives this weightier statement on Our present subject in his letter: “I am greatly astonished at your separation from the rest of the Church and I cannot equably endure it. For Augustine, mindful that the Lord established the foundation of the Church on the Apostolic sees, says that whosoever removes himself from the authority and communion of the prelates of those sees is in schism. He states plainly that there is no church apart from one which is firmly established on the pontifical bases of the Apostolic sees. Thus how can you believe that you are not separated from the communion of the whole world if you do not commemorate my name during the sacred mysteries, according to custom? For you see that the strength of the Apostolic See resides in me, despite my unworthiness, through episcopal succession at the present time” (Labbe, Conciliorum Collectione, vol. 5, col. 794f and 810)." https://www.papalencyclicals.net/ben14/b14exquo.htm

Therefore, when anybody drops the name of the Pope from the Canon who is recognized by the whole world as Pope, he is schismatic.

Major Premise: The Bishops of the world recognize the Pope (in the way Pope Benedict XIV says; this is proved from Ex Quo)
Minor Premise: If the Bishops of the world recognize the Pope, then he is certainly Pope (as per Fr. Hunter, Fr. Connell, Van Noort etc).
Conclusion: Therefore, the Pope is certainly the Pope. And the last six Popes have certainly been Popes. And to fail to recognize this is schismatic (and damnatory, for as Pope Boniface teaches, "we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.") http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_bo08us.htm
Corollary: Any schismatic, like Ladislaus, (also proved from Eighth Ecuмenical Council, and from Ex Quo above) is excommunicated and schismatic, if he "does not pronounce the name of the Apostolic one in the canon for whatever reason" or defends doing so.

Be wise and do what is necessary to save your souls. Because, in the Name of God I announce to you, out of Love and Charity for your souls, that you cannot save your souls in 62 year sedevacantism. I do you no favors by hiding this Truth from you. The rest is up to you, and your correspondence with God's Grace, given to you for the purpose of your humbly returning to the Catholic Church, by recognizing all Her Popes, who have been recognized by the Episcopate.

Like this woman wrote in the Remnant, it is best for svists and evists to face the facts now, and the clear Truth, after 62 years at last: "They told me what was necessary for salvation because I was their friend ... I just needed to be Catholic." https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/3931-where-have-all-the-catholics-gone You will certainly have to recognize the Popes recognized by the Magisterium before having to go to Heaven.

Xavier, please reread what Ladislaus and Yeti wrote above. Your questions have been answered and their argument stands. Neither Bergoglio nor his predecessors have been peacefully accepted by the remaining Catholics left in this world. You make the critical error of assuming that anyone who calls himself a Catholic, must truly be a member of the Catholic Church. This is absolutely false. Pope Pius XII gives us the criteria necessary for someone to be a member of the Church, one being the necessity to profess the True Faith. It is obvious to anyone with a modicuм of honesty that nearly every member of the Novus Ordo hierarchy does not profess the True Faith on multiple points. They do so with pertinacity, knowing full well that the Church teaches opposing doctrines. The same can be said of the laity. Also, keep in mind that the “conservative “ branch of the NO hierarchy, like Burke and Vigano, certainly are not at peace with Bergoglio.

Author Topic: 61 year sede-vacantism has already become proximately heretical (leads to EVism) (Read 10615 times)

Nishant Xavier

Re: 61 year sede-vacantism has already become proximately heretical (leads to EVism)

Yeti

Re: 61 year sede-vacantism has already become proximately heretical (leads to EVism)

Nishant Xavier

Re: 61 year sede-vacantism has already become proximately heretical (leads to EVism)

Nishant Xavier

Re: 61 year sede-vacantism has already become proximately heretical (leads to EVism)

Nishant Xavier

Re: 61 year sede-vacantism has already become proximately heretical (leads to EVism)

Ladislaus

Re: 61 year sede-vacantism has already become proximately heretical (leads to EVism)

Quo vadis Domine

Re: 61 year sede-vacantism has already become proximately heretical (leads to EVism)

Nishant Xavier

Re: 61 year sede-vacantism has already become proximately heretical (leads to EVism)

2Vermont

Re: 61 year sede-vacantism has already become proximately heretical (leads to EVism)

Nishant Xavier

Re: 61 year sede-vacantism has already become proximately heretical (leads to EVism)

Yeti

Re: 61 year sede-vacantism has already become proximately heretical (leads to EVism)

Ladislaus

Re: 61 year sede-vacantism has already become proximately heretical (leads to EVism)

Ladislaus

Re: 61 year sede-vacantism has already become proximately heretical (leads to EVism)

Nishant Xavier

Re: 61 year sede-vacantism has already become proximately heretical (leads to EVism)

Quo vadis Domine

Re: 61 year sede-vacantism has already become proximately heretical (leads to EVism)