Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: stevusmagnus on April 09, 2011, 12:32:15 AM
-
Thoughts?
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/sedevacantism.html
-
Parts of this essay are a good defense of the papacy, but the essay does not refute sedevacantism. He defends the dogma of the papacy and then, without evidence or showing any link whatsoever, he links particular individuals to the papacy and declares that anyone who does not accept the claims of those individuals to the papacy are denying the dogma.
The fundamental misunderstanding he has of "sedevacanism" is that it is somehow a doctrine contrary to the dogma of the papacy. It is not. The word, sedevacantism, is a neologism, that is, it is a word invented quite recently to describe a state of being. The whole world is sedevacantist at the death of every pope. This has been true for two thousand years and he does not refute the one and only truth that the sedevacantists hold: The the man who currently claims the title of pope is a manifest and public heretic and apostate, he is therefore not a Catholic, and cannot, therefore, be the pope of the Roman Catholic Church.
Sedevacantism is not a set of beliefs. It is merely the recognition of the true state of being, that is, that the Church is currently without a head here on earth.
In the American political realm, there is a similar idea. There are many people who are not convinced that the President of the United States is a natural born citizen. These people do not reject the "presidency" neither do they claim that there can never again be a valid President of the United States elected to office. They merely claim that the evidence points to the fact that the man who currently claims the office is ineligible for the office.
The evidence against Obama, however, is circuмstantial and could be easily quashed if he would simply provide one docuмent. On the other hand, the evidence against Benedict is not circuмstantial. In fact, he himself publishes the evidence, the Vatican website and newspaper routinely promote the evidence, EWTN broadcasts the evidence, and he is proud of the evidence of his heresy and apostasy because the evidence proves his liberality.
Thus, the essay by I. Shawn McElhinney is pretty much worthless.
-
Excellent point. Which is of higher authority -- The President of the United States or the United States Constitution? It is, of course, the latter. The Constitution is, however, just a bunch of letters on pieces of paper; yet it is of higher authority than a living, breathing human being. The same is true of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, but in that case, it comes from the One and Triune God, Creator of the entire Cosmos.
-
In the American political realm, there is a similar idea. There are many people who are not convinced that the President of the United States is a natural born citizen. These people do not reject the "presidency" neither do they claim that there can never again be a valid President of the United States elected to office. They merely claim that the evidence points to the fact that the man who currently claims the office is ineligible for the office.
The evidence against Obama, however, is circuмstantial and could be easily quashed if he would simply provide one docuмent.
FWIW, I mentioned this idea in another thread. It was shot down as ridiculous. I am not saying this to give stevus grief, but to let you know he does not buy the idea that it is reasonable to doubt BO's eligibility.
-
The writer seems to imply that the SV thesis is against the principle of petrine primacy, which is of course not true. This misconception makes the whole article fall into the water.
He also seems to be against tradition, which makes him lose al trustworthiness for me.
-
Heretics cannot be Pope, that is a defined dogma, but even tho steve knows it, yet do he, and many others here, obstinately reject these dogmas. Talk about a bunch of faithless heretics. No wonder left the whole world over to the Vatican II apostasy. None of good will virtually exist anymore today, the world is full of mortal sinners and heretics. But yet, do most people think themselves to be faithful.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
Besides antipopes reigning from Rome due to uncanonical elections, the Catholic Church teaches that if a pope were to become a heretic he would automatically lose his office and cease to be the pope. This is the teaching of all the doctors and fathers of the Church who addressed the issue:
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: "A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. De great. Christ. Cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope."
St. Francis De Sales (17th 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..."
St. Antoninus (1459): "In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church." (Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)
That a heretic cannot be a pope is rooted in the dogma that
heretics are not members of the Catholic Church
It should be noted that the teaching from the saints and doctors of the Church, which is quoted above – that a pope who became a heretic would automatically cease to be pope – is rooted in the infallible dogma that a heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441:
“ The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jєωs or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives…”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943:
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
We can see that it’s the teaching of the Catholic Church that a man is severed from the Church by heresy, schism or apostasy.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:
“ The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9):
“ No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to a single one of these he is not a Catholic.”
Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208:
“ By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”
Thus, it’s not merely the opinion of certain saints and doctors of the Church that a heretic would cease to be pope; it’s a fact inextricably bound up with a dogmatic teaching. A truth inextricably bound up with a dogma is called a dogmatic fact. It is, therefore, a dogmatic fact that a heretic cannot be the pope. A heretic cannot be the pope, since one who is outside cannot head that of which he is not even a member.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896:
“ No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.”
Pope Paul IV issued a Papal Bull solemnly declaring that the election of a heretic as pope is null and void
In 1559 Pope Paul IV issued an entire Papal Bull dealing with the subject and the possibility of a heretic being elected pope.
At the time that Paul IV issued the Bull (quoted below) there were rumors that one of the cardinals was a secret Protestant. In order to prevent the election of such a heretic to the Papacy, Pope Paul IV solemnly declared that a heretic cannot be validly elected pope. Below are the pertinent portions of the Bull. For the entire Bull, see our website.
Pope Paul IV, Bull cuм ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “1… Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfill our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God,We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the hireling…
6. 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:
(i) 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;
(ii) 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;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way…
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power…
10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this docuмent of our approbation, re- introduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.
Given in Rome at Saint Peter's in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1559, 15th
February, in the fourth year of our Pontificate.
+ I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church…”
With the fullness of his papal authority, Pope Paul IV declared that the election of a heretic is invalid, even if it takes place with the unanimous consent of the cardinals and is accepted by all.
Pope Paul IV also declared that he was making this declaration in order to combat the arrival of the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel, in the holy place. This is astounding, and it seems to indicate that the Magisterium itself is connecting the eventual arrival of the abomination of desolation in the holy place (Matthew 24:15) with a heretic posing as the pope – perhaps because the heretic posing as the pope will give us the abomination of desolation in the holy place (the New Mass), as we believe is the case, or because the heretical antipope will himself constitute the abomination of desolation in the holy place.
-
I suppose YOU are the only man of good will left?
-
I suppose YOU are the only man of good will left?
If you're talking to me, then no. I am not a good person, but at least, I am honest enough not to deny the above clear dogmas condemning Benedict XVI. Benedict is a manifest heretic, since he refuse to accept SSPX's stand on Ecuмenism, but rather wants SSPX to accept Vatican II's stance on Ecuмenism.
SSPX are heretics in many other ways though, but yet, they are right on their stance on Ecuмenism, but Benedict XVI refuse to change position, since he is obstinate. So, he is clearly a heretic, and cannot be pope.
-
The writer seems to imply that the SV thesis is against the principle of petrine primacy, which is of course not true.
Confusion abounds...and no one seems to be as interested in the truth as they are in being right -- an attitude that is far from uncommon in this fallen world.
-
I suppose YOU are the only man of good will left?
If you're talking to me, then no. I am not a good person, but at least, I am honest enough not to deny the above clear dogmas condemning Benedict XVI. Benedict is a manifest heretic, since he refuse to accept SSPX's stand on Ecuмenism, but rather wants SSPX to accept Vatican II's stance on Ecuмenism.
SSPX are heretics in many other ways though, but yet, they are right on their stance on Ecuмenism, but Benedict XVI refuse to change position, since he is obstinate. So, he is clearly a heretic, and cannot be pope.
Who is then? Nobody?
-
I suppose YOU are the only man of good will left?
If you're talking to me, then no. I am not a good person, but at least, I am honest enough not to deny the above clear dogmas condemning Benedict XVI. Benedict is a manifest heretic, since he refuse to accept SSPX's stand on Ecuмenism, but rather wants SSPX to accept Vatican II's stance on Ecuмenism.
SSPX are heretics in many other ways though, but yet, they are right on their stance on Ecuмenism, but Benedict XVI refuse to change position, since he is obstinate. So, he is clearly a heretic, and cannot be pope.
Who is then? Nobody?
Who is what, Pope? No one, the Seat is Vacant, as happens after every legitimate pope dies. The Seat has been Vacant ever since Pope Pius XII.
You might want to read this file and consider the sedevacantist position,
http://www.prophecyfilm.com/sedevacantism/#Common-Objections-Against-Sedevacantism
-
This is why I have Heitanen on ignore. It gets old reading the posts of a person who thinks he is already saved. :rolleyes:
-
TKGS,
You miss his point. He is saying that the belief that we have not had a pope since VCII contradicts VCI and therefore cannot be held.
He made Peter a perpetual principle of this two-fold unity and a visible foundation, that on his strength an everlasting temple might be erected and on the firmness of his faith a Church might arise whose pinnacle was to reach into heaven. But the gates of hell, with a hatred that grows greater each day, are rising up everywhere against its divinely established foundation with the intention of overthrowing the Church, if this were possible. We, therefore, judge it necessary for the protection, the safety, and the increase of the Catholic flock to pronounce with the approval of the sacred council the true doctrine concerning the establishment, the perpetuity, and the nature of the apostolic primacy. In this primacy, all the efficacy and all the strength of the Church are placed.
