Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: romantheology on November 01, 2011, 12:16:33 AM
-
Source:
http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=639
June 1982
A Warning To Traditional Catholics Concerning False Shepherds
During his recent visit to America, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre referred several times to the report that several individuals including some claiming to be "traditional" priests had attempted to have themselves consecrated bishops. Archbishop Lefebvre totally condemned their actions and warned all Catholics to have nothing to do with them. 'They will bring ruination and scandal on the Church," Archbishop Lefebvre replied when asked his opinion of the scandal-ridden "consecrations."
"It is a direct result of what happens when one loses faith in God and separates himself with Rome and the Holy Father," Archbishop Lefebvre stated, "and the enemies of the Church, including those who so strongly promote Modernism, will try to associate us and other good traditional Catholics with these (fanatics) in hopes of trying to bring discredit upon the good as well as the evil."
Archbishop Lefebvre also stated that the actions of Ngo-Dinh-Thuc, the former Vietnamese Bishop who participated in the so-called "consecrations," are quite questionable in view of the fact that he is the same individual responsible for the Palmar de Troya fiasco which took place in Spain some years ago. A "visionary" of sorts, Clemente Dominguez de Gomez induced Thuc to ordain and consecrate him and then proceeded to proclaim himself Pope. This group scandalized the world by conferring orders indiscriminately on anyone who presented themselves to "Pope" Gomez. The sect now claims hundreds of clerics, including large numbers of 14 and 16-year-old bishops and cardinals.
Soon after the questionable ordinations, Bishop Ngo-Dinh-Thuc renounced his actions and published a letter saying that the "orders" he had conferred were null and void because he had withheld all intention of conveying orders to the Palmar de Troya sect. Given his past performances, there is no reason to believe that his present fiasco is any more credible.
Referring to Ngo-Dinh-Thuc, Archbishop Lefebvre said, "He seems to have lost all reason."
The proof of these individuals' bad intention is clearly evident in the fact that the new sect which includes Father Moise Carmona and Father Adolfo Zamora of Mexico; Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., of France; and Father George Musey of America; have already conducted meetings with small groups of traditional Catholic priests and have announced their intention of calling their own "Council" and selecting one or more popes!
Faithful Catholics are reminded that their faith prevents them from having any contact whatever with these schismatics and heretics, and that they are not permitted to support them in any way. All involved have incurred automatic excommunication, and all who support or affiliate themselves with them do likewise.
-
If you want UNDERSTANDING and you want to see the OTHER side of the argument, read this letter:
http://www.thucbishops.com/
-
Check out Cekada and Fr. Jenkins.
Cekada is a horrible speaker and all over the place...I love it when Jenkins puts him in his place when speaking about Archbishop (valid) L.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sedevideos&aq=f
-
Actually, in that debate Fr. C covers the issue really well. Fr. J doesn't address the issues he keeps raising directly it seems. Fr. J feels evasive to me.
BOTH SGG and SSPV are wielding more authority in different areas) than they actually have.
-
You DO know there are episcopal consecration certificates for Bishop Carmona and Photos of him with Abp. Thuc at the rite of episcopal consecration right?
-
Thuc was pretty mentally ill. I would wonder if his consecrations could be valid in light of that. He had a lot of owls in his attic.
-
Fr. Bruno Schaeffer, FSSPX, was ordained by Abp. Thuc. Here's some words from HMiS:
"Another famous example is Father Bruno Schaeffer who was a Brother of Le Barroux Monastery in 1976 and studied there and at Ecône until 1979 when he was expelled for his said that John Paul II and Paul VI had never been legitimate Roman popes at all. He continued his studies at the SSPX Seminary of Ecône, but Archbishop Lefebvre expelled him after he become too vocal pro-séde in 1980. He was ordained a priest in the traditional Roman pontifical's rite by Archbishop Thuc in the latter's house chapel in 1982, one year after the famous séde Thuc consecrations of bishops. Fr. Schaeffer however in 1990 returned to Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X, is now a priory priest somewhere in western France and famous for his succesful apostolate among the youth. (He was never conditionally ordained at all, as Abp. Thuc was sane and validly ordained him using all rites and blessings correctly.) Schaeffer is no professing sédévacantist priest now anymore and he is becoming famous in the French press for his good reputation among the youth and (sadly?) because of his support of the nationalist Catholic faction in Jean-Marie Lepen's Front National, which I find less positive, but still I will not judge him. He is a good shepherd to the needy Roman Catholic youth in modernist and apostatized France, the Eldest Daughter. And a Thuc priest of course!"
From what I've read from HMiS and just searching the net, Fr. Schaeffer was not conditionally ordained when he came back to the Society.
Here is a picture of Fr. Schaeffer's ordination (pictured with Abp. Thuc):
http://www.catholicapedia.net/Docuмents/Einsicht/docuмents/FR/1982-05_EINSICHT_Jahrgang-12_Heft-01_Mai-1982_FR_Page9.pdf
I used to know where Fr. Schaeffer was in France, in case people wished to ask him about his ordination by Abp. Thuc, which is what I wished to do.
-
Thuc was pretty mentally ill. I would wonder if his consecrations could be valid in light of that. He had a lot of owls in his attic.
There is no evidence to support this statement, it's propoganda from the Vatican II church. Countless people attest to his clear, lucid mind many years after the consecrations.
-
Iuvenalis,
As for Bishop Thuc being mentally ill, someone just saying it does not make it so, even if they are a holy priest or bishop. Especially if they had no current/recent contact with him.
I recommend anyone who doubts his ability to ordain/consecrate validly, that you look at the thucbishops.com website already mentioned for one. It recently has a new posting on the talk given by Mario Derkson on this subject in Spokane. There is an easy to follow chart at the site as well if you want the basics to go through.
From what he has written and said, Bp Kelly doubts the Thuc consecrations. Unless someone can show differently, Bp Kelly never met the man. While we do not have to meet someone to necessarily know whether they are sane or not(other people can tell us about others), there are people who knew Bp Thuc that are still very much amongst us.
One of these people is Fr Francis Miller, OFM of Christ the King Chapel in Lafayette, LA (337)-261-1225. Fr had the privilege of living with His Excellency for about of year after the 81' consecrations when the bishop was staying at the Monastery in Rochester, NY. He served his Mass, brought him to doctor appointments, and interacted heavily with him. If you want to get the other side from someone who actually knew him, not just about him, do yourself a favor and give him a buzz.
It could help you or your loved ones. Fr is easy to talk to and I believe someone who is objective and truly searching for the truth can stand to learn from what he has to present. If you don't accept them right now because of doubts, fine, but it could be that you have not had the information presented to you in a reliable, cogent manner. It is the intellect here that should rule. Not the heart, nor just "feeling."
I just thought I would add this. Do look into it. Please pray for me and I will pray for you.
Joe
-
Thuc was pretty mentally ill. I would wonder if his consecrations could be valid in light of that. He had a lot of owls in his attic.
There is no evidence to support this statement, it's propoganda from the Vatican II church. Countless people attest to his clear, lucid mind many years after the consecrations.
I stand corrected. I couldn't remember where I heard this, but I found the source and it was Bishop Barthe, a VII apologist in the extreme.
Further, it is apparent that the Vatican itself considers his consecrations valid as they keep track of them as "valid but illicit".
Even *if* he was insane, and he was not it would seem (the only source I can find iss the aforemention Bp Barthe who, now that I know more about him I am unimpressed with any opinion he would render on the matter) that such mental illness would not invalidate such a consecration *anyway*. A bishop performing a/the consecration need only be a validly consecrated bishop himself (Thuc clearly was) and have the correct form and intent to consecrate, not possession of all of one's mental faculties.
-
One thing though, Thuc *did* consecrate Clemente Domingues y Gomez, the "Palmarian Pope" who had sex with his own 'priests' and 'nuns'
This does beg a little bit about Thuc's judgment at least, if not his sanity.
Of course one can say as much or more about the VII Church
-
One thing though, Thuc *did* consecrate Clemente Domingues y Gomez, the "Palmarian Pope" who had sex with his own 'priests' and 'nuns'
This does beg a little bit about Thuc's judgment at least, if not his sanity.
Of course one can say as much or more about the VII Church
You bring up a great point! Thuc had gone mad! And to consecrate an open ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ - wow!
Rumbles (the ? line) of the Thuc followers.
-
I don't see where you are even going with this. Even if it were true, your VII church does this every day! RomanPornography, you are a moron.
-
ALL witnesses say Thuc was SANE. You people are false and you spread LIES!! for who? I am sure from reading your posts that you are the ones who are insane.
