Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Achilless Heel of Sedevacantism: Apostolicity  (Read 1806 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Geremia

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4119
  • Reputation: +1258/-259
  • Gender: Male
    • St. Isidore e-book library
Achilless Heel of Sedevacantism: Apostolicity
« on: October 12, 2014, 09:34:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It is de fide that the Catholic Church will always have ordinary jurisdiction. All sedevacantists seem to agree, but they are very divided regarding who are the true apostolic succession, seeming to fall into three groups

    1. conclavists (They elect their own pope.)
    2. those who think sedevacantist clerics alone are the true apostolic succession (and who do not elect a pope)
    3. those who think non-sedevacantist clerics can also be of true apostolic succession  (and who also do not elect a pope)

    "Pope" Michael et al. fall into category #1; Fr. Cekada et al. are category #2; and all the rest seem to fall into category #3.

    What is the most logical position for a sedevacantist to take?
    St. Isidore e-book library: https://isidore.co/calibre


    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10512
    • Reputation: +3267/-207
    • Gender: Male
    • I will not respond to any posts from Poche.
    Achilless Heel of Sedevacantism: Apostolicity
    « Reply #1 on: October 12, 2014, 10:14:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I maintained that those that are heretics are outside the church. For example, Francis
    who maintains that God does not exist, but the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
    We Catholics believe in the Trinity, one God in three divine persons. If I got this
    right in the First Grade in 1953, How can the man who claims to be the Vicar of Christ
    get it all wrong.
    A cleric in the church when he teaches heresy like the above example has no
    jurisdiction. In the recent interview of Cardinal Burke, The appointment of worthy
    pastors is so important to the church.


    Offline Geremia

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4119
    • Reputation: +1258/-259
    • Gender: Male
      • St. Isidore e-book library
    Achilless Heel of Sedevacantism: Apostolicity
    « Reply #2 on: October 12, 2014, 11:56:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: RomanCatholic1953
    I maintained that those that are heretics are outside the church. For example, Francis
    who maintains that God does not exist, but the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
    We Catholics believe in the Trinity, one God in three divine persons. If I got this
    right in the First Grade in 1953, How can the man who claims to be the Vicar of Christ
    get it all wrong.
    A cleric in the church when he teaches heresy like the above example has no
    jurisdiction. In the recent interview of Cardinal Burke, The appointment of worthy
    pastors is so important to the church.
    So, you fall into category #3?
    St. Isidore e-book library: https://isidore.co/calibre

    Offline ggreg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3001
    • Reputation: +184/-179
    • Gender: Male
    Achilless Heel of Sedevacantism: Apostolicity
    « Reply #3 on: October 13, 2014, 01:02:31 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Geremia
    It is de fide that the Catholic Church will always have ordinary jurisdiction. All sedevacantists seem to agree, but they are very divided regarding who are the true apostolic succession, seeming to fall into three groups

    1. conclavists (They elect their own pope.)
    2. those who think sedevacantist clerics alone are the true apostolic succession (and who do not elect a pope)
    3. those who think non-sedevacantist clerics can also be of true apostolic succession  (and who also do not elect a pope)

    "Pope" Michael et al. fall into category #1; Fr. Cekada et al. are category #2; and all the rest seem to fall into category #3.

    What is the most logical position for a sedevacantist to take?


    4.  Sit tight and see what happens.

    Offline claudel

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1776
    • Reputation: +1335/-419
    • Gender: Male
    Achilless Heel of Sedevacantism: Apostolicity
    « Reply #4 on: October 13, 2014, 10:43:31 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: ggreg
    4. Sit tight and see what happens.


    This is sound counsel—and not only for SVs. If you amend it slightly—"Sit tight, pray, keep the Faith, and see what happens"—it's even sounder.


    Offline Croix de Fer

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3219
    • Reputation: +2525/-2210
    • Gender: Male
    Achilless Heel of Sedevacantism: Apostolicity
    « Reply #5 on: October 13, 2014, 10:44:37 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: ggreg
    Quote from: Geremia
    It is de fide that the Catholic Church will always have ordinary jurisdiction. All sedevacantists seem to agree, but they are very divided regarding who are the true apostolic succession, seeming to fall into three groups

    1. conclavists (They elect their own pope.)
    2. those who think sedevacantist clerics alone are the true apostolic succession (and who do not elect a pope)
    3. those who think non-sedevacantist clerics can also be of true apostolic succession  (and who also do not elect a pope)

    "Pope" Michael et al. fall into category #1; Fr. Cekada et al. are category #2; and all the rest seem to fall into category #3.