-
No post VCII Pope has been a "nototrious" heretic.
The very fact that no catholics except a small handful of sedes and some Trads think they have been bears evidence to this fact. Otherwise one would have to claim 99% of Catholics not being able to see the "indisputable", means they are either extremely stupid or liars. Obviously this is not true. It took almost a decade before the thesis JXXIII and Paul VI were not popes was even publicly seriously proposed. Were all catholics up and until the first public sede pronouncement imbeciles or liars? Cardinal Ottaviani? Archbishop Sheen? Abp. Lefebvre? The International Group of Fathers from VCII?
To meet the notorious standard we would need an indisputable official public Papal heresy such as, "Christ was not God", if this is even possible. If it is possible, it seems to me Christ's promise to Peter and VCI are gutted.
However, for the sake of argument, if the impossible happened, I would ask, who deposes the Pope?
(Latin Notorietas, notorium, from notus, known).
Notoriety is the quality or the state of things that are notorious; whatever is so fully or officially proved, that it may and ought to be held as certain without further investigation, is notorious. It is difficult to express exactly what is meant by notoriety, and, as the Gloss says (in can. Manifesta, 15, C. ii, q. 1), "we are constantly using the word notorious and are ignorant of its meaning". Ordinarily it is equivalent to public, manifest, evident, known; all these terms have something in common, they signify that a thing, far from being secret, may be easily known by many. Notoriety, in addition to this common idea, involves the idea of indisputable proof, so that what is notorious is held as proved and serves as a basis for the conclusions and acts of those in authority, especially judges. To be as precise as is possible, "public" means what any one may easily prove or ascertain, what is done openly; what many persons know and hold as certain, is "manifest"; what a greater or less number of persons have learnt, no matter how, is "known"; what is to be held as certain and may no longer be called in question is "notorious".
Authorities distinguish between notoriety of fact, notoriety of law, and presumptive notoriety, though the last is often considered a subdivision of the second. Whatever is easily shown and is known by a sufficient number of persons to be free from reasonable doubt is notorious in fact. This kind of notoriety may refer either to a transitory fact, e.g., Caius was αssαssιnαtҽd; or permanent facts, e.g., Titius is parish priest of this parish; or recurring facts, e.g. Sempronius engages in usurious transactions. Whatever has been judicially ascertained, viz., judicial admissions, an affair fully proved, and the judgment rendered in a lawsuit, is notorious in law; the judge accepts the fact as certain without investigation; nor will he allow, except in certain well-specified cases, the matter to be called in question. "Notorious" is then used as more or less synonymous with "official". Such also are facts recorded in official docuмents, as civil or ecclesiastical registries of births, deaths, or marriages, notarial records. Lastly, whatever arises from a rule of law based on a "violent" presumption, for instance, paternity and filiation in case of a legitimate marriage, is presumptively notorious.
When a fact is admitted as notorious by the judge, and in general by a competent authority, no proof of it is required, but it is often necessary to show that it is notorious, as the judge is not expected to know every notorious fact. The notoriety has to be proved, like any other fact alleged in a trial, by witnesses or "instruments", that is, written docuмents. The witnesses swear that the fact in question is publicly known and admitted beyond dispute in their locality or circle. The docuмents consist especially in extracts from the official registries, in the copies of authentic judicial papers, for instance, a judgment, or of notarial papers, known as "notarial acts", drawn up by public notaries on the conscientious declarations of well-informed witnesses.
Canonists have variously classified the legal effects of notoriety, especially in matters of procedure; but, ultimately, they may all be reduced to one: the judge, and in general the person in authority, holding what is notorious to be certain and proved, requires no further information, and therefore, both may and ought to refrain from any judicial inquiry, proof, or formalities, which would otherwise be necessary. For these inquiries and formalities having as their object to enlighten the judge, are useless when the fact is notorious. Such is the true meaning of the axiom that in notorious matters the judge need not follow the judicial procedure (cf. can. 14 and 16, C. ii, q. 1; cap.7 and 10, "De cohab. cleric", lib. III, tit. ii; cap.3, "De testib. cogend.", lib. II, tit. xxi). None of the essential solemnities of the procedure should ever be omitted. The most interesting application of the effect of notoriety in criminal matters is in connexion with the pagrans delictus, when the accused is caught in the criminal act, in which case the judge is dispensed from the necessity of any inquiry.
-
No post VCII Pope has been a "nototrious" heretic.
What is required is that they be public heretics. The terms public and notorious, although sometimes used as sinonimous are not so.
Cn 2197.1 defines public as that what is alreday divulged or if it may be prudently concluded that it will easily be divulged, notoriety is more restricted.
Yet Cn 188.4 speaks about "public", not about "notoriety", therefore it is the first meaning we should discuss here and not the second.
Have in mind that the definition of public given by the code merely implies that the fact be known or easily knowable, it doesn´t say that the fact has to be known and accepted by all those persons (in this case the heresy).
The very fact that no catholics except a small handful of sedes and some Trads think they have been bears evidence to this fact. Otherwise one would have to claim 99% of Catholics not being able to see the "indisputable", means they are either extremely stupid or liars.
No. It may also mean they are confused and that we are facing here a mystery... the mystery of iniquity, which includes, among other things, the apostasy (I´m not syaing that because of the mere fact of following the Vat.II "Popes" they are all apostates).
However, for the sake of argument, if the impossible happened, I would ask, who deposes the Pope?
Bellarmine, Billot, and many other theologians had responded you long time ago, why you insist with this idea of deposition when canon law speaks about (tacit) resignation?
-
The CE which was quoted by Heim stated "notorious".
99% of Catholics are confused and can't recognize an "easily knowable" fact, yet sedes can (but then disagree with each other)? Cardinal Ottaviani, ABL, Bishop Castro de Meyer were "confused"? They couldn't see the obvious?
-
No post VCII Pope has been a "nototrious" heretic.
What is required is that they be public heretics. The terms public and notorious, although sometimes used as sinonimous are not so.
http://www.sspx.ca/Communicantes/Dec2004/Is_That_Chair_Vacant.htm
3.4. Public and Notorious heresy: It is to be understood according to the Canon Law principles. A Public crime, according to the law of the Church is not necessarily something which is done in the open and witnessed by Television cameras, as most people think. Let me quote the famous canonist Bouscaren: "Classification as to Publicity. A crime is: 1. Public, if it is already commonly known or the circuмstances are such as to lead to the conclusion that it can and will easily become so; [...] 'Commonly known' (divulgatum) means known to the greater part of the inhabitants of a place or the members of a community; but this is not to be taken mathematically, but in prudent moral estimation. A crime may remain occult though known to a number of persons who are likely to keep it quiet, whereas it may be public though known to only a few who are sure to divulge it."9 As the pope is the Universal pastor of the entire Church, how can we apply such principles to the case of his heresy? According to the canonists, for an act of heresy by a pope to be Public, the knowledge of it would either have to be already widely spread amongst the faithful of the universal Church, being known to most of them, or at least such as that it will be in practice impossible to stop it from becoming so known and it certainly will. Such heresy would have to be widely publicized, as well as Notorious - in order to be Public in canonical terms. For a pope's heresy to be Notorious, not only would the heretical act have to be widely known of, as we have seen, but it would also have to be an act whose criminality had been legally recognized. In other words, for the criminality of a pope's heresy to be legally recognized, such that his heresy would be canonically Notorious, not only would a knowledge of his heresy have to have spread widely through the Church, as we have seen above, but it would also have to have been widely recognized as a morally imputable crime.
3.5. Notoriety of law and notoriety of fact:
1. Notoriety of law: A crime becomes Notorious with a notoriety in law only when a judicial sentence has been rendered by a competent judge - but the pope has no superiors and no one has juridical competence to judge him: "The first See can be judged by no one."10 - Hence any heretical act of John-Paul II cannot be Notorious with a notoriety of law.
2. Notoriety of fact: Can we say the same thing about the notoriety in fact of the pope's heresy? For it to be so, it would have to be widely recognized as both heretical and morally imputable - as Pertinacious (persistent and determined to the point of stubbornness). That is to say that it must be not only materially notorious, the heretical act being widely known, but also formally notorious, the act being widely recognized as a morally imputable crime of formal heresy. We may see this from the comments of the canonists: "An offense is Notorious by notoriety of fact, if it is publicly known and committed under such circuмstances that it cannot be concealed by any subterfuge, nor excused by any excuse admitted in law, i.e., both the fact of the offense and the imputability or criminal liability must be publicly known."11 So a papal act of heresy would be notorious in fact only if both the act were "publicly known" - and the "imputability or criminal liability" were "publicly known". There is no competent judge who could rule of a pope that guilt was involved, and so the guilt could be Notorious only by being widely publicly known - it would have to be widely known that the act was morally imputable. And it would be necessary that it could not be excused by an appeal to an "accident", some sort of "self-defense", or some other legally admissible excuse; it would also be necessary that "no subterfuge" could possibly conceal it.
