Author Topic: An Objection to Sedevacantism: Perpetual Successors to Peter (Read 16318 times)

Nishant · « **Reply #95 on:** August 30, 2012, 04:00:47 PM »

I cannot agree with you, John, for what you are proposing is unthinkable. For it is the principal error of especially the last 50 years to think that doctrines ought "to be adapted to the circuмstances and needs of our times". Holding that crystal clear formulations of those doctrines by holy and pious minds of the past need to be "reinterpreted" as if they were obscure and in need of less precise and more ambiguous assertions (another absolute favorite of some persons in the last 50 years) and this by the same untrained laymen you talk about today appears to me to be merely another form of this.

By the way, I don't think there was any serious theological controversy on Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus even in the last 300 years before the present day, which on the other hand doesn't deserve to be classified as such. All traditional theologians taught baptism of desire and blood as at least theologically certain truths.

Speaking of which, when I mentioned degrees of certainty in different propositions, and the proportionate assent owed to each by the faithful, this was what I had in mind. It's from a sedevacantist site reproducing a traditional work. "Theologically certain", "ecclesiastical faith" etc these are notes describing the varying grades of certainty. Please use the technical terminology so we could understand each other better.

http://www.the-pope.com/theolnotes.html

As if that were not enough, you would also be at odds with almost every traditional Bishop in the world when you say, "But if it is indeed true that bishops are not apostolic unless they have ordinary jurisdiction, which I am starting to believe, then I doubt that our traditional bishops do not have ordinary jurisdiction."

Please show me which traditional Bishops today even claim they possess ordinary jurisdiction. Even Fr.Cekada does not assert this and frankly knows the opposite is true and takes it as a given.

If people hypothesize various possibilities like a Bishop in the woods today, we could not say with certainty that they are mistaken. But if someone contradicts the Church and says, like Fr.Cekada does, even if not in so many words, that the Church can cease to be Apostolic, it is certain that a position that entails that is incorrect and no Catholic can be morally obliged to hold such a position. If you are saying material succession is sufficient, and the essential form of legitimate authorization from a superior is to be disregarded, I think the same applies.

I would not say this otherwise, but I also think you judge Archbishop Lefebvre very rashly in describing his action as "schismatic on its face" and against what you assert, it could be argued that the very act of attempting to confer ordinary jurisdiction on another Bishop could pertain to the essence of a schismatic act, since it constitutes an usurpation of authority one does not and cannot possess as a mere Bishop.

And this Archbishop Lefebvre never did and was very careful to say so, and all SSPX Bishops have said so, and neither have sedevacantist Bishops at least in the CMRI done so and they know it, but what you are proposing apparently would have me believe they have done so or ought to have done so.

Finally, regarding what you posted about Hobbledehoy, to answer with scripture, no one has made me a judge between you. I don't "take a side" in that matter except to deny your characterization of him in your post toward me because from what I've seen, I can scarcely think of someone less uncharitable than Hobbledehoy, who has freely and graciously taken the time to post countless wondrous spiritual writings on this forum which is of so much more worth to all of us than any theological disputation and I know has proven so edifying to me on many occasions and I'm sure for several other souls, so given what you addressed to me above, I would be remiss in not saying that, for that has only been my honest experience.

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #96 on:** August 30, 2012, 04:58:19 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

Finally, regarding what you posted about Hobbledehoy, to answer with scripture, no one has made me a judge between you. I don't "take a side" in that matter except to deny your characterization of him in your post toward me because from what I've seen, I can scarcely think of someone less uncharitable than Hobbledehoy, who has freely and graciously taken the time to post countless wondrous spiritual writings on this forum which is of so much more worth to all of us than any theological disputation and I know has proven so edifying to me on many occasions and I'm sure for several other souls, so given what you addressed to me above, I would be remiss in not saying that, for that has only been my honest experience.

All glory and thanks is to be given to God alone through His Most Holy Mother.

It is frustrating for me to have my endeavors of fraternal correction frustrated again and again, but Matthew has graciously allowed "Lover of Truth" to remain so that the nature of the controversy that divides us may be clearly seen:

Quote from: Lover of Truth

1. Regarding what liturgy, between the pre-1955 and the 1958 I have admitted that I am not sure which is the best or (only choice).