    What is the most logical position for a sedevacantist to take?


    4.  Sit tight and see what happens.


    5. Sedeprivationism is the best explanation of, and response to, the Crisis in the Church.
    Blessed be the Lord my God, who teacheth my hands to fight, and my fingers to war. ~ Psalms 143:1 (Douay-Rheims)

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4577/-579
    • Gender: Female
    Achilless Heel of Sedevacantism: Apostolicity
    « Reply #6 on: October 13, 2014, 01:02:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote

    What is the most logical position for a sedevacantist to take?


    6. Have the courage and strength to leave all pro-sede vacantist discussions, debates, and literature aside and just concentrate on prayer. One year of letting the issue alone and concentrating on spiritual advancement through proper traditional spiritual methods would do wonders.

    But at this point of the game, bitterness has taken over and this would take great commitment and supernatural strength, right? only available through God's grace. One would have to leave one's passions aside and lose oneself through total abandonment to the will of God.

    Do sedevacantists have what it takes to do this?
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline ThomisticPhilosopher

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 461
    • Reputation: +210/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Achilless Heel of Sedevacantism: Apostolicity
    « Reply #7 on: October 19, 2014, 07:21:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Cantarella
    Quote

    What is the most logical position for a sedevacantist to take?


    6. Have the courage and strength to leave all pro-sede vacantist discussions, debates, and literature aside and just concentrate on prayer. One year of letting the issue alone and concentrating on spiritual advancement through proper traditional spiritual methods would do wonders.

    But at this point of the game, bitterness has taken over and this would take great commitment and supernatural strength, right? only available through God's grace. One would have to leave one's passions aside and lose oneself through total abandonment to the will of God.

    Do sedevacantists have what it takes to do this?


    You somehow think that we haven't done that.

    The only thing that abandoning this topic did for me in the past, was bring spiritual harm. I too in the past told myself I wont revisit this topic until a decade later. Well guess what during that time I confessed my sins to another layman. Don't put off things that are necessary to know in recognizing wolves.

    It really doesn't take much thought, its all the gobbledygook theology that keeps people in sedeplenism. Without the super added complexity, people are so confused. I am talking about folks who understand latin, several years in philosophy, and in general have an above average IQ. If these individuals are stuck, then what do you think the rest of the populace will be?

    It really is super simple, you don't need to waste any time.

    1) A pope must be Catholic.
    2) These men are not Catholic. As is evident from their words/deeds/acts.
    3) Ergo they are not Popes.

    After that all you need to do is go into your spiritual retreat that you so much recommend. Which I agree is good, but first solve the doctrinal issues.

    No instead what I see from the sedeplenist world, is that they obsess over Rome and always want the latest stuff that is happening.

    After I became a SV'ist I spend significantly almost no time looking over the issue. As can be seen with how I take long breaks from posting online, because I do have a life (not that those who post online don't have a life). But this is proof that I am busy taking care of everything else in my life. I eat right, exercise a lot, and just do general spiritual reading. Then once in a long while, I will read up on this sort of literature or catch up a bit as to the current events that happens.

    Max it takes me less then 30 minutes to catch up after a month of not listening to any Conciliar garbage news.

    While I was in the SSPX, I spent 100 times more time worrying about these things. There was a time where I wanted to just be "spiritual" and not read any controversial stuff. This is the time I was joining the monastery, and some previous years, also some years after I joined. All I did was read Desert Fathers, spiritual books, and doctrine. This was for several years, and none of that helped save me from making the worst mistake in my life. Which is going to the indult... So instead of being proud like I was, I should have simply spent a little time and taken care of my doubts I had. Instead of having to have possibly been deceived by the New Church. I was VERY close in joining an indult type of monastery, I was already accepted in several places. Who knows if I would still be there, and it is certainly much harder as a monastic to get out of that heretical institutions.