3.6. Can John-Paul II be declared Notorious and Pertinacious heretic?
Vatican II (1962-1965)
As much as the concepts of Notorious and Pertinacious are clear in theory, nevertheless, their concrete application is extremely difficult, especially in the case of the pope. The main reason is that such pertinacity is finally determined by the public acknowledgement of the heresy coming from the legitimate authority. It would have to be necessary not only that a knowledge that John Paul II had committed heresy had spread through the universal Church- which obviously is not so, as only a tiny, tiny minority, far less than 0.1% of the Church, even claim that he has - but it would also be necessary that a knowledge of a guilt on his part of formal, pertinacious heresy, had likewise spread through the Church. It would be necessary that no resort could conceal the act or the guilt: no appeal to dodgy translations of the original text or to camera tricks; no appeal to faulty speech writers; no appeal to old age; no appeal to ignorance of, or confusion as to, the doctrine in question; no appeal to an accident of writing or speech; no appeal that his saying was "in some way compatible with the doctrine of the Faith if we understood his modern 'philosophical' speech"; no appeal to some kind of ecclesial self-defense in the present hostile liberal social or ecclesial climate. Even if the crime could not be covered up and there were no legally admissible defense or excuse for the act, nevertheless the greater part of the Church would still have to know of his moral guilt and that the act was legally inexcusable. It would be necessary that the priests and the Catholic press could not cover up the crime to the people in any way, by any device. The fact is that the Church is most resourceful and the Faithful are most docile and deferential and next to no one has recognized the heresy of the pope, let alone any moral culpability and legal inexcusability. And anyway, the priests and the people themselves have embraced the very same heresies as John Paul II and think that he is just fine, or even "the greatest pope ever", as many have been heard to say. Even the vast majority of the comparatively very few who have not embraced all the same heresies as he do not see or accept that the pope is in heresy - and the tiny, tiny number who can see it tend to excuse it as not pertinacious but rather due to the overall situation in the Church, especially since "Vatican II", which has blinded almost everyone to many of the true doctrines of the Faith. The heresy of John Paul II obviously is formally secret in canonical terms, regardless of how clear it might seem to the occasional "traditionalist": his acts have been recognized neither as heretical nor as morally imputable and legally inexcusable. Hence, his heresy is not legally recognized as notorious in fact; accordingly it is not notorious; and the legal conditions have not been fulfilled which canonists have specified for a pope to lose his office by heresy.
3.7. Could the pertinacity of John-Paul II be presumed? Could we make such a statement looking at the insistence of the Pope on the new ways, and this in the face of all tradition and its present-day witnesses? Perhaps; but not socially, which means, as regards loss of office, etc., which must not be presumed but proven, otherwise societies would collapse. One can understand that a quick and imprudent answer to such difficult question could easily lead someone to sink in the quicksand of Sedevacantism. If John Paul II often enough makes heretical affirmations or statements that lead to heresy, it cannot easily be shown that he is aware of rejecting any dogma of the Church. It appears that, in his conduct, John-Paul II is deeply convinced that he is doing his best for the service of the Church12. How is it possible for subjects to prove with moral certainty that the Pope, in his heart of hearts (i.e., within himself), actually hopes and wishes to cause and bring evil upon his subjects and that it is on account of this evil will that he promulgates evil laws? It is not possible. As a typical liberal, John-Paul II is multiplying the ambiguous statements, and concessions, in order to please the world. It may happen that he is making heretical statements without even realizing it: thus he cannot be found as a formal heretic.13 Therefore, as long as there is no sure proof, it is more prudent to refrain from judging. This was Archbishop Lefebvre's prudent line of conduct.
-
The CE which was quoted by Heim stated "notorious".
Where?
In any case Canon Law says "public".
When was written that article? Before or after 1917?
99% of Catholics are confused and can't recognize an "easily knowable"fact
Well if your criticism were true then you can´t even criticize Vat. II and everything that happened after it. A great majority of people don´t see anything wrong with Assisi or with JPII beatification, for instance. That means they are ok?
yet sedes can (but then disagree with each other)? Cardinal Ottaviani, ABL, Bishop Castro de Meyer were "confused"? They couldn't see the obvious?
They all see the same problem, the thing is that we draw different conclusions. ABL accepted as possible the vacancy of the See and Castro Mayer was sedevacantist as I guess you know.
I never said the conclusion is obvious and cristal clear. I say there is a public fact from which we may draw conclusions.
When I said they were confused I meant perplexed.
-
No post VCII Pope has been a "nototrious" heretic.
What is required is that they be public heretics. The terms public and notorious, although sometimes used as sinonimous are not so.
http://www.sspx.ca/Communicantes/Dec2004/Is_That_Chair_Vacant.htm
3.4. Public and Notorious heresy: It is to be understood according to the Canon Law principles. A Public crime, according to the law of the Church is not necessarily something which is done in the open and witnessed by Television cameras, as most people think. Let me quote the famous canonist Bouscaren: "Classification as to Publicity. A crime is: 1. Public, if it is already commonly known or the circuмstances are such as to lead to the conclusion that it can and will easily become so; [...] 'Commonly known' (divulgatum) means known to the greater part of the inhabitants of a place or the members of a community; but this is not to be taken mathematically, but in prudent moral estimation. A crime may remain occult though known to a number of persons who are likely to keep it quiet, whereas it may be public though known to only a few who are sure to divulge it."9 As the pope is the Universal pastor of the entire Church, how can we apply such principles to the case of his heresy? According to the canonists, for an act of heresy by a pope to be Public, the knowledge of it would either have to be already widely spread amongst the faithful of the universal Church, being known to most of them, or at least such as that it will be in practice impossible to stop it from becoming so known and it certainly will. Such heresy would have to be widely publicized, as well as Notorious - in order to be Public in canonical terms. For a pope's heresy to be Notorious, not only would the heretical act have to be widely known of, as we have seen, but it would also have to be an act whose criminality had been legally recognized. In other words, for the criminality of a pope's heresy to be legally recognized, such that his heresy would be canonically Notorious, not only would a knowledge of his heresy have to have spread widely through the Church, as we have seen above, but it would also have to have been widely recognized as a morally imputable crime.
The exigence of notoriety is totally gratuitous, that is he quotes no single theologian or canonist, and it is also against the words of canon 188.
BTW I am never talking about heresy as a crime, so we don´t need to talk about notoriety, etc.
-
The CE which was quoted by Heim stated "notorious".
Where?
A few pages before
In any case Canon Law says "public".
When was written that article? Before or after 1917?
The SSPX article is from 2004!
99% of Catholics are confused and can't recognize an "easily knowable"fact
Well if your criticism were true then you can´t even criticize Vat. II and everything that happened after it. A great majority of people don´t see anything wrong with Assisi or with JPII beatification, for instance. That means they are ok?
There is widespread criticism of VCII, Assisi, & that the beatification is going too fast.
yet sedes can (but then disagree with each other)? Cardinal Ottaviani, ABL, Bishop Castro de Meyer were "confused"? They couldn't see the obvious?
They all see the same problem, the thing is that we draw different conclusions. ABL accepted as possible the vacancy of the See...
They do not see the very thing sede-ism says is indisputable. It's not a matter of drawing conclusions. They do not even get to the first step of sede-ism.
I never said the conclusion is obvious and cristal clear. I say there is a public fact from which we may draw conclusions.
There is no public fact at all. There is a conclusion which is stated to be a public fact.
-
BTW I am never talking about heresy as a crime, so we don´t need to talk about notoriety, etc.
What are you talking about, then?
-
The CE which was quoted by Heim stated "notorious".
Where?
A few pages before
Sorry, do you mean CE says you need notoriety for someone which holds an office to lose it?
In any case Canon Law says "public".
When was written that article? Before or after 1917?
The SSPX article is from 2004!
Sorry again, I meant CE´s article.
99% of Catholics are confused and can't recognize an "easily knowable"fact
Well if your criticism were true then you can´t even criticize Vat. II and everything that happened after it. A great majority of people don´t see anything wrong with Assisi or with JPII beatification, for instance. That means they are ok?
There is widespread criticism of VCII, Assisi, & that the beatification is going too fast.
Which is about what? 3%? Who cares if the process is too fast? That has nothing to do with the fact of the beatification.
yet sedes can (but then disagree with each other)? Cardinal Ottaviani, ABL, Bishop Castro de Meyer were "confused"? They couldn't see the obvious?
They all see the same problem, the thing is that we draw different conclusions. ABL accepted as possible the vacancy of the See...
They do not see the very thing sede-ism says is indisputable. It's not a matter of drawing conclusions. They do not even get to the first step of sede-ism.
So to say that subsequent Popes may declare post Vat. II "Popes" as non-Popes as ABL said is not even a first step? To say that NOM goes away from Trent is not a first step...?
I never said the conclusion is obvious and cristal clear. I say there is a public fact from which we may draw conclusions.
There is no public fact at all. There is a conclusion which is stated to be a public fact.