-
One thing though, Thuc *did* consecrate Clemente Domingues y Gomez, the "Palmarian Pope" who had sex with his own 'priests' and 'nuns'
This does beg a little bit about Thuc's judgment at least, if not his sanity.
Of course one can say as much or more about the VII Church
You bring up a great point! Thuc had gone mad! And to consecrate an open ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ - wow!
Rumbles (the ? line) of the Thuc followers.
Yeah, no other Catholic bishop has ever done that. :smirk:
-
Wow, it's like none of the responders actually *read* what I just wrote..
-
For all intents and purposes, the only consecrationsthat really MATTER are the Consecrations of Gerard de Lauriers, Mckenna, and Moises Carmona.
Carmona most especially because HE consecrated Bishop Pivarunas, who heads the CMRI which is the largest and most organized Sedevacantist Traditionalist Congregation. They are very important.
So, let's see here:
Here he is before the consecration of Bishop Carmona, and After, and oh, looky, a HANDWRITTEN LATIN certificate of consecration. Could a feeble minded person really write out a consecration certificate in LATIN ON THEIR OWN? Please.
Pictures speak louder than words.
Valid. No doubt. Move on.
-
Where is Thuc's Signature? And look at one of the so-called Bishops in the Pic...he looks like he is wearing a V2 (post) vestment. In addition, Why no Video? Why not more photos? Why not more testimonies?
What junk!
In addition, no notary public? And where this took place? No announcements either?
-
Where is Thuc's Signature? And look at one of the so-called Bishops in the Pic...he looks like he is wearing a V2 (post) vestment. In addition, Why no Video? Why not more photos? Why not more testimonies?
What junk!
In addition, no notary public? And where this took place? No announcements either?
The case being made is not whether all the bishops exercised the best decision making skills, but whether Thuc possessed the necessary intelligence and presence of mind to consecrate Bishops. TO handwrite a certificate of episcopal consecration shows presence of mind. Where it can be reasonably certain a sacrament took place, the burden of proof is on those seeking to disprove it. There is no reason to question it.
The type of evidence you are asking for is evidence demanded by a tribunal that has no lawful authority to be convened. YOU are certainly not competent to judge these matters, above all.
-
Where is Thuc's Signature? And look at one of the so-called Bishops in the Pic...he looks like he is wearing a V2 (post) vestment. In addition, Why no Video? Why not more photos? Why not more testimonies?
What junk!
In addition, no notary public? And where this took place? No announcements either?
It is obvious you have done no research on the matter. Where's Bp. Thuc's signature? Right above where he states who the eye witnesses were.
Oh my, a post-Vatican II vestment! Surely, THAT would render the consecration invalid or prove at least one of the men was insane, right? Do you have any idea under which circuмstances these men were operating? We can thank God that they had vestments at all!
Why no video? To what purpose? This was in 1981, when video-taping was a bit more difficult. Considering that it is not required to begin with, this is not an issue. There are plenty of more photos. You can find some more at thucbishops.com and also at einsicht-online.de and see many published in the CMRI's Reign of Mary.
All the necessary testimony was published in 1982/83 by Einsicht magazine -- it's all still online, though not necessarily in English.
You just don't want these consecrations to be valid, do you?
-
romantheology is banned, katholikos.
-
If you want UNDERSTANDING and you want to see the OTHER side of the argument, read this letter:
http://www.thucbishops.com/
There is no other side to the argument.
Thuc himself says he withheld consent.
Discussing the matter further is frivolous.
-
Thuc was pretty mentally ill. I would wonder if his consecrations could be valid in light of that. He had a lot of owls in his attic.
There is no evidence to support this statement, it's propoganda from the Vatican II church. Countless people attest to his clear, lucid mind many years after the consecrations.
Yes, I agree. Ordaining and consecrating 14 and 16 yr olds is proof oh his good mental health.
-
Wow, it's like none of the responders actually *read* what I just wrote..
They don't.
Sedevacantism is more a personality type than theological position.
-
For all intents and purposes, the only consecrationsthat really MATTER are the Consecrations of Gerard de Lauriers, Mckenna, and Moises Carmona.
Carmona most especially because HE consecrated Bishop Pivarunas, who heads the CMRI which is the largest and most organized Sedevacantist Traditionalist Congregation. They are very important.
So, let's see here:
Here he is before the consecration of Bishop Carmona, and After, and oh, looky, a HANDWRITTEN LATIN certificate of consecration. Could a feeble minded person really write out a consecration certificate in LATIN ON THEIR OWN? Please.
Pictures speak louder than words.
Valid. No doubt. Move on.
Ys, and he was also able to write the ones to the 14 yr olds in Latin too.
-
Wow, it's like none of the responders actually *read* what I just wrote..
They don't.
Sedevacantism is more a personality type than theological position.
I can't believe you are even saying this right now (congrats for spelling it right!). I recently posted directly to you that ABL believed that a pope could automatically cease to be pope, and that we could act upon that realization. That is not personality type...that is principle.
Ok
You are right.
ABL was a sede.
Smelling salts?
-
Wow, it's like none of the responders actually *read* what I just wrote..
They don't.
Sedevacantism is more a personality type than theological position.
Really?
http://www.novusordowatch.org/the_chair_is_still_empty.htm
http://www.novusordowatch.org/refinishing_the_great_facade.htm
-
If you want UNDERSTANDING and you want to see the OTHER side of the argument, read this letter:
http://www.thucbishops.com/
There is no other side to the argument.
Thuc himself says he withheld consent.
Discussing the matter further is frivolous.
Where did Bp. Thuc say he withheld consent?
-
If you want UNDERSTANDING and you want to see the OTHER side of the argument, read this letter:
http://www.thucbishops.com/
There is no other side to the argument.
Thuc himself says he withheld consent.
Discussing the matter further is frivolous.
Where did Bp. Thuc say he withheld consent?
Please read the post that began this thread.
-
If you want UNDERSTANDING and you want to see the OTHER side of the argument, read this letter:
http://www.thucbishops.com/
There is no other side to the argument.
Thuc himself says he withheld consent.
Discussing the matter further is frivolous.
Where did Bp. Thuc say he withheld consent?
Please read the post that began this thread.
Ah, so we have merely a claim that Bp. Thuc admitted to withholding intent. Can someone actually produce or at least quote this alleged letter? Why wasn't it quoted in the article?
-
If you want UNDERSTANDING and you want to see the OTHER side of the argument, read this letter:
http://www.thucbishops.com/
There is no other side to the argument.
Thuc himself says he withheld consent.
Discussing the matter further is frivolous.
Where did Bp. Thuc say he withheld consent?
Please read the post that began this thread.
Ah, so we have merely a claim that Bp. Thuc admitted to withholding intent. Can someone actually produce or at least quote this alleged letter? Why wasn't it quoted in the article?
Have you read the original article, or are you just claiming it wasn't quoted?
-
My suggestion would be to research your Vatican II "bishop" to see if his are valid or not, who did it, what rite was used, was he insane? etc etc.....
-
Have you read the original article, or are you just claiming it wasn't quoted?
Am I missing something? The article referenced (http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=639) does not contain a quote of Bp. Thuc on this matter. As far as I know, that is the original article. So, it's just a claim.
Now, the late Fr. Noel Barbara had this to say about how Bp. Thuc got involved with the Palmar de Troya fiasco:
One day a canon of Saint Maurice named Father Revas arrived at the seminary in
Econe. He was accompanied by a priest who spoke English. A lover of the extraordinary,
both had come from the location of the Apparitions. They came straight from Palmar to
beg Archbishop Lefebvre to come to this location immediately because the Blessed
Virgin was waiting for him. She was insisting that a Catholic bishop come in order to
confer the episcopacy on those she planned to designate.
The Archbishop excused himself and advised them to “approach Archbishop Thuc.
He is orthodox and he is not at present occupied. Go and seek him out. He will most
certainly agree with your request.” The two messengers immediately left and had no
difficulty in convincing the elderly Vietnamese Archbishop to respond to the Virgin’s
request.
As I explained, I have these explanations directly from the mouth of Archbishop
Lefebvre. He informed us of these facts on the occasion of a visit I made to Econe when
someone brought up the name of Archbishop Thuc at the dinner table.
This quote is taken from Fr. Barbara's 1993 article on the episcopal consecrations of Bp. Thuc. It was republished by Fr. Kevin Vaillancourt in "The Answers" (2006), pp. 65-81.
-
Have you read the original article, or are you just claiming it wasn't quoted?