    So no, what you advice simply doesn't work. I have been there and done that, the same goes with all the religious who were in the Novus Ordo that I have spoken to and gotten out. They also wanted to be pure spiritualist and not worry about stuff like that. But at the end of the day like THEY told me, over and over. The doctrine doesn't go away just because you wish for it not to be present. It always comes back, if not in one year, maybe 5 years if you are in ideal situation. Some people go join the local diocese and after 6 years they realize it was a waste of time. But ohh boy they sure were spiritualists, and they avoided all controversial issues. They just kept telling themselves that the Novus Ordo is Catholic, its catholic, its catholic. Despite their little head telling them its not Catholic, its not catholic. It is terrible to live in such a grave state of contradiction, it is mentally anguishing + a huge waste of time. Who is going to give that time back to those folks? All those invalid masses they attended, false confessions? All because they simply did not have the courage to face tough issues/questions when it was presented to them in the first place. All Catholics are faced with a choice, at some point you can't run away from it.

    The monk that I know, it was after 15 years of being a hermit. He was in the most ideal setting within the Conciliar Church. At some point God will lead those who love him to the truth. BUT why would anyone in their right mind, postpone doctrinal issues just because it is a bit uncomfortable. The truth hurts, but it also frees you. Now I can spend my time, and in the foreseeable future not have to worry about being in an impossible situation under heretics. So many of my friends, have gone with the indult and in all those years they are not starting to realize how young and stupid they were. They idealize how they are going to be imaginary knights for the faith, and how they are "going to fight" from within. At the end of the day, talk to them 2 years later, and they accept the N.O. and Vatican II (without question). No different then any other Conciliar Catholic, and then you ask yourself where is this imaginary orthodoxy they dreamed themselves of?

    They will brainwash you into heresy, that simple. St. Alphonsus says that it is mortally sinful to be in such a monastery... This is what SOUND and sane doctrine tells you, all those other spiritualists might be good willed, but their advice is insane. None of the folks I know, who have been there and tried that solution are currently in a good situation. No they are in a horrible situation, because they decided to be agnostic about doctrinal important issues.

    If you have serious doubts about these claimants, research it until you get your questions answered. It doesn't take that long, it took me very little to reach these conclusions once I decided to do the reading myself.

    Read Cajetan, John of St. Thomas, Suarez and all the famous defenders of the Pope being a heretic while keeping his office. Once you do that yourself, and simply read a few manuals to help guide you. You will see that the issue is settled, all of this controversy that people imagine. Is just that, pure fiction. The theology is solid, its on our side even our opponents agree with all the major premises of the SV'ist thesis. The only difference between them and us, is how do you get rid of an anti-Pope. That is what the real issue is, yet the SSPX will paint it differently.

    Go straight to the source, and see for yourself. It will help you be able to quickly solve all those apparent difficult questions people always raise. There are answers to these questions, but the difference is that they are not insurmountable as it was when I was as a sedeplenist. Quite frankly, with most issues I had no answers, because there was no answers. As a sedevacantist, everything makes perfect sense. You have a sense of peace that sedeplenism can never bring, you are always uncertain. Who do I follow, who do I trust etc....

    With sedevacantism its simple, is the priest Catholic and traditionally ordained? Look who he was ordained by, to make sure its not some crazy old Catholic. You go and receive the sacraments, if you have someone to receive them by. And read your spiritual books, and sanctify yourself.

    You don't have to worry about sifting any difficult questions, because these men have no authority over us. We simply read this stuff, to be informed, but it really is not necessary. I could simply live my life, and not worry about any of that garbage. That is what 99% of the time I do, in reality. I just inform myself for the sake of others, not because I feel the personal need to scratch some sort of need.

    We don't worry about "the local Bishop", and all his non-sensical heresies they spew every other day. Or what local St. JP II the Great Church is doing... None of those things we have to waste time, "fighting inside the Church."

    Sure we can talk to Novus Ordites and educate them about Catholic tradition. Or when you bring a convert, you can be able to bring them to a safer position instead of having them go through decades of questioning how all of this madness is possible.

    I talk to so many converts that honestly under sedeplenism they are simply so lost, they are so confused. They fear, they question, have no idea, and this is generally what happens when you are presented with the current insurmountable problem that you have, non-Catholics rule over you. Its impossible, but yet everyone else defends that such a thing is true and is happening.