Which conclusion?
-
The CE which was quoted by Heim stated "notorious".
99% of Catholics are confused and can't recognize an "easily knowable" fact, yet sedes can (but then disagree with each other)? Cardinal Ottaviani, ABL, Bishop Castro de Meyer were "confused"? They couldn't see the obvious?
Stevusmagnus, please answer this question "Yes" or "No":
Is there anything that a Pope could do that would cause him to lose the Chair of Peter?
-
The CE which was quoted by Heim stated "notorious".
99% of Catholics are confused and can't recognize an "easily knowable" fact, yet sedes can (but then disagree with each other)? Cardinal Ottaviani, ABL, Bishop Castro de Meyer were "confused"? They couldn't see the obvious?
Stevusmagnus, please answer this question "Yes" or "No":
Is there anything that a Pope could do that would cause him to lose the Chair of Peter?
Yes, resign. Stevus can't say anything else because it would require the pope to be judged by his inferiors.
-
StevusMagnus said:
Cardinal Ottaviani, ABL, Bishop Castro de Meyer were "confused"?
I don't know about the first and last, but as for ABL, just take a look at his writings and sayings over ten years or so. He admitted sedevacantism might be a possibility, yet he kicked them out of his seminaries, then you hear rumors about how on his deathbed he became a sede...
What could be more confused than to have meetings with the likes of Ratzinger and John-Paul II, come out of the meetings complaining and wringing his hands, saying that "Rome has lost the faith," and "We can no longer trust this lot," and then continuing to have more meetings with them?
I love that, "We can no longer trust this lot." NO LONGER? Let me get this straight, Vatican II is not Catholic and yet it takes us decades after the fact to learn we can't trust the framers, architects and visionaries of said Vatican II?
Yeah, he was confused, and that's a best-case scenario. It's better than being a coward or deliberately part of a Hegelian plot. I find it funny that you think it's scandalous to even question Abp. Lefebvre, when even those in Vatican II can see the contradictions in his actions. He will not go down in history as an Athanasius, not even close, but I pray for him almost every night, who knows what he was thinking.
-
BTW I am never talking about heresy as a crime, so we don´t need to talk about notoriety, etc.
What are you talking about, then?
About heresy in a theological sense as opposed to a defined dogma. Theologians agree that the discussion regarding membership in the Church has to do about whether the heresy is public or not and not if it is formal or material. It is commonly held that material heretics are non members of the Church.
I quote:
Dict. De Théologie Catholique (Volume VI, col, 2208) says: " It is necessary to distinguish the dogmatical question, which is related to heresy considered as doctrine; the moral problem, which is considered as a sin; and the canonical question which sees heresy as a crime"
Wernz and Vidal say:
Canon law differs from dogmatic and moral theology because of its formal object. Dogmatic theology looks for every truth which may be demonstrated from revelation, in as much as it is the object of the believers; Canon Law doesn’t settle down in knowing the truth, but in its same object, namely the constitution of the Church, looks for which are the laws (or rules of acting), in order to have peace and good government in the Church.
Canon Law differs from the other kind of practical theology (moral theology) because it cares about the deeds of the faithful, in as much as they refer to the external and social order of the Church, and therefore are forbidden in the external forum by ecclesiastical laws.
Moral theology looks for the rectitude or licitness of all the human actions which tends to the ultimate and internal end which is the sanctification of the soul, even though these actions are not concerned per se with the external and social order of the Church… and be judged in the internal forum… The difference between canon law and moral theology is clear, although there are many questions which they deal with at the same time, for instance the obligations of the parish priests
Mc Devitt, “The renunciation of an Ecclesiastical office” CUA 1946 pag 115/7, says:
It is to be noted that every type of offices becomes vacant by means of tacit renunciation when the incuмbent places one of the acts specified in cn 188, for the canon uses the words “quaelibet officia”. Likewise all clerics come under the prescriptions of this canon since the canon makes no distinction. While Cardinals are not subject to the penal law unless they are expressly mentioned (2227.2), the writer believes that they are subject to the prescription of canon 188 without any such special mention, since in his opinion this canon is not a penal canon. It is true that some of the acts enumerated in canon 188 constitute delicts, and have special penalties attached to them, but the effect of a tacit renunciation is not to be considered in the nature of canonical penalty.
In treating of public defection from the faith, Coronata notes that the tacit renunciation which results in consequence of this defection is not strictly the effect of a penal sanction (Instit. IV, n: 1864). This statement is quite true. Certainly the tacit renunciation can not be considered a penalty for a religious profession, which according to cn 188.1 effects a tacit renunciation. There is certainly nothing in such an act that would warrant a penalty. Even with regard to the acts in cn 188 which constitute crime the writer believes that the tacit renunciation is not inflicted as a penalty. This fact seems quite clear to the writer, especially in view of the manner in which the codes refers to the tacit renunciation in the cn which treat of penalties.
The quotation from the following two canons will serve to demonstrate the definition that the code makes. Cn 2168.2 in treating of the procedure against non resident clerics, states the following:
“In monitione Ordinarius recolat poenas quas incurrunt clerici non residentes itemque praescriptum cn 188.8.”
Cn 2314 in dealing with the crime of those who are guilty of heresy or apostasy reads as follows:
1.3 Si sectae acatholicae nomen dederint vel publice adheserint, ipso facto infames sunt, et firmo praescripto cn 188.4, clerici, monitione incassum praemissa, degradentur.
The same procedure is followed in the other canons which make mention of a tacit renunciation. It’s plainly evident that a distinction is being made between the threatened or enacted penalty on the one hand and a tacit renunciation on the other: nowhere in the code is the tacit renunciation called a penalty, it’s always set off in a separate ablative clause when it is enumerated with penalties. For this reason the writer is of the opinion that a tacit renunciation is not to be classified as a penalty. The authors do not expressly designate it as a penalty, but they do list it along with the penalties when they consider the juridical effects consequent upon specific crimes. (Vermesch- Creusen. Epitome III; 513, Coronata, Institutiones IV num. 2178, 2196).
The direct purpose of this discussion was to demonstrate that Cardinals are subject to the prescriptions of cn 188. Consequently the presentation of the arguments served the further purpose of clarifying that in this cn the law is not imposing a penalty, but is rather accepting the specified acts as tantamount to an express renunciation of office. It may here be noted also that a tacit renunciation and a privation of the office are very similar, but that the law nevertheless consistently places them in different categories.”
Msgr. Fidel Garcia Martinez “Evolution of dogma and rule of faith”, says:
Let us give as an example the word heresy. It is well known that this word means, in a theological sense, a doctrine opposed to a truth of divine Catholic (or defined) faith. This in an objective sense, while in a subjective meaning would be heresy the act of denying, knowingly a truth of divine Catholic faith. The objective meaning concerns mainly to dogmatic theology which deals directly on doctrines. The subjective meaning, on the other side, concerns more to moralists and canonists, which judge the human acts and the responsibilities and sanctions before the ecclesiastical laws.
To sum up:
Dogmatic Theology is about public facts.
Canon Law about external facts, which is wider than the first one since it deals also with occult facts.
Moral Theology adds internals also.
-
The CE which was quoted by Heim stated "notorious".
Where?
A few pages before
Sorry, do you mean CE says you need notoriety for someone which holds an office to lose it?
Cristian, go back and look at Heim's post in this thread. He quotes the CE.
-
The CE which was quoted by Heim stated "notorious".
99% of Catholics are confused and can't recognize an "easily knowable" fact, yet sedes can (but then disagree with each other)? Cardinal Ottaviani, ABL, Bishop Castro de Meyer were "confused"? They couldn't see the obvious?
Stevusmagnus, please answer this question "Yes" or "No":
Is there anything that a Pope could do that would cause him to lose the Chair of Peter?
Yes, resign. Stevus can't say anything else because it would require the pope to be judged by his inferiors.
Well, who would judge and depose him? How do you answer this?
-
The CE which was quoted by Heim stated "notorious".
99% of Catholics are confused and can't recognize an "easily knowable" fact, yet sedes can (but then disagree with each other)? Cardinal Ottaviani, ABL, Bishop Castro de Meyer were "confused"? They couldn't see the obvious?
Stevusmagnus, please answer this question "Yes" or "No":
Is there anything that a Pope could do that would cause him to lose the Chair of Peter?
Yes, resign. Stevus can't say anything else because it would require the pope to be judged by his inferiors.
I agree with SJB's reply as there is no authority on earth that can judge the Pope. The only other thing he could do to lose the Chair is die.
-
I want to respond to each of you, but this quote feature is absolutely horrendous. It takes just as long for me to fish through the text putting in and removing quote commands as it does writing a response. It is absolutely maddening as I have limited time to devote to this.
-
The CE which was quoted by Heim stated "notorious".
99% of Catholics are confused and can't recognize an "easily knowable" fact, yet sedes can (but then disagree with each other)? Cardinal Ottaviani, ABL, Bishop Castro de Meyer were "confused"? They couldn't see the obvious?