Am I missing something? The article referenced (http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=639) does not contain a quote of Bp. Thuc on this matter. As far as I know, that is the original article. So, it's just a claim.
Now, the late Fr. Noel Barbara had this to say about how Bp. Thuc got involved with the Palmar de Troya fiasco:
One day a canon of Saint Maurice named Father Revas arrived at the seminary in
Econe. He was accompanied by a priest who spoke English. A lover of the extraordinary,
both had come from the location of the Apparitions. They came straight from Palmar to
beg Archbishop Lefebvre to come to this location immediately because the Blessed
Virgin was waiting for him. She was insisting that a Catholic bishop come in order to
confer the episcopacy on those she planned to designate.
The Archbishop excused himself and advised them to “approach Archbishop Thuc.
He is orthodox and he is not at present occupied. Go and seek him out. He will most
certainly agree with your request.” The two messengers immediately left and had no
difficulty in convincing the elderly Vietnamese Archbishop to respond to the Virgin’s
request.
As I explained, I have these explanations directly from the mouth of Archbishop
Lefebvre. He informed us of these facts on the occasion of a visit I made to Econe when
someone brought up the name of Archbishop Thuc at the dinner table.
This quote is taken from Fr. Barbara's 1993 article on the episcopal consecrations of Bp. Thuc. It was republished by Fr. Kevin Vaillancourt in "The Answers" (2006), pp. 65-81.
Pffft.
Yeah.
OK.
-
ABL was a sede.
I know you were being sarcastic here, but although ABL was not a sede, Cupertino is right that ABL was sede-friendly and left the door open to the sede thesis. I can provide quotes from him to prove that if you want to.
-
Seraphim said:
Pffft.
Yeah.
OK.
Are you accusing Father Noel Barbara of lying?
You would do well to rethink your contemptuous tone for sedes, since besides the fact that we are correct about the Pope question, there is far more contradiction in the life of Abp. Lefebvre than there is in the life of Abp. Thuc. Of course CMRI is not an Abp. Thuc cult in the way that SSPX is an Abp. Lefebvre cult, so among you, Abp. Lefebvre gets a pass for his in-your-face contradictions while Abp. Thuc gets stuck with the reputation of being erratic and scattershot among the majority of people. But Abp. Lefevbre was just as flawed, if not more.
The cult of ABL is so strong with SSPX-ers that it has infected even sedes. Father Noel Barbara, however, had some very interesting writings, and he was one of the few to question Abp. Lefebvre and not fall for the hype. In my opinion he has a better chance to be made a saint one day than Abp. Lefebvre; he may not have the glory of having his own third order that acts as the Church, he may not have been a de facto Pope like ABL, but he had the virtue of telling the truth from the shadows, which is about the most you can do in a time where even the best Catholics seem to have a taste for half-truths. In the future his view of ABL will be universal, I believe; ABL was a troubling and contradictory figure.
-
"troubling and contradictory figure"
So true.
:applause:
-
Seraphim said:
Pffft.
Yeah.
OK.
Are you accusing Father Noel Barbara of lying?
You would do well to rethink your contemptuous tone for sedes, since besides the fact that we are correct about the Pope question, there is far more contradiction in the life of Abp. Lefebvre than there is in the life of Abp. Thuc. Of course CMRI is not an Abp. Thuc cult in the way that SSPX is an Abp. Lefebvre cult, so among you, Abp. Lefebvre gets a pass for his in-your-face contradictions while Abp. Thuc gets stuck with the reputation of being erratic and scattershot among the majority of people. But Abp. Lefevbre was just as flawed, if not more.
The cult of ABL is so strong with SSPX-ers that it has infected even sedes. Father Noel Barbara, however, had some very interesting writings, and he was one of the few to question Abp. Lefebvre and not fall for the hype. In my opinion he has a better chance to be made a saint one day than Abp. Lefebvre; he may not have the glory of having his own third order that acts as the Church, he may not have been a de facto Pope like ABL, but he had the virtue of telling the truth from the shadows, which is about the most you can do in a time where even the best Catholics seem to have a taste for half-truths. In the future his view of ABL will be universal, I believe; ABL was a troubling and contradictory figure.
Are you accusing ABL of allowing the Angelus to lie?
-
ABL was a sede.
I know you were being sarcastic here, but although ABL was not a sede, Cupertino is right that ABL was sede-friendly and left the door open to the sede thesis. I can provide quotes from him to prove that if you want to.
He was not sede friendly.
He vigorously expelled them whenever they got loud and dogmatic about it.
He entertained the question from time to time, but never endorsed the position because of the obvious problems it would present for a restoration.
This is quite a long way from being indifferent on the matter, much less sede friendly.
-
Seraphim said:
Pffft.
Yeah.
OK.
Are you accusing Father Noel Barbara of lying?
You would do well to rethink your contemptuous tone for sedes, since besides the fact that we are correct about the Pope question, there is far more contradiction in the life of Abp. Lefebvre than there is in the life of Abp. Thuc. Of course CMRI is not an Abp. Thuc cult in the way that SSPX is an Abp. Lefebvre cult, so among you, Abp. Lefebvre gets a pass for his in-your-face contradictions while Abp. Thuc gets stuck with the reputation of being erratic and scattershot among the majority of people. But Abp. Lefevbre was just as flawed, if not more.
The cult of ABL is so strong with SSPX-ers that it has infected even sedes. Father Noel Barbara, however, had some very interesting writings, and he was one of the few to question Abp. Lefebvre and not fall for the hype. In my opinion he has a better chance to be made a saint one day than Abp. Lefebvre; he may not have the glory of having his own third order that acts as the Church, he may not have been a de facto Pope like ABL, but he had the virtue of telling the truth from the shadows, which is about the most you can do in a time where even the best Catholics seem to have a taste for half-truths. In the future his view of ABL will be universal, I believe; ABL was a troubling and contradictory figure.
How can someone who is not part of the Church be made a saint by it?
-
The majority of SSPX, also like Archbishop Lefebvre believe a pope can cease to be a pope, AND HAS; their problem is they won't admit it.
I wonder how God will judge that?!
One thing I know for sure God does allow error about His teachings preached in His Church, year after year after year. Worry about that time line, instead of so many who worry about the sedevacantist and their long interregnum.
You who worry so much about Thuc consecrating someone who turned out bad, consider a FACT that Jesus Christ chose Judas.
-
It is disingenuous for sedevacantists to make it out as if Archbishop Lefebvre inclined to their position.
"The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a pope puts the Church into an inextricable situation.
Who will tell us who the future pope is to be? How, as there are no cardinals, is he to be chosen? The spirit is a schismatical one. . . . And so, far from refusing to pray for the Pope, we redouble our prayers and supplications that the Holy Ghost will grant him the light and strength in his affirmations and defense of the Faith."
It is true his views on the subject were less harsh at times, as is only right in the face of such an uncertain theological position as sedevacantism, but it was at most a pragmatic tolerance of the position.
Nor can the same be said of Bishop Williamson, though here too many speculate that he is privately one. Recently, he himself called the position "schismatic". While I don't exactly agree with him on that, I think he's made his position quite clear.
-
Nor can the same be said of Bishop Williamson, though here too many speculate that he is privately one. Recently, he himself called the position "schismatic". While I don't exactly agree with him on that, I think he's made his position quite clear.
I think that's funny. The essence of the sin of schism is refusing to properly submit to the person recognized to be the Roman Pontiff. Who does that sound like? The SSPX or sedevacantists?
-
Both. SSPX are sedes in fact if not in name. Neither of us submit to this heretical pope.
-
ABL was a troubling and contradictory figure.
I rarely dislike one of your posts Raoul, but that is by far the dumbest thing you have posted since you returned over a year ago. The definition of a cult, first of all, would be more like the Protestant Reformation when all those stupid heretics followed Martin Luther. You need to get your definition of "cult" right.
I know you are turned off by ABL because he wasn't a sede, which is absurd. The man liked sedes, he just didn't think he had the knowledge to take such a position (according to Bishop Tissier, that is). Since when must we accept figures who are only sede? John Lane is sede and he likes ABL and the Society. I feel embarrased for you after an illogical post like that.
-
ABL was a troubling and contradictory figure.
I rarely dislike one of your posts Raoul, but that is by far the dumbest thing you have posted since you returned over a year ago. The definition of a cult, first of all, would be more like the Protestant Reformation when all those stupid heretics followed Martin Luther. You need to get your definition of "cult" right.