    This is why the sedeplenist has to always keep up with whatever +Fellay & Co. have to say on a monthly basis. I used to this faithfully, see what advice they have, see what new sifting we have to worry about.

    Now, I can actually be at peace... Now I can go back to my spiritual books... Because now I have no doubts, no more serious epic questions... We just have to solve it once, and that is it.
    https://keybase.io/saintaquinas , has all my other verified accounts including PGP key plus BTC address for bitcoin tip jar. A.M.D.G.


    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 31176
    • Reputation: +27093/-494
    • Gender: Male
    Achilless Heel of Sedevacantism: Apostolicity
    « Reply #8 on: October 24, 2014, 02:40:22 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: ThomisticPhilosopher

    No instead what I see from the sedeplenist world, is that they obsess over Rome and always want the latest stuff that is happening.

    After I became a SV'ist I spend significantly almost no time looking over the issue. As can be seen with how I take long breaks from posting online, because I do have a life (not that those who post online don't have a life). But this is proof that I am busy taking care of everything else in my life. I eat right, exercise a lot, and just do general spiritual reading. Then once in a long while, I will read up on this sort of literature or catch up a bit as to the current events that happens.

    Max it takes me less then 30 minutes to catch up after a month of not listening to any Conciliar garbage news.

    While I was in the SSPX, I spent 100 times more time worrying about these things. There was a time where I wanted to just be "spiritual" and not read any controversial stuff.


    It sounds like you're applying your own personal situation to the rest of us.

    I'm not a sedevacantist, but I don't spend any more time on the Pope question than you do. In fact, you just wrote up quite a large post about it -- while my post here is quite short by comparison!

    Just because YOU spent too much time obsessing over Rome, news from Rome, etc. doesn't mean that ALL sedeplenists make that mistake.
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com

    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5768
    • Reputation: +4620/-480
    • Gender: Male
    Achilless Heel of Sedevacantism: Apostolicity
    « Reply #9 on: October 24, 2014, 07:05:52 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Matthew
    Quote from: ThomisticPhilosopher

    No instead what I see from the sedeplenist world, is that they obsess over Rome and always want the latest stuff that is happening.

    After I became a SV'ist I spend significantly almost no time looking over the issue. As can be seen with how I take long breaks from posting online, because I do have a life (not that those who post online don't have a life). But this is proof that I am busy taking care of everything else in my life. I eat right, exercise a lot, and just do general spiritual reading. Then once in a long while, I will read up on this sort of literature or catch up a bit as to the current events that happens.

    Max it takes me less then 30 minutes to catch up after a month of not listening to any Conciliar garbage news.

    While I was in the SSPX, I spent 100 times more time worrying about these things. There was a time where I wanted to just be "spiritual" and not read any controversial stuff.


    It sounds like you're applying your own personal situation to the rest of us.

    I'm not a sedevacantist, but I don't spend any more time on the Pope question than you do. In fact, you just wrote up quite a large post about it -- while my post here is quite short by comparison!

    Just because YOU spent too much time obsessing over Rome, news from Rome, etc. doesn't mean that ALL sedeplenists make that mistake.


    It seems to me that the majority of posts in favor of the sedevacantist thesis are in response to the sedeplenists condemning sedevacantism or making inane comments about the wonderfulness of Bergoglio and the Conciliar hierarchy.

    It seems to me that the obsession is more with the anti-sedevacantists.  Of course, it's clear that the anti-sedevacantists see it the other was around.  

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4577/-579
    • Gender: Female
    Achilless Heel of Sedevacantism: Apostolicity
    « Reply #10 on: October 24, 2014, 11:55:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote

    It really is super simple, you don't need to waste any time.

     1) A pope must be Catholic.
     2) These men are not Catholic. As is evident from their words/deeds/acts.
     3) Ergo they are not Popes.