2. Regarding the attendance of SVs at an una cuм Ratzinger/heretic Mass, when that is the only Mass reasonably available to them, I have maintained that I am not 100% sure either way, if they could lawfully attend such a Mass in good conscience.

3. Regarding the Traditional Bishops having ordinary jurisdiction, I have repeatedly stated that I am not sure which side is right.

4. The only thing I have claimed to know for sure is that a public heretic cannot be pope and a valid pope cannot bind a heretical council, doubtful sacraments, an invalid Mass, heretical cannon law on us. There is nothing too complicated about that.

Numbers 1 and 3 have been answered thoroughly by myself, Nishant and others, and the doctrines of the theologians have been shown to you and others.

Some have definitely erred in ascribing to the acephalous clerics of the traditionalist movement ordinary jurisdiction, and you have given at least tacit tolerance to such an error by posting articles and comments (such as those of Mr. Ruby) who clearly propagate such errors.

Regarding the disobedience and crass vilification of the sedevacantist acephalous clerics towards the liturgical reforms promulgated by the Apostolic See under the authority of Pope Pius XII, whom all sedevacantist clerics acknowledge to have reigned as Supreme Pontiff,―and yet categorically accuse the faithful of the SSPX of Gallicanist "pciking and choosing" and implicitly condemn all the faithful who materially adhere to the Johannine-Pauline structures as being members of a "new religion:" I have endeavored to clarify the matter and to posit the pertinent principles, yet you have not brought forth any substantial points against my arguments. Rather, you copy-and-paste the dicta of the clerics who are pertinacious and intransigent in this matter.

Why not consult the CMRI Fathers and ask them what they think of the matter? They do not hold that all these disobedient clerics are to be imputed moral guilt or Canonical censured by operation of the law itself (such as failure to fulfill the Canonical obligation of reciting the Office and offering Holy Mass according to the duly promulgated rubrics in force during the reign of Pope Pius XII), but they do hold that obedience and docility to Holy Mother Church is the best means to preserve the sensus Catholicus. They also abstain from neo-historicist arguments to explain away rubrical anarchy and individualistic autocratic praxes.

Not that I represent the stance of the CMRI Fathers in this matter or any other. It is curious that those who profess themselves as attending CMRI chapels fail to defend the liturgical praxis of the very Priests who administer to them the Sacraments and to whose pastoral care they have entrusted their souls and those of their families.

Quote

So to say I contradict myself by stating facts and admitting I am not sure of the answer to some contraversies would be incorrect. Further, (obviously this is not in response to you Nischant) I do not engage in mean-spirited attacks as a poster on this thread continues to do. I may have in the past, but not anymore. If there is one thing I have learned from the mean-spirited poster on this thread it is that being uncharitable is not Catholic. [emphases mine]

I did not say you contradict yourself with what you regard as "facts" but by your continued and incorrigible criticism of this forum (both here and elsewhere on the internet) and the fact that you continue to avail yourself of this very forum to publicize your opinions and to advertise the articles of your friends, such as Droleskey.

Quote

I'll admit that I am somewhat flattered to have my posts so carefully read and taken so seriously by the mean-spirited poster.

Please do not misinterpret my fraternal solicitude so as to twist it as a means to satiate the Narcissistic proclivities you seem to exhibit. I endeavor to correct you, as I have endeavored to correct others.

Quote

If it is proven to my satisfaction that the Church teaches to the contrary, I most readily and happily accept. But I believe if anything is proven in our lifetimes it will be the contrary.

The behavioral patters you have demonstrated in the past seem to substantiate the contrary.

Remember your signature:

Quote

I am the first to say that we cannot judge anyone's subjective culpability and yet have done so myself, without even realizing it at the time. In my pride I fooled myself into thinking I was willing to sacrifice my reputation for the greater good, when in fact it was my ego and maliciousness that convinced me to do it. The adage, "think before you speak" is a good one.

Yet you continue to judge the "subjective culpability" of the "mean-spirited poster" and ostentatiously continue to parrot publicly and privately the Martyr-complex you have somehow developed.

I suggest that you follow your own advice regarding forum and blogs, or at least strive to be more consistent with your own signature.