I know you are turned off by ABL because he wasn't a sede, which is absurd. The man liked sedes, he just didn't think he had the knowledge to take such a position (according to Bishop Tissier, that is). Since when must we accept figures who are only sede? John Lane is sede and he likes ABL and the Society. I feel embarrased for you after an illogical post like that.
I think we can take all of the personal attacks out of this and explain this all very reasonably: Since the death of Pope Pius XII, we've found ourselves in an unprecedented and very difficult situation. Many good people tried to do the right thing, but they went back and forth between what to believe and what to do, because no matter what they did, they encountered problems. Regardless of what ABL may have done or intended to do, the facts, after over 50 years of this mess, are that the SSPX-type "resistance" position is not tenable because contradictory, and ditto for the Novus Ordo and indult/motu positions. Sedevacantism remains as the only possible position, without contradictions, though it does have its problems.
-
Nor can the same be said of Bishop Williamson, though here too many speculate that he is privately one. Recently, he himself called the position "schismatic". While I don't exactly agree with him on that, I think he's made his position quite clear.
I think that's funny. The essence of the sin of schism is refusing to properly submit to the person recognized to be the Roman Pontiff. Who does that sound like? The SSPX or sedevacantists?
Wrong again.
The Essenes of schism is not failure to submit to the Roman Pontiff.
That is disobedience, unless required by necessity.
Schism, which perfectly reflects your position, is failure to acknowledge the authority of the bishop of Rome to govern the universal Church.
In other words, you are a non-Catholic schismatic.
-
ABL was a troubling and contradictory figure.
I rarely dislike one of your posts Raoul, but that is by far the dumbest thing you have posted since you returned over a year ago. The definition of a cult, first of all, would be more like the Protestant Reformation when all those stupid heretics followed Martin Luther. You need to get your definition of "cult" right.
I know you are turned off by ABL because he wasn't a sede, which is absurd. The man liked sedes, he just didn't think he had the knowledge to take such a position (according to Bishop Tissier, that is). Since when must we accept figures who are only sede? John Lane is sede and he likes ABL and the Society. I feel embarrased for you after an illogical post like that.
-
Both. SSPX are sedes in fact if not in name. Neither of us submit to this heretical pope.
Proof that sedes are unable to distinguish between true and false obedience, and like their Protestant forefathers, choose to ejectnCatholic doctrines like necessity that would preclude the conclusion they have determined to defend, with or without sound doctrine.
-
ABL was a troubling and contradictory figure.
I rarely dislike one of your posts Raoul, but that is by far the dumbest thing you have posted since you returned over a year ago. The definition of a cult, first of all, would be more like the Protestant Reformation when all those stupid heretics followed Martin Luther. You need to get your definition of "cult" right.
I know you are turned off by ABL because he wasn't a sede, which is absurd. The man liked sedes, he just didn't think he had the knowledge to take such a position (according to Bishop Tissier, that is). Since when must we accept figures who are only sede? John Lane is sede and he likes ABL and the Society. I feel embarrased for you after an illogical post like that.
I think we can take all of the personal attacks out of this and explain this all very reasonably: Since the death of Pope Pius XII, we've found ourselves in an unprecedented and very difficult situation. Many good people tried to do the right thing, but they went back and forth between what to believe and what to do, because no matter what they did, they encountered problems. Regardless of what ABL may have done or intended to do, the facts, after over 50 years of this mess, are that the SSPX-type "resistance" position is not tenable because contradictory, and ditto for the Novus Ordo and indult/motu positions. Sedevacantism remains as the only possible position, without contradictions, though it does have its problems.
And the only way you can maintain your "contradictory" party line is by ignoring the doctrine of necessity (a cause excusing from obedience from superiors).
Being a bit dishonest with ourselves, aren't we?
-
It is disingenuous for sedevacantists to make it out as if Archbishop Lefebvre inclined to their position.
"The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a pope puts the Church into an inextricable situation.
Who will tell us who the future pope is to be? How, as there are no cardinals, is he to be chosen? The spirit is a schismatical one. . . . And so, far from refusing to pray for the Pope, we redouble our prayers and supplications that the Holy Ghost will grant him the light and strength in his affirmations and defense of the Faith."
It is true his views on the subject were less harsh at times, as is only right in the face of such an uncertain theological position as sedevacantism, but it was at most a pragmatic tolerance of the position.
Nor can the same be said of Bishop Williamson, though here too many speculate that he is privately one. Recently, he himself called the position "schismatic". While I don't exactly agree with him on that, I think he's made his position quite clear.
Nishant, that was ABL in 1979. Why try to represent what he thought in 1979 when 7 years later (1986) he most clearly and publicly changed his mind?
"it is possible we may be obliged to believe he is not pope....I am on the way to saying the Pope is not Pope"
Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, The Angelus, 1986
And.....uh.....he declared the Holy See vacant when?
-
It is disingenuous for sedevacantists to make it out as if Archbishop Lefebvre inclined to their position.
"The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a pope puts the Church into an inextricable situation.
Who will tell us who the future pope is to be? How, as there are no cardinals, is he to be chosen? The spirit is a schismatical one. . . . And so, far from refusing to pray for the Pope, we redouble our prayers and supplications that the Holy Ghost will grant him the light and strength in his affirmations and defense of the Faith."
It is true his views on the subject were less harsh at times, as is only right in the face of such an uncertain theological position as sedevacantism, but it was at most a pragmatic tolerance of the position.
Nor can the same be said of Bishop Williamson, though here too many speculate that he is privately one. Recently, he himself called the position "schismatic". While I don't exactly agree with him on that, I think he's made his position quite clear.
Nishant, that was ABL in 1979. Why try to represent what he thought in 1979 when 7 years later (1986) he most clearly and publicly changed his mind?
"it is possible we may be obliged to believe he is not pope....I am on the way to saying the Pope is not Pope"
Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, The Angelus, 1986
ABL most certainly did not believe one could recognize when a pope ceased to be pope, and act upon it.
That is the main reason he never did.
He even said, "Perhaps one day they will say to us we should have known...," thereby implying exactly the opposite of what you are asserting.
And.....uh.....he declared the Holy See vacant when?
Do you really have trouble understanding the difference between believing a principle, and deciding whether it applies or not?
ABL believed a pope could cease automatically to be pope, and that we could recognize it, and immediately act upon it.
It is contrary to reason to say that since ABL never thought it applied, that it never could be applied. Nor is it reasonable to say that since he didn't, that he could not have been mistaken, especially since he was coming closer and closer to that realization, but died. His admission that he was coming closer to doing so, is an admission he may have been mistaken, and that the sedes may have been correct.
-
It is disingenuous for sedevacantists to make it out as if Archbishop Lefebvre inclined to their position.
"The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a pope puts the Church into an inextricable situation.
Who will tell us who the future pope is to be? How, as there are no cardinals, is he to be chosen? The spirit is a schismatical one. . . . And so, far from refusing to pray for the Pope, we redouble our prayers and supplications that the Holy Ghost will grant him the light and strength in his affirmations and defense of the Faith."
It is true his views on the subject were less harsh at times, as is only right in the face of such an uncertain theological position as sedevacantism, but it was at most a pragmatic tolerance of the position.
Nor can the same be said of Bishop Williamson, though here too many speculate that he is privately one. Recently, he himself called the position "schismatic". While I don't exactly agree with him on that, I think he's made his position quite clear.
Nishant, that was ABL in 1979. Why try to represent what he thought in 1979 when 7 years later (1986) he most clearly and publicly changed his mind?
"it is possible we may be obliged to believe he is not pope....I am on the way to saying the Pope is not Pope"
Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, The Angelus, 1986
ABL most certainly did not believe one could certainly know when a pope ceased to be pope, and act on it!
That is the main reason he never did.
He even said, "Perhaps one day they will say to us we should have known...," thereby implying exactly the opposite of what you are
ABL most certainly did not believe one could recognize when a pope ceased to be pope, and act upon it.
That is the main reason he never did.
He even said, "Perhaps one day they will say to us we should have known...," thereby implying exactly the opposite of what you are asserting.
And.....uh.....he declared the Holy See vacant when?
Do you really have trouble understanding the difference between believing a principle, and deciding whether it applies or not?
ABL believed a pope could cease automatically to be pope, and that we could recognize it, and immediately act upon it.
It is contrary to reason to say that since ABL never thought it applied, that it never could be applied. Nor is it reasonable to say that since he didn't, that he could not have been mistaken, especially since he was coming closer and closer to that realization, but died. His admission that he was coming closer to doing so, is an admission he may have been mistaken, and that the sedes may have been correct.
-
ABL most certainly did not believe one could know when the pope had ceased to be pope, and act upon it.