    But all you have is your own personal private judgment to arrive to such over - simplistic conclusion. Catholics should be very distrustful of their own private judgment, otherwise we can fall into the same level than the Protestants. You are inverting the authority when you think you know more than the Church does. There is a hierarchy to everything. Surely, you can hold your own personal opinion that "there is no pope" as a comfy blanket if that is what brings you peace of mind, but there are some here that need to dig deeper in order to work under facts, not wishful thinking. Fact remains, you can depose the Pope in your mind all you want, but realistically, not even an Ecuмenical Council has the authority to depose the Roman Pontiff.

    Respond this:

    Which Bishops are currently holding the authority to supply the Church jurisdiction? What visible magisterium is doing the supplying? if supplied jurisdiction comes from the authority which is wielded by the Pope (which according to the sedevacantists, is actually an anti-pope), and held by the Church (Bishops) during interregnums, these Bishops must be visible, they cannot be invisible, so where are they?



    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.


    Offline andysloan

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1219
    • Reputation: +8/-5
    • Gender: Male
    Achilless Heel of Sedevacantism: Apostolicity
    « Reply #11 on: October 24, 2014, 12:35:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Vatican 1 - Infallible Council


    Chapter 2. On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs


        That which our Lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time  .

        For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood.




    And the right to declare a Pope a heretic by private judgement is proscribed by Our Lord:


    Matthew 18:15-17

    "But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.

    And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.  And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.



    Thus, as long as the Pope is canonically elected, he has the Keys.


    Hence, St Francis prophetically states in instruction and in chide of those who reject the conciliar Popes:


     "The devils will have unusual power, the immaculate purity of our Order, and of others, will be so much obscured that there will be very few Christians who will obey the true Sovereign Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal hearts and perfect charity. At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavour to draw many into error and death."



    No Pope has ever made an ex-cathedra error, because God will not permit it, so however seemingly wayward a Pope maybe, be are still bound to honour and submit to him, hence writes St Catherine of Siena.


    "Even if that vicar were a devil incarnate, I must not defy him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom... He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope." (Letter to Bernabo Visconti)


    "Divine obedience never prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father: nay, the more perfect the one, the more perfect is the other. And we ought always to be subject to his commands and obedient unto death. However indiscreet obedience to him might seem, and however it should deprive us of mental peace and consolation, we ought to obey; and I consider that to do the opposite is a great imperfection, and deceit of the devil." (Letter to Brother Antonio of Nizza).



    God bless all!

    Offline ThomisticPhilosopher

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 461
    • Reputation: +210/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Achilless Heel of Sedevacantism: Apostolicity
    « Reply #12 on: October 26, 2014, 06:34:55 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Cantarella
    Quote

    It really is super simple, you don't need to waste any time.

     1) A pope must be Catholic.
     2) These men are not Catholic. As is evident from their words/deeds/acts.
     3) Ergo they are not Popes.


    But all you have is your own personal private judgment to arrive to such over - simplistic conclusion. Catholics should be very distrustful of their own private judgment, otherwise we can fall into the same level than the Protestants. You are inverting the authority when you think you know more than the Church does. There is a hierarchy to everything. Surely, you can hold your own personal opinion that "there is no pope" as a comfy blanket if that is what brings you peace of mind, but there are some here that need to dig deeper in order to work under facts, not wishful thinking. Fact remains, you can depose the Pope in your mind all you want, but realistically, not even an Ecuмenical Council has the authority to depose the Roman Pontiff.

    Respond this:

    Which Bishops are currently holding the authority to supply the Church jurisdiction? What visible magisterium is doing the supplying? if supplied jurisdiction comes from the authority which is wielded by the Pope (which according to the sedevacantists, is actually an anti-pope), and held by the Church (Bishops) during interregnums, these Bishops must be visible, they cannot be invisible, so where are they?





    This simplistic "answer" also happens to be the position of the Church. Not even Cajetan, Suarez and John of St. Thomas and other authors dispute this.

    You have to cite me your authorities, and then I can examine your proof-texting to see whether that is what the original authors said. After all you are of the opinion that St. Bellarmine does not hold our position, which is ludicrous! It just shows you how deluded you are in your personal reading of doctrine/dogma.
    https://keybase.io/saintaquinas , has all my other verified accounts including PGP key plus BTC address for bitcoin tip jar. A.M.D.G.