Stevusmagnus, please answer this question "Yes" or "No":
Is there anything that a Pope could do that would cause him to lose the Chair of Peter?
Yes, resign. Stevus can't say anything else because it would require the pope to be judged by his inferiors.
Well, who would judge and depose him? How do you answer this?
I answered this question with a Doctor of the Universal Church. You dismissed it, remember?
YOU tell us how?
-
Cristian,
I don't know when the CE article was written. Regardless, please quote me the Canon you are referring to in context with citation if possible.
The difference with Assisi, JPII beatification, & VCII is that I'm not claiming these are obvious public facts from which only one reasonable conclusion can be drawn. This is what sede-ism seems to be saying. They are trying to make something subjective appear objective and that's where it fails.
ABL never admitted that the Pope was a public heretic. Thus he never made it to the Sede "first step" which is supposed to be manifest and obvious. How so when ABL and Cardinal Ottaviani couldn't even see it?
In respone to your last question, a conclusion (manifest public heresy) is stated as a publict fact by sede-ism.
-
I answered this question with a Doctor of the Universal Church. You dismissed it, remember?
YOU tell us how?
St. Bellarmine theorizes that "the Church" would judge him. Ok. Please explain how this would go down.
How am I required to explain HOW something will happen that I don't believe can?
That's like asking a sede to explain how BXVI can be pope. It makes no sense.
-
Raoul,
Are you referring to ABL's comments on Assisi before it happened as evidence that he admitted sede-ism might be a possibility or some other evidence? I've already shown the problems with taking the Assisi talk to be evidence of what you are saying.
Rumors ABL converted to Sede-ism are just that. Rumors. Completely unsibstantiated and most likely started by those with a vested interest in the story.
ABL was speaking of individuals in the Vatican at different times as far as trust and losing the faith, plus you haven't provided the context. If someone copied and pasted random quotes from you during your time at Cath Info they'd probably conclude you were "confused" and "self-contradictory" as well.
-
Cristian,
I don't know when the CE article was written
.
well apparently it was written before the code. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia
Regardless, please quote me the Canon you are referring to in context with citation if possible.
Canon 188.4, 646.1 etc. You know them already.
cn 188.4 "Can 188. Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus... 4º A fide catholica publice defecerit;
What part of "renuntiation", "any office", "without any declaration" or "public" is hard to understand? All canonist refere to cn 2197.1 to explain public.
Can 646 §1. Ipso facto habendi sunt tanquam legitime dimissi religiosi:
1º Publici apostatae a fide catholica;
The difference with Assisi, JPII beatification, & VCII is that I'm not claiming these are obvious public facts from which only one reasonable conclusion can be drawn. This is what sede-ism seems to be saying. They are trying to make something subjective appear objective and that's where it fails.
Well the meeting of Assisi and the future beatification are public facts, since they are known for many persons.
The conclusion from that, if canon 188.4 is able to be applied, is clear, and it doesn´t need of our appoval. Cn 188 speaks about renuntiation and therefore the loss of the office is not a penalty as McDevitt says. Besides a Pope may renounce whenever he wishes and the renuntiation is valid in itself and therefore doesn´t need any kind of approval.
ABL never admitted that the Pope was a public heretic
.
He clearly admited the possibility that he was not Pope, whether you like it or not, whether you agree or not.
In respone to your last question, a conclusion (manifest public heresy) is stated as a publict fact by sede-ism.
Sorry I don´t follow you here.
-
Cristian,
Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange concluded that a material heretic could still be Pope, though outside the Church.
-
Cristian,
I don't know the canons already. Please provide quotations in English and a link if possible.
Of course Assisi and the Beatification process are public facts. But they are not conclusions stated as public facts, as are the supposed Post-VCII Papal "heresies".
When did ABL clearly admit the possibility that who was not pope?
You don't see my point that sedes are trying to say it is a clear manifest public FACT that the post vcii popes are not popes by their supposed public "heresies", when in fact they are making an erroneous judgment that post-VCII papal statements are indeed heresies? Then they claim anyone who doesn't recognize the post-vcii popes' "heresies" are deluded, confused, etc. since they (and 99.9% of the rest of the Church) don't see these CLEAR and INDISPUTABLE public "facts"?
-
Cristian,
Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange concluded that a material heretic could still be Pope, though outside the Church.
First of all he never said so. He said that formal and occult heretics are non members of the Church and yet they can still be Pope which is totally wrong and agianst the clear teaching of Leo XIII when he says the "it is absurd that he who is not member may be head of the Church", besides he contradicts M. Corporis also when he accepts, for instance, that all excommunicated persons are members of the Church.
-
Cristian,
Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange concluded that a material heretic could still be Pope, though outside the Church.
First of all he never said so. He said that formal and occult heretics are non members of the Church and yet they can still be Pope which is totally wrong and agianst the clear teaching of Leo XIII when he says the "it is absurd that he who is not member may be head of the Church", besides he contradicts M. Corporis also when he accepts, for instance, that all excommunicated persons are members of the Church.
So Fr. G-L, a master Thomist, was completely deluded on this point and was not aware Leo XIII and M. Corporis clearly contradicted him? Or perhaps did he believe the matter was unsettled and he had a right to give his opinion as a theologian and he had good reason for it?
-
Cristian,
I don't know the canons already. Please provide quotations in English and a link if possible.
For canon 188.4 Bouscaren and Ellis say:
Tacit resignation. There are certain causes which effect the tacit resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of law, and hence it is effective without any declaration (c. 188). These causes are... 4) if he has publicly fallen away from the Catholic faith"
Ayrinhac, Abbo, Hannan say the same thing and refere to cn 2197 to explain the term "public".
Canon 646 says:"religious are to be considered dismissed ipso facto in the following cases:
1) In public apostasy from the Catholic Church...
In these cases it suffices that the major superior with his chapter or council, makes a declaration of the fact"
http://www.archive.org/stream/newcanonlaw00woywuoft#page/130/mode/2up
Now according to the official declaration of the comission on charge of canon law interpretation the declaration is not necessary for the ipso facto dismissal of the religious. (July 30 of 1934).
Canon 2266: "After a condemnatory or declaratory sentence, an excommunicated person is deprived of the fruits of a dignity, office, benefice, pension or position which he may have in the Church; and a vitandus is deprived of the dignity, office, benefice, pension, or position itself"
.
Now all these canons have something in common. They deal with those catholics who had an office but that he lose it after they cease to be member of the Church as in the case of the public heresy and of an excommunicatad vitandus.
The principle is always the same: he who is not member cannot have ordinary jurisdiction (and in the case of cn 646 that person cannot be part of a religious order he who doesn´t belong to the Church.
Of course Assisi and the Beatification process are public facts. But they are not conclusions stated as public facts, as are the supposed Post-VCII Papal "heresies".
If they are public facts then they fall under cn 188.4, if there is heresy. But if there is heresy then tacit resignation follows inmediately and without any declaration and therefore without anyone´s acceptance.
When did ABL clearly admit the possibility that who was not pope?
http://statveritas.com.ar/Varios/SedeRomana1.htm
March 18 of 1977: "it is possible that in the future it be judged this time of history and that it be said that there were statements against Tradition and therefore be declared that these Popes were not such"
The site belongs to SSPX and the article was written by a priest accepting BXVI.
You don't see my point that sedes are trying to say it is a clear manifest public FACT that the post vcii popes are not popes by their supposed public "heresies", when in fact they are making an erroneous judgment that post-VCII papal statements are indeed heresies? Then they claim anyone who doesn't recognize the post-vcii popes' "heresies" are deluded, confused, etc. since they (and 99.9% of the rest of the Church) don't see these CLEAR and INDISPUTABLE public "facts"?
So when Our Lord and St. Paul predicted the great apostasy they were wrong? You are saying that because something is believed by almost everybody then it is true... that´s the fallacy of democracy.
Sedes see some facts and draw conclusions, SSPX see the same facts but draw different conclusions, and the rest of the world see no essencial problem at all, that´s all.
-
Cristian,
Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange concluded that a material heretic could still be Pope, though outside the Church.
First of all he never said so. He said that formal and occult heretics are non members of the Church and yet they can still be Pope which is totally wrong and agianst the clear teaching of Leo XIII when he says the "it is absurd that he who is not member may be head of the Church", besides he contradicts M. Corporis also when he accepts, for instance, that all excommunicated persons are members of the Church.
So Fr. G-L, a master Thomist, was completely deluded on this point and was not aware Leo XIII and M. Corporis clearly contradicted him? Or perhaps did he believe the matter was unsettled and he had a right to give his opinion as a theologian and he had good reason for it?
I don´t know. All I can tell you is that he followed Suarez regarding membership in the Church (infused faith is enough to be member of the Church). That theory was rejected by almost all theologians.
G. Lagrange says: "Everyone who has infused faith is member of the Church, even if they are just cathechumens, or schismatics (and you can add here material heretics and excommunicated vitandus), although it is true that schism easily leads to heresy..."