This is the main reason he never declared it.
He even said, "one day they may say to us that we should have known; that there were signs..."
I other words, his position was exactly the opposite of the one you are trying to attribute to him.
-
One thing I thought of which I don't find mentioned here is the problem of what is going to happen if a true pope does turn up. CMRI are going to have to believe it, but SSPX is going to have to believe it plus get out of the habit of disobedience. Not an easy habit to get out of.
I see I got a thumbs down. What? You don't believe SSPX is sede? The doctrine of necessity means you (not the pope) decide what to do. Practically speaking the pope is dethroned.
-
ABL most certainly did not believe one could know when the pope had ceased to be pope, and act upon it.
This is the main reason he never declared it.
He even said, "one day they may say to us that we should have known; that there were signs..."
I other words, his position was exactly the opposite of the one you are trying to attribute to him.
You are plainly" in denial", and unreasonable. Apparently you don't comprehend how one can believe a principle and yet think it does not apply. I gave you the 1986 quote in black and white, and it says just what I am telling you. You want so badly to think ABL did not believe it that you flout logic and try to conclude that since he did not apply it, he must have no longer believed in the principle. ABL believed the principle just as I said, and just as he himself said to begin with.
Or could it be that the insecurity of your position creates within you a desire to make-believe that ABL was a supporter of your position, whereas the reality was that he tolerated a position he himself clearly did not hold?
Do you care to explain why ABL would hold to the sede thesis, yet deny it in practice?
Which is the same thing as accusing ABL of dishonesty?
-
One thing I thought of which I don't find mentioned here is the problem of what is going to happen if a true pope does turn up. CMRI are going to have to believe it, but SSPX is going to have to believe it plus get out of the habit of disobedience. Not an easy habit to get out of.
I see I got a thumbs down. What? You don't believe SSPX is sede? The doctrine of necessity means you (not the pope) decide what to do. Practically speaking the pope is dethroned.
Please, by all means, feel free to overrule Suarez, St Alphonsus, St Thomas Aquinas, Billuart, Naz, and Gerson in favor of........you.
At least you are honest in admitting ignorance on the doctrine of necessity, and your willingness to discard it likeLuther did to troublesome books in the Bible.
-
Cupertino asserts ABL said a state of sedevacante was certainly knowable and that the faithful could act on such a discernment.
Really?
On p. 506 of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais's "Marcel Lefebvre," we read the following:
"Perhaps one day in 30 or 40 years, a meeting of cardinals gathered together by a future pope will study and judge the reign of Paul VI; perhaps they will say that there were things that ought to have been clearly obvious to people at the time, statements of the pope that were clearly against tradition.
"At the moment I prefer to consider the man on the chair of Peter as pope, and if one day we discover for certain that the pope was not the pope, at least I will have done my duty."
Conclusion:
1. ABL clearly believes Sedevacantism is not certainly knowable;
2. It is the therefore laughable to believe he would believe Catholics who buy into Sedevacantism to act on this shaky belief.
So contrary to Cupertino's unfounded assertion that ABL harbored Sedevacantism in principle, we have Bishop Tissier quoting him 2 sentences later, expressing how doubtful he felt the sedevacantist thesis to be, and instead preferring:
"I prefer to start from this principle: we have to defend our Faith; in that there is no shadow of doubt concerning our duty."
-
That's what I was refering to earlier (i.e Bishop Tissier's quote). ABL had respect for sedevacantists and sedevacantism, though he himself was not a sede.
-
It is fantasy to read ABL and deny the plain comprehension of what he said. Also, the quote approved by the Holy Office of the Church. Tissier is his own man and has nothing to do with those facts.
I didn't deny anything. If anything I agreed with you that ABL was sede-friendly. He did come close to taking the sede stance, even though he never did.
-
Ah, ok. No problem Cupertino. :)
-
Cute Serephim. Perhaps you could explain to me how the doctrine of necessity does not take the decisions out of the pope's hands.
-
It is fantasy to read ABL and deny the plain comprehension of what he said. Also, the quote approved by the Holy Office of the Church. Tissier is his own man and has nothing to do with those facts.
I didn't deny anything. If anything I agreed with you that ABL was sede-friendly. He did come close to taking the sede stance, even though he never did.
Sorry, that was directed to Seraphim, not you SS.
If you can read the quote I supplied from ABL, and still maintain he believed sedevacante was certainly knowable, and believed the faithful could act on such a belief, then I see no further point in discussing the matter with you, as you are clearly unable to comprehend what you read.
-
Cute Serephim. Perhaps you could explain to me how the doctrine of necessity does not take the decisions out of the pope's hands.
I believe you will find the saints and doctors arguing the matter quite eloquently in the article titled "on the Doctrine of Necessity" in this forum's library.
When you have finished that, perhaps you can inform us all why they are wrong?
-
Cute Serephim. Perhaps you could explain to me how the doctrine of necessity does not take the decisions out of the pope's hands.
I believe you will find the saints and doctors arguing the matter quite eloquently in the article titled "on the Doctrine of Necessity" in this forum's library.
When you have finished that, perhaps you can inform us all why they are wrong?
Sorry, what is that quote by ABL that you gave from after 1986??
Oh, I seeeeeeeeeee...
Bishop Tissier was remiss in telling us that ABL's principles changed after Assisi, and from that point forward he thought it was ok for anyone to be a sede.
Sure.
-
And the only way you can maintain your "contradictory" party line is by ignoring the doctrine of necessity (a cause excusing from obedience from superiors).
Being a bit dishonest with ourselves, aren't we?
Sir, before accusing me of dishonesty, please try to understand the issues a bit better. You are confusing immoral papal commands ("Go steal a golden chalice for me!") from authoritative exercises of the (putative) papal office regarding doctrine, morals, discipline, and government (canon law).
There is no contradiction within sedevacantism.
-
Wrong again.
The Essenes of schism is not failure to submit to the Roman Pontiff.
That is disobedience, unless required by necessity.
Schism, which perfectly reflects your position, is failure to acknowledge the authority of the bishop of Rome to govern the universal Church.
In other words, you are a non-Catholic schismatic.
Not so. The following is a quote from p. 2 of Fr. Ignatius Szal, The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics (1948). Fr. Szal lays out the four conditions necessary for schism:
1) One must withdraw directly (expressly) or
indirectly (by means of one's actions) from obedience
to the Roman Pontiff, and separate oneself
from ecclesiastical communion with the rest of the
faithful, even though one does not join a separate
schismatical sect
2) one's withdrawal must be made with obstinacy
and rebellion
3) the withdrawal must be made in relation to
those things by which the unity of the Church is
constituted
4) despite this formal disobedience the schismatic
must recognize the Roman Pontiff as the true
pastor of the Church, and he must profess as an article
of faith that obedience is due the Roman Pontiff
In all honesty (and meaning no disrespect), does this not describe the SSPX position?
I am sympathetic to the SSPX and used to be one of their adherents, but their position is simply erroneous.
-
I did read it and I asked you to explain how it doesn't take the decisions out of the popes hands. So in response you tell me to explain. :fryingpan:
-
And the only way you can maintain your "contradictory" party line is by ignoring the doctrine of necessity (a cause excusing from obedience from superiors).
Being a bit dishonest with ourselves, aren't we?
Sir, before accusing me of dishonesty, please try to understand the issues a bit better. You are confusing immoral papal commands ("Go steal a golden chalice for me!") from authoritative exercises of the (putative) papal office regarding doctrine, morals, discipline, and government (canon law).
There is no contradiction within sedevacantism.
The ignorance manifest in your response only demonstrates your failure to read the article on necessity, leaving you willfully ignorant in the matter.
Had you read it, you would not have made such a foolish comment purporting to limit the scope of the excusing cause of necessity against juridical and doctrinal acts of the pope.
According to your rationale, St Athanasius would have either been forced to back Pope Liberius in his signing of the docuмent favoring Arianism, or declared the See of Rome vacant.
You might notice he did neither.
But I have yet to hear of him being accused of embracing a "contradictory" opinion.
Hmmm
-
Wrong again.
The Essenes of schism is not failure to submit to the Roman Pontiff.
That is disobedience, unless required by necessity.
Schism, which perfectly reflects your position, is failure to acknowledge the authority of the bishop of Rome to govern the universal Church.
In other words, you are a non-Catholic schismatic.