You and your friends (whom you deem "charitable Catholics" as opposed to the "mean-spirited poster" whom you have convinced these same "charitable Catholics" is out to "get you" simply because you are a "lover of truth") may criticize me unto satiety, but what I write is honestly coming from a sincere concern: not only for you, but for those who stumble upon your posts, and those who view you as an exemplar of piety and theological acuteness. The latter imposes upon you an exceeding great responsibility, for which you will have to answer to God someday.

Malleus 01 · « **Reply #97 on:** August 30, 2012, 05:08:39 PM »

And another opinion I came across:

" Yes, I am sure there are bishops in the world with ordinary jurisdiction. I am absolutely certain that there are bishops with jurisdiction, but I do not restrict the date to 1968. We have much to thank John Lane for in researching the concept of supplied jurisdiction in the appointments by anti-popes, when they are almost universally accepted, and due to the common error of the act. The sources of these bishops may be:

1. Appointed by Pius XII (habitual jurisdiction of the Pope)
2. Appointed by John XXIII (possibly by habitual jurisdiction, but if not, then by supplied jurisdiction)
3. Appointed by Paul VI (possibly appointed by habitual jurisdiction at least until Dec. 7, 1965, but certainly by supplied jurisdiction). After Dec. 7, 1965, I have no doubt remaining that Paul VI could not have been pope. From Dec. 7, 1965 all bishops appointed by Paul VI who kept the Faith would have been lawful through supplied jurisdiction. (As an aside, for what its worth, I hold John XXIII's claim in extreme doubt, and for myself, I believe Paul VI was never a pope.)
4. The same principle applies to the bishops appointed by John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI. Although bishops in the West, would have lacked validity due to the destruction of the rite, the Eastern Catholic bishops did not have that change.
5. Due to this, we may conclude that any eastern bishops who have the faith, and are recognized by common error of the faithful, may have habitual jurisdiction due to the act of their appointment being supplied.

In regards to all of the men mentioned here, the question which will determine if they are lawful members of the hierarchy is whether they have kept the Faith."

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #98 on:** August 30, 2012, 05:31:10 PM »

Quote from: Malleus 01

I have a tendency to agree with this portion. IMO - splitting hairs over the theological interpretation in normal times and trying to apply the same criteria in a vastly different scenario is not what Msgr Van Noort envisioned and as such - that interpretation has to be considered when we have orthodox Popes of unquestioned legitimacy. But that isnt what we have today. Even the most staunch Traditional Catholic has to admit irregularities and like it or not these irregularities do in fact call into question aspects of theological interpretations heretofore not experienced.

To say Msgr Van Noorts insistance on defining Apostolicity as a regimented and rock solid principle that can never be interpreted other than as presented by Hobs , is in my mind most certainly not what was intended for times such as the ones we now find ourselves in. If we were having this discussion in 1950 - I believe there would be no discussion. [emphasis mine]

Can you clarify as to why the manner in which I am presenting the teachings of Msgr. Van Noort and other theologians is wrong? Or, rather, how am I exactly presenting the teachings of Msgr. Van Noort?

The pages were not merely cited, but physically scanned and uploaded so that you may read them for yourself.

Just because the Johannine-Pauline structures cannot be identified with the Ecclesia Christi, does not necessitate resorting to neo-historicist and novel interpretations of what the theologians have taught in order to assuage those doubts that continue to haunt us.

It is not for us to revise and reformat the doctrines of the Church to suit our times.

Inadvertently, such process of cognition and reasoning is akin to what the modernists wrote regarding the "organic evolution" of dogma and the "hermeneutic of continuity" that is so often cited nowadays by conservative circles within the Johannine-Pauline construct.

I am not implying that you yourself (the individual Catholic who posts as "Malleus 01" on CathInfo) have intended to do this, but this certainly has been done by both clerics and laymen in the sedevacantist movement.

The only recourse we have is to study what the theologians have taught as doctrines of Holy Mother Church, if one is to comment at all upon what you regard as minutiae of theological controversy.

As another Catholic has wisely written on this thread:

Quote from: Nishant

Again, these are Catholic doctrines. They are expressly taught by the Popes, they are universally admitted by the theologians and most clearly of all, they are near unanimously known to traditional Bishops today.