This is completely against Myistici Corporis which says that you need the sacrament of Baptism to be member and where the profession of faith is demanded and excommunicated vitandus are labeled as non members.
-
http://athanasiuscm.blogspot.com/2009/08/further-refutation-of-errors-of.html
...No one that I am aware of condemns the historical example of Popes who may have lapsed into error as “heretics”. I only wrote that they lapsed into error, and no one removed them from office. The biggest problem with you and other sedevacantists is that you are completely unlearned in Canon Law and the definition of a heretic. It takes a public act of the Church to condemn a heretic, which is why Bellarmine’s thesis is not applicable (he only considered it an improbable theory) because it takes the public authority of the Church to declare someone a heretic, not by a bunch of guys running around on the internet with their interpretation of doctrine claiming the Pope lost his office. Given that according to common sedevacantist teaching there are no bishops, it is impossible to carry that. Besides, no one at the time of these historical instances did that. The opinion of the theologians often sited (including Bellarmine) is that if the Pope is a manifest heretic, not if he merely professes a heresy, which is apart of the internal forum and can’t be judged publicly, except by the Magisterium (which again if you are right no longer exists) he would lose his office. Even Paul IV's bull cuм Ex (which I have shown and will again in the next installment is no longer valid) refrains from making any mention of the loss of Papal office due to heresy, principally because the Pope has no Earthly superior. Not the cardinals, not the Bishops, not a Council, not Trailer park monastery or Gertrude the Great Church. The fact that you are claiming that in noting cases where the Pope erred we condemn them as heretics is proof that you don’t understand the distinction the Church makes between someone who lapses into heresy and a heretic...
-
http://athanasiuscm.blogspot.com/2009/08/further-refutation-of-errors-of.html
...No one that I am aware of condemns the historical example of Popes who may have lapsed into error as “heretics”. I only wrote that they lapsed into error, and no one removed them from office. The biggest problem with you and other sedevacantists is that you are completely unlearned in Canon Law and the definition of a heretic. It takes a public act of the Church to condemn a heretic, which is why Bellarmine’s thesis is not applicable (he only considered it an improbable theory) because it takes the public authority of the Church to declare someone a heretic, not by a bunch of guys running around on the internet with their interpretation of doctrine claiming the Pope lost his office. Given that according to common sedevacantist teaching there are no bishops, it is impossible to carry that. Besides, no one at the time of these historical instances did that. The opinion of the theologians often sited (including Bellarmine) is that if the Pope is a manifest heretic, not if he merely professes a heresy, which is apart of the internal forum and can’t be judged publicly, except by the Magisterium (which again if you are right no longer exists) he would lose his office. Even Paul IV's bull cuм Ex (which I have shown and will again in the next installment is no longer valid) refrains from making any mention of the loss of Papal office due to heresy, principally because the Pope has no Earthly superior. Not the cardinals, not the Bishops, not a Council, not Trailer park monastery or Gertrude the Great Church. The fact that you are claiming that in noting cases where the Pope erred we condemn them as heretics is proof that you don’t understand the distinction the Church makes between someone who lapses into heresy and a heretic...
"The fifth opinion is the true one, that is that a manifest heretical Pope per se ceases to be Pope and Head, in the same way as per se ceases to christian and member of the body of the Church, that is way he may be judged and condemned by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers, who teach, that manifest heretics inmediately lose jurisdiction..."
S. Robert Bellarmine, De Summo Pontifice, Book 2, chap. 30.
-
To believe that a heretic can be a Pope is blasphemy to the Almighty God.
Those that believe we have a true Pope should use their energy to prove their current "pope" is not a heretic. Proving this is getting harder to do as each day goes by.
They would rather spend their energy and dare to taunt those Catholics that have come to realize the truth of the times we are living in, the end days of the end times.
Our head is Christ! Traditional Catholics everywhere possess the four marks of the Church, unlike the novus ordo where each "pope" brings us closer and closer to Anti-Christ. Setting the stage with the help of those who continue to call the remnant schismatic.
-
To believe that a heretic can be a Pope is blasphemy to the Almighty God.
Those that believe we have a true Pope should use their energy to prove their current "pope" is not a heretic. Proving this is getting harder to do as each day goes by.
They would rather spend their energy and dare to taunt those Catholics that have come to realize the truth of the times we are living in, the end days of the end times.
Our head is Christ! Traditional Catholics everywhere possess the four marks of the Church, unlike the novus ordo where each "pope" brings us closer and closer to Anti-Christ. Setting the stage with the help of those who continue to call the remnant schismatic.
I'd appreciate it if you could prove to me that sedevacantism is truth.
-
To believe that a heretic can be a Pope is blasphemy to the Almighty God.
Those that believe we have a true Pope should use their energy to prove their current "pope" is not a heretic. Proving this is getting harder to do as each day goes by.
They would rather spend their energy and dare to taunt those Catholics that have come to realize the truth of the times we are living in, the end days of the end times.
Our head is Christ! Traditional Catholics everywhere possess the four marks of the Church, unlike the novus ordo where each "pope" brings us closer and closer to Anti-Christ. Setting the stage with the help of those who continue to call the remnant schismatic.
I'd appreciate it if you could prove to me that sedevacantism is truth.
Already been done, a billion times. I hate saying use the search function, but its here, suppressed, but still here.
-
To believe that a heretic can be a Pope is blasphemy to the Almighty God.
Those that believe we have a true Pope should use their energy to prove their current "pope" is not a heretic. Proving this is getting harder to do as each day goes by.
They would rather spend their energy and dare to taunt those Catholics that have come to realize the truth of the times we are living in, the end days of the end times.
Our head is Christ! Traditional Catholics everywhere possess the four marks of the Church, unlike the novus ordo where each "pope" brings us closer and closer to Anti-Christ. Setting the stage with the help of those who continue to call the remnant schismatic.
I'd appreciate it if you could prove to me that sedevacantism is truth.
Already been done, a billion times. I hate saying use the search function, but its here, suppressed, but still here.
Just because you THINK it's truth, doesn't mean it IS truth.
-
To believe that a heretic can be a Pope is blasphemy to the Almighty God.
Those that believe we have a true Pope should use their energy to prove their current "pope" is not a heretic. Proving this is getting harder to do as each day goes by.
They would rather spend their energy and dare to taunt those Catholics that have come to realize the truth of the times we are living in, the end days of the end times.
Our head is Christ! Traditional Catholics everywhere possess the four marks of the Church, unlike the novus ordo where each "pope" brings us closer and closer to Anti-Christ. Setting the stage with the help of those who continue to call the remnant schismatic.
I'd appreciate it if you could prove to me that sedevacantism is truth.
The proof is in the Marks of the Church
One
Holy
Catholic
Apostolic
-
To believe that a heretic can be a Pope is blasphemy to the Almighty God.
Those that believe we have a true Pope should use their energy to prove their current "pope" is not a heretic. Proving this is getting harder to do as each day goes by.
They would rather spend their energy and dare to taunt those Catholics that have come to realize the truth of the times we are living in, the end days of the end times.
Our head is Christ! Traditional Catholics everywhere possess the four marks of the Church, unlike the novus ordo where each "pope" brings us closer and closer to Anti-Christ. Setting the stage with the help of those who continue to call the remnant schismatic.
I'd appreciate it if you could prove to me that sedevacantism is truth.
The proof is in the Marks of the Church
One
Holy
Catholic
Apostolic
No, that would be good to use as proof that Vatican II was a sham. It doesn't prove the sede position, though.
-
If it doesn't prove the sede position then it doesn't prove SSPX position either. Therefore whatever you think of sedevacantist the same goes for SSPX.
Why not prove to me that SSPX is truth.
You believe we have a pope, but he is not a member of the Church!
Prove that!
-
The CE which was quoted by Heim stated "notorious".
99% of Catholics are confused and can't recognize an "easily knowable" fact, yet sedes can (but then disagree with each other)? Cardinal Ottaviani, ABL, Bishop Castro de Meyer were "confused"? They couldn't see the obvious?
Stevusmagnus, please answer this question "Yes" or "No":
Is there anything that a Pope could do that would cause him to lose the Chair of Peter?
Yes, resign. Stevus can't say anything else because it would require the pope to be judged by his inferiors.
I agree with SJB's reply as there is no authority on earth that can judge the Pope. The only other thing he could do to lose the Chair is die.
As do I.