    Offline ThomisticPhilosopher

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 461
    • Reputation: +210/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Achilless Heel of Sedevacantism: Apostolicity
    « Reply #13 on: October 26, 2014, 06:46:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: andysloan
    Vatican 1 - Infallible Council


    Chapter 2. On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs


        That which our Lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time  .

        For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood.




    And the right to declare a Pope a heretic by private judgement is proscribed by Our Lord:


    Matthew 18:15-17

    "But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.

    And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.  And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.



    Thus, as long as the Pope is canonically elected, he has the Keys.


    Hence, St Francis prophetically states in instruction and in chide of those who reject the conciliar Popes:


     "The devils will have unusual power, the immaculate purity of our Order, and of others, will be so much obscured that there will be very few Christians who will obey the true Sovereign Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal hearts and perfect charity. At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavour to draw many into error and death."



    No Pope has ever made an ex-cathedra error, because God will not permit it, so however seemingly wayward a Pope maybe, be are still bound to honour and submit to him, hence writes St Catherine of Siena.


    "Even if that vicar were a devil incarnate, I must not defy him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom... He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope." (Letter to Bernabo Visconti)


    "Divine obedience never prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father: nay, the more perfect the one, the more perfect is the other. And we ought always to be subject to his commands and obedient unto death. However indiscreet obedience to him might seem, and however it should deprive us of mental peace and consolation, we ought to obey; and I consider that to do the opposite is a great imperfection, and deceit of the devil." (Letter to Brother Antonio of Nizza).



    God bless all!


    First of all as your refutation, you quote a private revelation! Incredible... Even worse your private interpretation of a private revelation, as the final nail in the coffin.

    St. Francis famously, received a revelation from God to, "restore His Church." So what he went to go and do, he got his hammer and started to go repair the local Church. Even the prophet can misinterpret a message intended for him... Read, St. John of the Cross and you will understand this principle very well. It is your private interpretation you are trying to impose as the "rightful and only" proper reading. This is protestantism, what we are telling you is Catholic teaching. Plain and simple, your constant use of "privately deposing" a Pope shows how little you understand the issue.

    No theologian disagrees with this statement, there is PERFECT moral unity in this.

    1) Christ is the only one who deposes a heretical pope, even in the case that he is properly legally and canonically deposed by the Church.

    Therefore, NO one is claiming that because of Fr. Cekada, or because of me, or because of Mr. John Lane, or anyone else in this planet including even Cardinals or Bishops that a Pope can be deposed by any other human being. It happens ipso facto, and it is done by Christ. So quit feeding the trolls, and be intellectually honest. Quit making a straw man it shows that you lack the logic to have a discussion on these issues.

    The mind of the Church is clear regarding people who are heretics, and loss of office. The burden of proof is on you, that this indeed is possible. Quote your authorities, I warn you if actually do the reading you will find that there are no Doctor's on your side, and no moral unanimity even among the few that disagree with St. Bellarmine on a few distinctions of how the legal deposing takes place.
    https://keybase.io/saintaquinas , has all my other verified accounts including PGP key plus BTC address for bitcoin tip jar. A.M.D.G.

    Offline andysloan

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1219
    • Reputation: +8/-5
    • Gender: Male
    Achilless Heel of Sedevacantism: Apostolicity
    « Reply #14 on: October 27, 2014, 09:00:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • TP says:

    The mind of the Church is clear regarding people who are heretics, and loss of office. The burden of proof is on you, that this indeed is possible.



    The teaching of Christ is quite clear on who can declare someone heretical:

       

    Matthew 18:17


    "And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican."



    So says also St Robert B:

    "and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church.”
    De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30


    and overall, well summed up by John of St Thomas:


    St. Jerome - in saying that a heretic departs on his own from the Body of Christ - does not preclude the Church's judgment, especially in so grave a matter as is the deposition of a pope. He refers instead to the nature of that crime, which is such as to cut someone off from the Church on its own and without other censure in addition to it - yet only so long as it should be declared by the Church... So long as he has not become declared to us juridically as an infidel or heretic, be he ever so manifestly heretical according to private judgment, he remains as far as we are concerned a member of the Church and consequently its head. Judgment is required by the Church. It is only then that he ceases to be Pope as far as we are concerned" Disp. II, art III 26



    I see nowhere the permission for private individuals to judge a Pope a heretic and despose him. Do you?