Not so. The following is a quote from p. 2 of Fr. Ignatius Szal, The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics (1948). Fr. Szal lays out the four conditions necessary for schism:
1) One must withdraw directly (expressly) or
indirectly (by means of one's actions) from obedience
to the Roman Pontiff, and separate oneself
from ecclesiastical communion with the rest of the
faithful, even though one does not join a separate
schismatical sect
2) one's withdrawal must be made with obstinacy
and rebellion
3) the withdrawal must be made in relation to
those things by which the unity of the Church is
constituted
4) despite this formal disobedience the schismatic
must recognize the Roman Pontiff as the true
pastor of the Church, and he must profess as an article
of faith that obedience is due the Roman Pontiff
In all honesty (and meaning no disrespect), does this not describe the SSPX position?
I am sympathetic to the SSPX and used to be one of their adherents, but their position is simply erroneous.
It seems to describe your personal position, does it not?
-
Still waiting. :ready-to-eat:
-
Still waiting. :ready-to-eat:
For what?
-
Don't be dense. I did ask you to explain how the doctrine of necessity doesn't take the decisions out of the pope's hands.
-
It seems to describe your personal position, does it not?
Not in the least. Sedevacantism does not recognize Benedict XVI as the Pope. That's an entirely different thing. That is the only reason we do not submit to him. The essence of schism is to refuse submission to someone who is recognized to be the Pope. You could, in theory, accuse sedevacantists of being wrong about who the Pope is (heck, saints have been wrong on that!) - but you could not accuse them of the sin of schism.
The point being that you accuse others of schism without knowing what schism is.
-
The ignorance manifest in your response only demonstrates your failure to read the article on necessity, leaving you willfully ignorant in the matter.
I'm sorry, but I don't know which article you are referring to. Please give me the link or the post number where it's linked. I would be more than happy to interact with it. Who wrote it, and when?
Had you read it, you would not have made such a foolish comment purporting to limit the scope of the excusing cause of necessity against juridical and doctrinal acts of the pope.
We'll see just how "foolish" that was.
According to your rationale, St Athanasius would have either been forced to back Pope Liberius in his signing of the docuмent favoring Arianism, or declared the See of Rome vacant.
I prefer to take St. Robert Bellarmine's position on that:
"Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic."
(http://www.sedevacantist.com/bellarm.htm)
-
Don't be dense. I did ask you to explain how the doctrine of necessity doesn't take the decisions out of the pope's hands.
Yeah, and I told you you could read all about it in this forum's library in the article titled, On the a doctrine of Necessity, and then to please explain why all the saints and Doctors quoted therein are wrong.
So again, what Are you waiting for???
:ready-to-eat:
-
It seems to describe your personal position, does it not?
Not in the least. Sedevacantism does not recognize Benedict XVI as the Pope. That's an entirely different thing. That is the only reason we do not submit to him. The essence of schism is to refuse submission to someone who is recognized to be the Pope. You could, in theory, accuse sedevacantists of being wrong about who the Pope is (heck, saints have been wrong on that!) - but you could not accuse them of the sin of schism.
The point being that you accuse others of schism without knowing what schism
Interesting: You can avoid schism by simply refusing to acknowledge the pope (which is the traditional definition of schism)!
And you want to accuse the SsPX of using necessity in a convenient way???
-
The ignorance manifest in your response only demonstrates your failure to read the article on necessity, leaving you willfully ignorant in the matter.
I'm sorry, but I don't know which article you are referring to. Please give me the link or the post number where it's linked. I would be more than happy to interact with it. Who wrote it, and when?
Had you read it, you would not have made such a foolish comment purporting to limit the scope of the excusing cause of necessity against juridical and doctrinal acts of the pope.
We'll see just how "foolish" that was.
According to your rationale, St Athanasius would have either been forced to back Pope Liberius in his signing of the docuмent favoring Arianism, or declared the See of Rome vacant.
I prefer to take St. Robert Bellarmine's position on that:
"Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic."
(http://www.sedevacantist.com/bellarm.htm)
Nope.
Go to this forum's library and look it up like anyone else would.
-
Katholikos scroll down the first page in the library and you will find it.
Just as I thought, Seraphim. You are a charlatan and big bag of hot air like SJB and that bunch. It's a mystery to me why you think you can come on here and sway everyone with your fancy footwork. I wasn't even entertained, much less persuaded of anything. You really are a deceitful person, you know, pretending to have viable arguments when you have nothing. Well, I'm not going to play your games any more so you might as well run along home. I hear your village has lost its idiot. TA! :popcorn:
-
Katholikos scroll down the first page in the library and you will find it.
Just as I thought, Seraphim. You are a charlatan and big bag of hot air like SJB and that bunch. It's a mystery to me why you think you can come on here and sway everyone with your fancy footwork. I wasn't even entertained, much less persuaded of anything. You really are a deceitful person, you know, pretending to have viable arguments when you have nothing. Well, I'm not going to play your games any more so you might as well run along home. I hear your village has lost its idiot. TA! :popcorn:
Well Mary, its comforting to know cathinfo hasn't lost you as it's village idiot. Imagine how proud Cupertino must feel knowing you're on his team. :rolleyes:
-
Since the death of Pope Pius XII, we've found ourselves in an unprecedented and very difficult situation. Many good people tried to do the right thing, but they went back and forth between what to believe and what to do, because no matter what they did, they encountered problems. Regardless of what ABL may have done or intended to do, the facts, after over 50 years of this mess, are that the SSPX-type "resistance" position is not tenable because contradictory, and ditto for the Novus Ordo and indult/motu positions. Sedevacantism remains as the only possible position, without contradictions, though it does have its problems.
I wasn't so much talking about ABL's position, I was just saying that it is absurd to refer to ABL and the Society as a cult and say ABL was a "confused and contradictive figure".
-
Well Mary, its comforting to know cathinfo hasn't lost you as it's village idiot.
I think it's quite pathetic that you resort to calling a woman "a village idiot". You are so uncharitable it's disgusting, and what's sad is that you play innocent. Back in August you intentionally kept mis-spelling Daegus' screen-name as "Dogus" and then acted shocked when he picked back at your screen-name.
-
Well Mary, its comforting to know cathinfo hasn't lost you as it's village idiot.
I think it's quite pathetic that you resort to calling a woman "a village idiot". You are so uncharitable it's disgusting, and what's sad is that you play innocent. Back in August you intentionally kept mis-spelling Daegus' screen-name as "Dogus" and then acted shocked when he picked back at your screen-name.
Then don't give her a pass to make these types of comments to others.
-
Then don't give her a pass to make these types of comments to others.
What was that you were griping at me about a few months ago about how I shouldn't go around correcting everyone? I sense a double standard. Furthermore, her comment was not the same as yours.
-
Then don't give her a pass to make these types of comments to others.
What was that you were griping at me about a few months ago about how I shouldn't go around correcting everyone? I sense a double standard. Furthermore, her comment was not the same as yours.
You either need thicker skin or you just like to complain about me. I'm not sure which, to be honest.
-
You either need thicker skin or you just like to complain about me. I'm not sure which, to be honest.
Neither. :)
A Blessed Sunday to all.
God Bless.
-
I think that's funny. The essence of the sin of schism is refusing to properly submit to the person recognized to be the Roman Pontiff.
It is true that being mistaken about the identity of the Roman Pontiff does not by itself constitute schism (which pre-Vatican II theologians have held, and which is my considered opinion as well), but the difficulty is that this was only often granted by both sides practically in Church history when there were two or more visible claimants to the Petrine See, which is not currently the case. For example, St.Vincent Ferrer and St.Catherine of Sienna were found on different sides during the deplorable confusion of their day.
But if one can personally decide a succession of Popes are simply antiPopes with no Cardinals remaining, no identifiable visibility of the Church enduring, with no end in sight, frankly, I don't know. Where does it end?
The situation is exponentially more complicated and requires all sorts of things, including the divine promise, the indefectibility of the Roman Church, the visibility of the Church and several other dogmas to be taken account of.
This is why I think the Archbishop considered it imprudent and at best an uncertain or speculative position to be tolerated. As for the SSPX, epikeia and the doctrine of necessity is well founded. But even more than that, the 1983 code which would currently apply is so lax that one could argue, as Michael Davies I think successfully does, that the charge of schism cannot be made to stick.
Why try to represent what he thought in 1979 when 7 years later (1986) he most clearly and publicly changed his mind?