-
http://athanasiuscm.blogspot.com/2009/08/further-refutation-of-errors-of.html
That is a half truth; some theologians concede that if the Pope was a manifest heretic, he would lose his office because he was no longer a member of the Church. I don't have any problem with that taken as a theory, and note Iragui does not take it as a fact, he is speaking hypothetically that God would provide the Church with a means of recovering. Even if granted, to that I say so what? We are not speaking here of one Pope who lost his office, was removed and promptly replaced. Neither has any theologian who formulated or is alleged to have formulated conditions by which the Pope would lose his office. We are speaking of the idea that the Popes since John XXIII have all lost their office or were invalidly elected, and neither Iragui nor any other theologian has ever addressed the idea of the Church being without a principle of Unity for over a generation, because such a thing would mean concretely that God did not provide the Church the means to overcome the situation, which is blasphemous. Again I site Cardinal Billot’s teaching at the head of this response, and note not one of the Popes of the last 50 years have had their elections contested of even a large portion of the Church. You also have the problem that a manifest heretic is someone who obstinately denies faith and morals. Obstinacy is in the will, neither you nor I can know the will. Neither can a Bishop, Cardinal or any theologian. Thus how do we know someone is a manifest heretic? (More on this later)
-
We are not speaking here of one Pope who lost his office, was removed and promptly replaced. Neither has any theologian who formulated or is alleged to have formulated conditions by which the Pope would lose his office.
This is not true. Evidence to the contrary has been posted on this very forum.
-
What do you expect if the Church was infiltrated by Modernist, and they rose to the higher parts of the Church; it is only reasonable they would elect a Modernist for a pope, and since the person elected was also a Modernist, he was never a pope to begin with in the eyes of God.
Who cares what it looks like from the eyes of God, just so long as from the eyes of stevusmagnus; this could never be.
-
What do you expect if the Church was infiltrated by Modernist, and they rose to the higher parts of the Church; it is only reasonable they would elect a Modernist for a pope, and since the person elected was also a Modernist, he was never a pope to begin with in the eyes of God.
Who cares what it looks like from the eyes of God, just so long as from the eyes of stevusmagnus; this could never be.
So every member of the conclave that elected Paul VI was a Modernist, and the entire Church were modernists by affirming and accepting Paul VI as Pope?
-
Stevusmagnus, For me, you are pounding on an open door. Even assuming that all the Popes since and including John XXIII are completely valid Pontiffs, so what? Are you saying that we owe them obedience over Catholic Tradition? Even if they are not heretics, they are at least suspect of heresy.
-
Stevusmagnus, For me, you are pounding on an open door. Even assuming that all the Popes since and including John XXIII are completely valid Pontiffs, so what? Are you saying that we owe them obedience over Catholic Tradition? Even if they are not heretics, they are at least suspect of heresy.
Of course we follow Catholic Tradition. You and I seem to be on the same page.
-
What do you expect if the Church was infiltrated by Modernist, and they rose to the higher parts of the Church; it is only reasonable they would elect a Modernist for a pope, and since the person elected was also a Modernist, he was never a pope to begin with in the eyes of God.
Who cares what it looks like from the eyes of God, just so long as from the eyes of stevusmagnus; this could never be.
So every member of the conclave that elected Paul VI was a Modernist, and the entire Church were modernists by affirming and accepting Paul VI as Pope?
Why do you think the Bible refers to it as the GREAT apostasy?
-
If it doesn't prove the sede position then it doesn't prove SSPX position either. Therefore whatever you think of sedevacantist the same goes for SSPX.
Why not prove to me that SSPX is truth.
You believe we have a pope, but he is not a member of the Church!
Prove that!
Huh? Didn't Exlinomore make a post saying according to some research he did, even an occult heretic would still be considered part of the Church? (And remember that Exilenomore is a sede.) Of course, a heretic being Pope is a bit different, but to say he isn't even a part of the Church is taking it rather far, wouldn't you say? I cannot prove to you that the SSPX is truth as far as their stance that Benedict is Pope, but you can't prove to me that sedevacantism is truth. It backs up my statement that it's a matter of opinion.
-
If it doesn't prove the sede position then it doesn't prove SSPX position either. Therefore whatever you think of sedevacantist the same goes for SSPX.
Why not prove to me that SSPX is truth.
You believe we have a pope, but he is not a member of the Church!
Prove that!
Huh? Didn't Exlinomore make a post saying according to some research he did, even an occult heretic would still be considered part of the Church? (And remember that Exilenomore is a sede.) Of course, a heretic being Pope is a bit different, but to say he isn't even a part of the Church is taking it rather far, wouldn't you say? I cannot prove to you that the SSPX is truth as far as their stance that Benedict is Pope, but you can't prove to me that sedevacantism is truth. It backs up my statement that it's a matter of opinion.
Occult heretics are an issue in this argument. It is true that occult heretics remain visible members of the Church because their heresies remain unknown to everyone. But no one is discussing the question of whether a pope who has lost the faith but never manifests that loss to others loses his office.
-
Stevusmagnus, For me, you are pounding on an open door. Even assuming that all the Popes since and including John XXIII are completely valid Pontiffs, so what? Are you saying that we owe them obedience over Catholic Tradition? Even if they are not heretics, they are at least suspect of heresy.
Of course we follow Catholic Tradition. You and I seem to be on the same page.
I do not know. In general, I will not confess to most NO priests. A few I would be willing, if I was assured of their orthodoxy. For instance, one priest (too bad he was old) at an Indult Mass that we attend said in his homily that the Orindary Magisterium of the Church was infallible. What more could one ask for? Still, I prefer the SSPX, SSPV, and/or CMRI priests, because, with them, there is few doubts about their orthodoxy.
-
If it doesn't prove the sede position then it doesn't prove SSPX position either. Therefore whatever you think of sedevacantist the same goes for SSPX.
Why not prove to me that SSPX is truth.
You believe we have a pope, but he is not a member of the Church!
Prove that!
Huh? Didn't Exlinomore make a post saying according to some research he did, even an occult heretic would still be considered part of the Church? (And remember that Exilenomore is a sede.) Of course, a heretic being Pope is a bit different, but to say he isn't even a part of the Church is taking it rather far, wouldn't you say? I cannot prove to you that the SSPX is truth as far as their stance that Benedict is Pope, but you can't prove to me that sedevacantism is truth. It backs up my statement that it's a matter of opinion.
Occult heretics are an issue in this argument. It is true that occult heretics remain visible members of the Church because their heresies remain unknown to everyone. But no one is discussing the question of whether a pope who has lost the faith but never manifests that loss to others loses his office.
SS if only an occult heretic but that is not the case, as the VII popes are giving bad example to the faithful through their heretical actions.
-
To believe that a heretic can be a Pope is blasphemy to the Almighty God.
Those that believe we have a true Pope should use their energy to prove their current "pope" is not a heretic. Proving this is getting harder to do as each day goes by.
They would rather spend their energy and dare to taunt those Catholics that have come to realize the truth of the times we are living in, the end days of the end times.
Our head is Christ! Traditional Catholics everywhere possess the four marks of the Church, unlike the novus ordo where each "pope" brings us closer and closer to Anti-Christ. Setting the stage with the help of those who continue to call the remnant schismatic.
This is not meant to be a slam or insult to any sede's - I absolutely disagree with the sede's beliefs, but honestly do understand the sede position - my question is this:
Since it is "by their fruits" we know them, what are the fruits of Sedevacantism? This is an honest question so please take it that way.
From what little I remember seems that much of this sede situation started in the early 80s - which means we've had around 25 - 30 years for this "tree to bear fruit"...........what are the fruits?
Using the NO and SSPX as examples, we see the NO has more rotten stinking fruit than most trads can bear - no need to exemplify the obvious, meanwhile the SSPX has grown from a "mustard seed" out of Mr. and Mrs. Bartnik's basement in Royal Oak, MI. to a world wide society with still increasing vocations, schools etc.
Seems to me that the SSPX only has about 10 years jump on Sedevacantism, shouldn't that equate to Sedevacantism being at least 90% as big as SSPX?
By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
-
C.M.R.I. the first sedevacantist group was founded in 1967, not the 80’s.
People might choose SSPX over sedevacantist because It is much easier for Catholics to keep the tradition and their pope at the same time, then face the truth that there is no pope. However to the sede, it is much easier to say there is no pope than to say there is, but we don’t have to obey him. We don’t have to obey him, although he is not a heretic, they say, he is just “ill informed” and so on and so on. Excuses, excuses!
The fruits of sedevacantist, although we have had our scandals, but we also have good fruits, vocations, nuns, priests, and even novus ordo priests have come to believe as we do, and leave their seminaries and start from the beginning, this fruit is known as God’s grace. One young man in particular will be ordained this coming June, Rev. Michael Oswalt, look him up if you care to from google.
We have had conversions of the most hardened hearts, healings through the prayers of the faithful, and yes, even miracles, not vision type miracles but impossible prayers being answered, miracles in secret, as Our Lady promised.
Many of our religious are living saints, while some are not so much!
Cross after cross, sedevacantist have risen up and continue to offer the Mass and true Sacraments, bringing the treasures to people that can make them holy. I am sure SSPX can say the same, but since you are asking about sedevacantist this is what comes to my mind.
Also keep in mind it is not the numbers that tell which is more blessed by God, if that were the case then the novus ordo would win. Sedevacantist is small compared to the world, but then God did say, when I return will I find Faith in the world?
-
This is not meant to be a slam or insult to any sede's - I absolutely disagree with the sede's beliefs, but honestly do understand the sede position - my question is this:
Since it is "by their fruits" we know them, what are the fruits of Sedevacantism? This is an honest question so please take it that way.