To think our understanding of dogmas such as Apostolicity can evolve with time is the very essence of modernism. It is altogether inadmissible and even the very thought is frightening.

Like I said, there is no problem at all with any number of varying explanations or differing applications of the principles involved here to the present day. But the Catholic principles themselves elucidated above are by no means up for grabs or open to re-interpretation and cannot be treated as such.

If you disagree, please cite some traditional authoritative sources from the past to the effect of what you are saying. [emphases mine]

The nova œconomia of the Johannine-Pauline modernists cannot at all be construed as warranting the creation of another nova œconomia: redefining and re-interpreting what the magisterium of Holy Mother Church proposes for our assent, particularly regarding the Apostolicity and Unity of the one and true Church of Christ, can only bring about error and confusion. Instead of defending Holy Mother Church in the pristine integrity of her doctrines, some Catholics, in a rash reaction to the novelties of modernists, have (inadvertently, and in some cases with full deliberation) concocted further novelties whereby they humiliate and vilify these same doctrines in a most lamentable manner.

Those who are more puzzled than edified by discussion over theological matters ought to avoid such discussion or refrain from pandering to pedagogues who have arrogated themselves the missio extraordinaria to be the apologists for a faith they do not seem to understand themselves, as shown in the errors they commit. It is best to discuss matters regarding the spiritual life or morality if one cannot handle the complexities and nuances of theological controversy.

By the way, stricte dicitur, this and all other discussion here cannot be regarded as "theological controversy" properly so called, because we are not theologians nor can pretend to come even close.

We are just sharing notes and "thinking out loud" in an endeavor to help each other out in understanding what is presently occurring. No one has all the answers. At least I don't.

Holy Mother Church alone, through the Fathers, Saints and approved theologians, can guide us through this mess precisely because Our Lord Jesus Christ instituted His Church for this very purpose. Just as He chose the Blessed Virgin Mary as His Mother and illustrious co-Operatrix in the work of the redemption and sanctification of souls, whilst He in His unfathomable omnipotence could have chosen another manner of establishing His œconomy of salvation -- so has Our Lord chosen the one, holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which He Himself has established to be our sole illuminatress and mistress in the way of salvation and perfection.

Malleus 01 · « **Reply #99 on:** August 31, 2012, 10:35:00 AM »

Quote from: Hobbledehoy

Quote from: Malleus 01
I have a tendency to agree with this portion. IMO - splitting hairs over the theological interpretation in normal times and trying to apply the same criteria in a vastly different scenario is not what Msgr Van Noort envisioned and as such - that interpretation has to be considered when we have orthodox Popes of unquestioned legitimacy. But that isnt what we have today. Even the most staunch Traditional Catholic has to admit irregularities and like it or not these irregularities do in fact call into question aspects of theological interpretations heretofore not experienced.

To say Msgr Van Noorts insistance on defining Apostolicity as a regimented and rock solid principle that can never be interpreted other than as presented by Hobs , is in my mind most certainly not what was intended for times such as the ones we now find ourselves in. If we were having this discussion in 1950 - I believe there would be no discussion. [emphasis mine]

Can you clarify as to why the manner in which I am presenting the teachings of Msgr. Van Noort and other theologians is wrong? Or, rather, how am I exactly presenting the teachings of Msgr. Van Noort?

The pages were not merely cited, but physically scanned and uploaded so that you may read them for yourself.

Just because the Johannine-Pauline structures cannot be identified with the Ecclesia Christi, does not necessitate resorting to neo-historicist and novel interpretations of what the theologians have taught in order to assuage those doubts that continue to haunt us.

It is not for us to revise and reformat the doctrines of the Church to suit our times.

Inadvertently, such process of cognition and reasoning is akin to what the modernists wrote regarding the "organic evolution" of dogma and the "hermeneutic of continuity" that is so often cited nowadays by conservative circles within the Johannine-Pauline construct.

I am not implying that you yourself (the individual Catholic who posts as "Malleus 01" on CathInfo) have intended to do this, but this certainly has been done by both clerics and laymen in the sedevacantist movement.

The only recourse we have is to study what the theologians have taught as doctrines of Holy Mother Church, if one is to comment at all upon what you regard as minutiae of theological controversy.