Because all the reasons he offered for thinking so, ("The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades ... Who will tell us who the future pope is to be? How, as there are no cardinals, is he to be chosen?" all held as true in 1979 as they did in 1986 as they did after the deplorable events of Assisi, as they did after the Econe consecrations, as they did after the fallout with Rome, as they did at his death in 1991, as they do today and still "puts the Church into an inextricable situation"
Perhaps, Cupertino, you should consider that the Archbishop heard all the reasons you offer for sedevacantism and rejected them for reasons that you have not considered. Those closest to him can vouch that he never changed his mind inspite of, humanly speaking, being given every reason by his shoddy treatment, in favor of doing so.
Cardinal Ratzinger is reported to have said that among the two regrets of his life was what happened between Rome and the Society. Though I don't agree with the Archbishop on every count, inclining myself to the FSSP view, I believe as he did, and as the Society believes, that the difficulties started from Rome and the solution will come from Rome. And pretty much everyone whether FSSP or SSPV or one who is grateful for the Indult/Motu owes a debt of gratitude to them.
And whatever anyone may think, if Tradition flourishes today worldwide at least as much as it does, if Rome has recognized that the traditional Lass Mass was never abrogated, if today every priest is at least free de jure to celebrate the Tridentine form, then the glory redounds in the highest measure to the Society of Saint Pius X.
-
On p. 506 of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais's "Marcel Lefebvre," we read the following:
"Perhaps one day in 30 or 40 years, a meeting of cardinals gathered together by a future pope will study and judge the reign of Paul VI; perhaps they will say that there were things that ought to have been clearly obvious to people at the time, statements of the pope that were clearly against tradition.
"At the moment I prefer to consider the man on the chair of Peter as pope, and if one day we discover for certain that the pope was not the pope, at least I will have done my duty."
According to that book, when did ABL actually pen these words?
Oh yes, now bishop Tissier is lying.
What some people won't do to protect their positions rather than learn the truth!
-
Interesting: You can avoid schism by simply refusing to acknowledge the pope (which is the traditional definition of schism)!
Excuse, but my position that Benedict XVI is the result of evaluating evidence in the light of Catholic principles and teachings. (You seem to insist, quite rashly, that I simply don't want him to be the Pope, and so therefore I have conveniently concluded he isn't. You don't even know me.)
But that wasn't the point. I am not trying to debate sedevacantism right now (though I'd be happy to do that with you privately if you like).
My point is merely to make you understand what schism is and isn't. The essence of schism includes that the man who is being refused submission to, be recognized as the Pope. I'm sorry if that doesn't fit into your conception of things right now, but that's what schism is. That is part of the traditional definition of schism.
You can believe sedevacantists are wrong all you like, but schism is not a fair accusation. The schismatic refuses submission to a man he believes is the Pope. He who refuses submission to someone (whether Pope or not) because he does not believe him to be the Pope, may be right or wrong on that point, but he's not a schismatic. That's all I'm trying to say.
“Finally, one cannot consider as schismatics those who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they would hold his person suspect or, because of widespread rumors, doubtfully elected (as happened after the election of Urban VI), or who would resist him as a civil authority and not as pastor of the Church.” (Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicuм [Rome: Gregorian 1937], 7:398.)
-
Nope.
Go to this forum's library and look it up like anyone else would.
Boy, your attitude is just exuding Christian charity, huh? Excuse me, but I am not a regular visitor to this forum, and as you can see by the number of my posts, have hardly posted anything. I don't know how things work here. I just now, based upon your kind direction, saw there is a library. I see that the article on the "doctrine of necessity," as you call it, is simply the old theological study put out by the SSPX over 10 years ago.
Well, I will be happy to discuss it with you, but privately, not publicly. The reason is simply that if I do it publicly, there will be a plethora of responses, comments, counter-responses, etc., and I can kiss life as I know it good-bye. It will become a never-ending hydra of postings.
-
It is true that being mistaken about the identity of the Roman Pontiff does not by itself constitute schism (which pre-Vatican II theologians have held, and which is my considered opinion as well), but the difficulty is that this was only often granted by both sides practically in Church history when there were two or more visible claimants to the Petrine See, which is not currently the case. For example, St.Vincent Ferrer and St.Catherine of Sienna were found on different sides during the deplorable confusion of their day.
But if one can personally decide a succession of Popes are simply antiPopes with no Cardinals remaining, no identifiable visibility of the Church enduring, with no end in sight, frankly, I don't know. Where does it end?
The situation is exponentially more complicated and requires all sorts of things, including the divine promise, the indefectibility of the Roman Church, the visibility of the Church and several other dogmas to be taken account of.
Thank you for interacting with what I said in a reasonable and charitable way (unlike Seraphim).
My response would be as follows: The historical reality that back in the late middle ages there were several claimants to the papacy is merely accidental; in other words, it does not affect the essence of what we're talking about: that people can be mistaken in good faith about a certain individual's claim to the papacy being valid. There are, of course, other claimants to the papacy today, besides Benedict XVI, though I would agree that none of them can be taken seriously. But then, I say the same for Benedict. He doesn't win by "default", as in, "If you can't show me another Pope, then Benedict must be it." The reason being that the reasons for the invalidity of his claim to the papacy have no bearing on the problem of the long-term vacancy of the Holy See, which is a separate issue (though certainly a fair one to bring up).
So then, what are we to do without a Pope? As you said, where does it end? I have two things I would like to mention in response. First, Mr. John Lane put it very well when he said:
"It is no solution to treat heretics as legitimate pastors of the faithful - that merely compounds the disorder. It is also a failure to act in accordance with truth, in favour of an imagined legal fiction." (quoted at http://www.novusordowatch.org/the_chair_is_still_empty.htm)
Secondly, while I of course grant that this is a gigantic difficulty, I will say that the SSPX's position has the exact same difficulty, nay, an even greater one. For their resistance position is likewise without end, but worse so. Who will decide when the Pope is once again "okay" and need no longer be resisted? Who will decide when the Magisterium is back to its senses (as though it could ever even lose them)? Who gets to say when canonizations must be fully accepted, encyclicals can no longer be criticized, and canon law can no longer be called wicked?
In short, when will the SSPX know to revert to a pre-1962 position of genuine submission to the Church and the Pope, and what happens if some people disagree? What if Bp. Fellay says, "Everyone, it's all good again, we're back to normal, the Holy See no longer needs a baby-sitter" and Fr. Peter Scott says, "No, it's not; keep resisting"? (By the way, where/who was the Holy See's "guardian" between 1965 and 1969? If the Holy See can fail and drift off into another religion, then so can the SSPX and anyone else.)
Do you see the problem? This problem is worse than the predicament of sedevacantism (and, I am convinced, cannot be squared with Catholic theology), because if the principles the SSPX operates on are permissible today, then they are permissible at all times and can be used by anyone and everyone. There's never again a way for the Pope and the Church to make a definitive decision and everyone must obey and submit, or else. If the SSPX is right, then any group can always "resist", for whatever reason seems "traditional" to it, and do its "own thing."
-
A true schismatic denies the papacy, sedevacantist does't deny the papacy, in fact they defend it.
At CMRI we have the papal flag in our chapels; I wonder if the novus ordo does anymore? It seems the novus ordo and their friends are the ones who deny the papacy since they are the ones trying to destroy it.
Vatican II, the Great schism.
Why in the world would SSPX even want to unite with them, I ask in good faith?
-
and do its "own thing."
My point exactly. Thank you. Don't mind Seraphim. He's on some sort of sick power play. I won't interact with him again, and unless you enjoy being jerked around I would suggest that you don't either.
-
A true schismatic denies the papacy, sedevacantist does't deny the papacy, in fact they defend it.
At CMRI we have the papal flag in our chapels; I wonder if the novus ordo does anymore? It seems the novus ordo and their friends are the ones who deny the papacy since they are the ones trying to destroy it.
Vatican II, the Great schism.
Why in the world would SSPX even want to unite with them, I ask in good faith?
Actually, denying the papacy would be heretical. A schismatic is one who "refuses to be subject to the Roman Pontiff or to communicate with the members of the Church subject to him."
-
katholikos said:
My point is merely to make you understand what schism is and isn't. The essence of schism includes that the man who is being refused submission to, be recognized as the Pope. I'm sorry if that doesn't fit into your conception of things right now, but that's what schism is. That is part of the traditional definition of schism.
While some SSPX-ers acknowledge sedes may be right and at least are being cautious, Seraphim allows himself all kinds of harsh judgments and sharp reproaches.
The irony is that the SSPX position is far closer to schism than the sede position. Ignoring and flouting the local ordinary, flouting the man they call Pope, overturning decisions of men they consider true bishops and priests when it comes to marriages; need I go on? There is none so blind as he who will not see; or as an SSPX attack dog with more frothing rhetoric than sense.