From what little I remember seems that much of this sede situation started in the early 80s - which means we've had around 25 - 30 years for this "tree to bear fruit"...........what are the fruits?
Using the NO and SSPX as examples, we see the NO has more rotten stinking fruit than most trads can bear - no need to exemplify the obvious, meanwhile the SSPX has grown from a "mustard seed" out of Mr. and Mrs. Bartnik's basement in Royal Oak, MI. to a world wide society with still increasing vocations, schools etc.
Seems to me that the SSPX only has about 10 years jump on Sedevacantism, shouldn't that equate to Sedevacantism being at least 90% as big as SSPX?
By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
I think this is a fair question. Good fruit, though, does not necessarily mean tremendous growth. After all, during the time of Saint Athanasius it probably seemed that Arianism, with its explosive growth and acceptance by most of the bishops of the world, was good fruit while the Catholic Church was in such decline it probably seemed by many people to be where the rotten fruit was.
I've never tried to use the fruits as being part of the factual argument for sedevacantism. It is, on the other hand, one of the clues that one may look to in order to try to figure out if one has made the right decision. Similarly, the odor of a deceased person does not prove sainthood or damnation, but the Church has always used a sweet odor as a positive sign and a foul stench as a negative sign.
But what are the fruits of sedevacantism? First of all, remember that sedevacantism is not a movement; it is not a doctrine; it is not a community. Sedevacantism is merely the recognition that the popularly accepted pope is not a Catholic and is therefore not truly the pope. That is all it is.
So, I ask again, what are the fruits of sedevacantism? The first fruit of sedevacantism is that there is no longer a need to defend the indefensible. Sedevacantists no longer have to find psychological excuses to explain the heresies and apostasies that daily come out of Rome. Sedevacantists are totally consistent and need not explain why their faith and religious rites are contrary to the pope's. Many of the fruits of sedevacantism are individual.
The reason that many non-sedevacantists seem also to have these same fruits is because, I think, they are functionally sedevacantists--they just don't worry about the pope right now. Further, I still maintain that the SSPX is sedevacantist in all but name. They insist that Benedict is the pope that has absolutely no real authority and they can listen to him or not according to their fancy. They act as sedevacantists in all their acts, trying, as they say, to "convert the pope" to the Catholic faith. They just refuse the title, "sedevacantism". Because of this, I count the fruits of the SSPX as part of the fruits of sedevacantism or, conversely, the fruits of sedevacantism as part of the fruits of the SSPX.
Another curious thing I just realized writing this. Some anti-sedevacantists reject Thuc-line bishops because they say Archbishop Thuc was not of sound mind, but they also maintain that, although (as Bishop Williamson is wont to say) Benedict's liberalism has made him sick in his head, his actions are somehow valid--that is, if the SSPX and others decide a particular action (e.g., some canonizations or some teaching docuмents) are to their own liking.
Another fruit of sedevacantism is not having to make this judgment. Sure, Benny Hinn is right in some things, but that doesn't make him someone I turn to for spiritual guidance.
-
Again Myrna, unless you can prove sedevacantism is a fact, then it is in fact only a matter of opinion.
-
Dear SS, it may be an opinion in your eyes, but in my eyes it is fact because my conscience tells me to believe otherwise would be a sin against the Holy Ghost.
This is not to say that someday we will have a true pope again, and I hope it will be sooner than later. God knows we need a pope to unite all the traditionalists, because when the shepherd (pope) has been struck, the sheep (us) scatter. :incense:
-
The Novus Ordites claim good fruits in orders like the conservative Dominican sisters of Nashville. The new evangelization and youth movement of JPII. They claim Vatican II was a success in countries like Poland. That the NO Mass has made it easier for Prots to convert and has leas to more "active participation" in the liturgy. That the Faith has been more effectively presented to the modern world by demonstrating its truth rather than condemnations and threats of Hell. Opus Dei and other lay movements following the VCII "universal call to holiness", etc.
"Fruits" are often in the eye of the beholder.
-
TKGS said:
Similarly, the odor of a deceased person does not prove sainthood or damnation, but the Church has always used a sweet odor as a positive sign and a foul stench as a negative sign.
You say the Church takes the state of a person's body after death as a sign, do you have some verification of that?
Did you hear about what happened to the corpse of Pius XII? He turned green and then black with shockingly rapid speed and his nose fell off. That was because he was embalmed by some quack who was a friend of his. I think one or more of the other Vatican II "Popes" had a repugnant corpse.
Of course, we can't judge from this. St. Rita had a stigmata in her forehead that reeked horribly. Nevertheless, has it ever happened before that a Pope died in such a nasty way? It does seem God reserves nasty deaths for wicked men, in general. Arius exploded in a fit of diarrhea, excreting his intestines and other vital organs ( no joke ). Judas not only hanged himself, but his guts burst out of his stomach ( according to Bishop Pivarunas, I assume he got this from Anne Catherine Emmerich or Mary of Agreda or someone like that ).
P.S. I'm not saying Pius XII was an anti-Pope, I'm saying he was not among the highlights of the papacy.
-
Raoul,
What are your sources for this?
-
C.M.R.I. the first sedevacantist group was founded in 1967, not the 80’s.
Thanks. I did not know that.
My first experience with Sede's was in the 80s with (then) Fr. Sanborn - we (my family) had to leave SSPX for a number of years as the sede situation played out. Fr. Sanborn was probably one of the best speakers I ever heard, but we could not listen to his constant insults from the pulpit directed at the pope. ("He who eats the pope dies")
After reading over your post as well as TKGS' post, I have confirmed (to myself at least) - that my understanding of sede's position is pretty accurate.
Briefly, I disagree with TKGS' reply that the SSPX is sedevacantist in all but name for many reasons, primarily though is because they still pray for the Pope in the Mass and also privately.
Other than that, thanks for your replies!
-
Interesting in that SSPX prays for the pope, while sedevacantist prays for a pope.
-
Interesting in that SSPX prays for the pope, while sedevacantist prays for a pope.
Canon of the Mass
Wherefore, we humbly pray and beseech Thee, most merciful Father, through Jesus Christ Thy Son, Our Lord, to receive and to bless these gifts, these presents, these holy unspotted sacrifices, which we offer up to Thee, in the first place for Thy holy Catholic Church, that it may please Thee to grant her peace, to guard, unite, and guide her, throughout the world; as also for Thy servant N., our Pope, and N., our Bishop, and for all who are orthodox in belief and who profess the Catholic and apostolic faith.
What do Sede's say here?
-
Sedevacantist do not say the name of a Vatican II "pope"
In the autumn of 1979, Archbishop Lefebvre issued a declaration in which he stated that he would not tolerate in the Society of Saint Pius X those who refused to place the name of John Paul II in the canon of the Mass. He dismissed a number of priests in Europe for refusal to observe the dictum. In the spring of 1980, he came to America with the same agenda: to dismiss those who would not say the name of John Paul II in the canon.
In the course of the negotiations with the American priests, however, Archbishop Lefebvre came to a compromise, of sorts. He would not throw out the priests from the Society of Saint Pius X, if they would agree to keep their sedevacantism to themselves. They could leave out John Paul's name from the canon, as long as they did not make a public issue out of it. Opinionism was born. The Archbishop himself would formulate the fundamental tenet of opinionism: "I do not say that the pope is not the pope, but I do not say either that one cannot say that the pope is not the pope."
-
Sedevacantist do not say the name of a Vatican II "pope"
In the autumn of 1979, Archbishop Lefebvre issued a declaration in which he stated that he would not tolerate in the Society of Saint Pius X those who refused to place the name of John Paul II in the canon of the Mass. He dismissed a number of priests in Europe for refusal to observe the dictum. In the spring of 1980, he came to America with the same agenda: to dismiss those who would not say the name of John Paul II in the canon.
In the course of the negotiations with the American priests, however, Archbishop Lefebvre came to a compromise, of sorts. He would not throw out the priests from the Society of Saint Pius X, if they would agree to keep their sedevacantism to themselves. They could leave out John Paul's name from the canon, as long as they did not make a public issue out of it. Opinionism was born. The Archbishop himself would formulate the fundamental tenet of opinionism: "I do not say that the pope is not the pope, but I do not say either that one cannot say that the pope is not the pope."
JPII needed prayers, Myrna. He was a modernist, ABL would have been a coward not to put it in. Furthermore, that quote you posted contradicts your argument, because it shows just how open to sedevacantism ABL was.
-
I post the truth whether it reinforces my position or not. Truth is truth, and I never said or thought that ABL was totally against sedevacantism. I never said that about him.
At times however I am known to make a mistake or misunderstand something, since I am not a theologian nor do I come close to being one.
Everyone needs prayers, and if SSPX with all its numbers as stated by "Stubborn" a poster here; it doesn't seem prayers are helping the VII popes, since they just get further, and further from the truth with each passing day. Something is amiss.