As another Catholic has wisely written on this thread:

Quote from: Nishant
Again, these are Catholic doctrines. They are expressly taught by the Popes, they are universally admitted by the theologians and most clearly of all, they are near unanimously known to traditional Bishops today.

To think our understanding of dogmas such as Apostolicity can evolve with time is the very essence of modernism. It is altogether inadmissible and even the very thought is frightening.

Like I said, there is no problem at all with any number of varying explanations or differing applications of the principles involved here to the present day. But the Catholic principles themselves elucidated above are by no means up for grabs or open to re-interpretation and cannot be treated as such.

If you disagree, please cite some traditional authoritative sources from the past to the effect of what you are saying. [emphases mine]

The nova œconomia of the Johannine-Pauline modernists cannot at all be construed as warranting the creation of another nova œconomia: redefining and re-interpreting what the magisterium of Holy Mother Church proposes for our assent, particularly regarding the Apostolicity and Unity of the one and true Church of Christ, can only bring about error and confusion. Instead of defending Holy Mother Church in the pristine integrity of her doctrines, some Catholics, in a rash reaction to the novelties of modernists, have (inadvertently, and in some cases with full deliberation) concocted further novelties whereby they humiliate and vilify these same doctrines in a most lamentable manner.

Those who are more puzzled than edified by discussion over theological matters ought to avoid such discussion or refrain from pandering to pedagogues who have arrogated themselves the missio extraordinaria to be the apologists for a faith they do not seem to understand themselves, as shown in the errors they commit. It is best to discuss matters regarding the spiritual life or morality if one cannot handle the complexities and nuances of theological controversy.

By the way, stricte dicitur, this and all other discussion here cannot be regarded as "theological controversy" properly so called, because we are not theologians nor can pretend to come even close.

We are just sharing notes and "thinking out loud" in an endeavor to help each other out in understanding what is presently occurring. No one has all the answers. At least I don't.

Holy Mother Church alone, through the Fathers, Saints and approved theologians, can guide us through this mess precisely because Our Lord Jesus Christ instituted His Church for this very purpose. Just as He chose the Blessed Virgin Mary as His Mother and illustrious co-Operatrix in the work of the redemption and sanctification of souls, whilst He in His unfathomable omnipotence could have chosen another manner of establishing His œconomy of salvation -- so has Our Lord chosen the one, holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which He Himself has established to be our sole illuminatress and mistress in the way of salvation and perfection.

Malleus: Thank you for your interpretation and strong opinion. Unlike Lover of Truth , I do not care to agree or to disagree with the points you have raised. The fulcrum of your entire argument still assumes the presence and orthodoxy of Bishops in the Post Counciliar Church. Msgr Van Noort wrote at a time when this was not an issue. Once again - to assume that a worldwide Modernist Heresy of the very same Type that St Pope Pius the X outlined in Pacendi Domenici Gregis as a danger to the Catholic Faith itself - to see it unfold before our very eyes in living color in the Catholic Hierarchy itself - the manifestations of these very same Heresies , not only present but actually being promoted by a man who claims to sit on the Chair of St Peter - the very same Chair that Pope St Pius the X himself was teaching from - and by those who claim to occupy the various bishoprics throughout the entire world and then to retreat into theology manuals in a vain attempt to explain away the Elephant in the room is naive in my opinion. Scripture does say that some strain the gnat and swallow the camel. And it is for that reason that I feel it sometimes counter productive to take a strong stand like both you and Lover of Truth do.

I am fully aware of your position , Lover of Truths position , Nishants position et al , but really , the issue is never going to lie or be solved with lay interpretation of theology.

This issue remains in the domain of Aceticism and as such , the answers for Traditional Catholics lie there. You can tell me every thing you want to tell me about the writings of Msgr Van Noort - and I enjoy reading your dissertations. But tell me , why did The Cure of Ars , a farmer in his youth , with little formal education , have actual dialogue with the Blessed Virgin Mary herself? Because he fasted , slept on cold stone floors , ate a single potatoe a day , gave away to the poor the possessions of value parishioners gave to him and as a result , became a great and Holy Saint.

My friend , we disagree , but nonetheless , our answers do not lie in further argumentation.

Pax