SSPX has the bad habit in general, judging by articles on their websites, of thinking that ill-considered arguments and poorly researched articles delivered with a tone of confidence will convince others the way it convinces those in their pews and who receive a steadier and more effective diet of indoctrination. If they only knew how immune some of us are!
-
katholikos said:
My point is merely to make you understand what schism is and isn't. The essence of schism includes that the man who is being refused submission to, be recognized as the Pope. I'm sorry if that doesn't fit into your conception of things right now, but that's what schism is. That is part of the traditional definition of schism.
While some SSPX-ers acknowledge sedes may be right and at least are being cautious, Seraphim allows himself all kinds of harsh judgments and sharp reproaches.
The irony is that the SSPX position is far closer to schism than the sede position. Ignoring and flouting the local ordinary, flouting the man they call Pope, overturning decisions of men they consider true bishops and priests when it comes to marriages; need I go on? There is none so blind as he who will not see; or as an SSPX attack dog with more frothing rhetoric than sense.
I think you just like to read your ow posts.
-
A true schismatic denies the papacy, sedevacantist does't deny the papacy, in fact they defend it.
At CMRI we have the papal flag in our chapels; I wonder if the novus ordo does anymore? It seems the novus ordo and their friends are the ones who deny the papacy since they are the ones trying to destroy it.
Vatican II, the Great schism.
Why in the world would SSPX even want to unite with them, I ask in good faith?
Actually, denying the papacy would be heretical. A schismatic is one who "refuses to be subject to the Roman Pontiff or to communicate with the members of the Church subject to him."
True, if there were a True Roman Pontiff sitting in the Chair of Peter.
-
At CMRI we have the papal flag in our chapels; I wonder if the novus ordo does anymore? It seems the novus ordo and their friends are the ones who deny the papacy since they are the ones trying to destroy it.
You raise a good point here. The NO accuses Trads of being schismatic but they don't even listen to Benedict when he tells them to do something Traditional. Go figure.
-
Wow, it's like none of the responders actually *read* what I just wrote..
They don't.
Sedevacantism is more a personality type than theological position.
Since I enjoy irony, I will point out that I'm a 'sede'(privationist)
-
Thank you ... The reason being that the reasons for the invalidity of his claim to the papacy have no bearing on the problem of the long-term vacancy of the Holy See, which is a separate issue (though certainly a fair one to bring up).
Sure. Let's talk solely about Pope Benedict and some of the problematic statements he has made. Here's the issue, although it seems evident that they contain material error, I would argue they are not sufficient to condemn him as a formal heretic.
Here is how the SSPX website puts it,
But nobody can authoritatively admonish the pope (canon 1556), and the bishops can only be admonished by their superior, the pope (canon 1557), who has not done so.
* To have canonical force, they must come from one's superior (cf., canon 2233). The point is not only the crime but also its imputability must be notorious (canon 2195; 2197).
Therefore, pertinacity, and so formal heresy, cannot be proven.
In other words, pertinacity is generally determined by a person refusing the reproval of his ecclesiastical superiors. But the Pope has no such superiors in the constitution of the Church? So, what is the solution in this case?
Some think a Council called by the College of Cardinals as Cupertino somewhat said, citing some approved source, would have to publicly rebuke him for an error and then demand he recant. And only his obstinacy in the face of such an admonition could suffice to canonically establish pertinacity necessary for him to be a formal heretic.
But if this is true, one could argue that it is impossible that Cardinals would ever cease to exist, as the 50-year-sedevacantist position maintains they have, and therefore that position must be in error.
So then, what are we to do without a Pope? As you said, where does it end? I have two things I would like to mention in response. First, Mr. John Lane put it very well when he said:
"It is no solution to treat heretics as legitimate pastors of the faithful - that merely compounds the disorder. It is also a failure to act in accordance with truth, in favour of an imagined legal fiction." (quoted at http://www.novusordowatch.org/the_chair_is_still_empty.htm)
For the reasons I mentioned, it is slightly more complicated and uncertain than that. The examples of Pope Liberius and Honorius and Sts. Athanasius and Maximus respectively also give credence to the SSPX view. What was the most important thing is to keep the Faith and proclaim the truth, not to jump to what may be a very rash conclusion, or at least an insufficiently established one.
By the way I think someone cited Felix II, he was an Antipope, and Pope Liberius was wrongly declared deposed. Just an example of jumping to conclusions and the attendant dangers it involves. Much better to stick to what is absolutely certain, as did St.Athanasius.
Who will decide when the Pope is once again "okay" and need no longer be resisted?
When the issue at hand is resolved. It really revolves around ecuмenism, collegiality and religious liberty, these are the disputed points, and because they have not been sufficiently clarified, the SSPX response is justifiable.
Both SSPX and FSSP await a clarification from Rome, but the latter prefers to work with the Magisterium where possible, remembering former examples like slavery and usury where the Magisterium had appeared to change its position on complex issues while actually expounding a consistent position in changing circuмstances, though this was not immediately clear to all. As with Pope Liberius, any difficulties that originated in Rome will be resolved from Rome, for the gates of hell cannot prevail against the Roman Church built on the Rock of St.Peter.
Who will decide when the Magisterium is back to its senses (as though it could ever even lose them)? Who gets to say when canonizations must be fully accepted, encyclicals can no longer be criticized, and canon law can no longer be called wicked?
I admit there are certain points of internal discordance or inconsistency in such a view, which is why I don't entirely embrace it. There would be about 2% difference between the SSPX and the FSSP and this is one of it.
In short, when will the SSPX know to revert to a pre-1962 position
When the three issues I mentioned are satisfactorily and visibly reconciled to Tradition. In the meanwhile, if it is not clear how they are to be reconciled, one can hold to Tradition as such, because Vatican II specifically said it neither taught nor bound anything new on anyone.
If the SSPX is right, then any group can always "resist", for whatever reason seems "traditional" to it, and do its "own thing."
That's an oversimplification, I believe. The Church's traditional doctrine on these subjects is well known to theologians, and cannot be actually changed by anyone, no, not even a Pope, of course, and there can only be development "in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding" according to the First Vatican Council. The onus is now on Rome to show precisely this, and I believe it will come.
-
By the way I think someone cited Felix II, he was an Antipope, and Pope Liberius was wrongly declared deposed. Just an example of jumping to conclusions and the attendant dangers it involves.
"In addition, unless we are to admit that Liberius defected for a time from constancy in defending the Faith, we are compelled to exclude Felix II, who held the pontificate while Liberius was alive, from the number of the Popes: but the Catholic Church venerates this very Felix as Pope and martyr. However this may be, Liberius neither taught heresy, nor was a heretic, but only sinned by external act [emphasis in original Latin], as did St. Marcellinus, and unless I am mistaken, sinned less than St. Marcellinus." (lib. IV, c. 9, no. 5)
Further, after explaining that Felix was for a time an antipope, he continues (no. 15): "Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.
-
Is that why, Raoul? I knew we had an unusually large number of hit and runs per capita, even thought someone must have had a fire sale on crooks, but I never expected a patented proselutizing procedure. Sort of a school for hoaxsters. Like the old medicine shows. Make up what you want and assert it with conviction and, Bob's your uncle, you have converts. That explains so much that puzzled me.
-
A true schismatic denies the papacy, sedevacantist does't deny the papacy, in fact they defend it.
At CMRI we have the papal flag in our chapels; I wonder if the novus ordo does anymore? It seems the novus ordo and their friends are the ones who deny the papacy since they are the ones trying to destroy it.
Vatican II, the Great schism.
Why in the world would SSPX even want to unite with them, I ask in good faith?
Actually, denying the papacy would be heretical. A schismatic is one who "refuses to be subject to the Roman Pontiff or to communicate with the members of the Church subject to him."
True, if there were a True Roman Pontiff sitting in the Chair of Peter.
Well, the theological opinion of the lack of a true Roman Pontiff does not allow us to cut off communion with other Catholics who do not hold that view. It's not a "free-for-all," as I'm sure you'd agree.
-
I'll add the following Thuc-line bishops who are part of the Thuc-lineage as a result of their episcopal ordination or having received conditional episcopal ordination in the Thuc-line.
Bishop Donald Sanborn
Bishop Daniel Dolan
Bishop Mark Pivarunas
Bishop Louis Vezelis
Bishop Jose Ramon Gaston-Lopez (through Bishop Christian Datessen)
Bishop Merril Adamson (through Bishop Jose Ramon Gaston-Lopez)
Bishop Patrick Taylor (through Bishop Merill Adamson's conditional consecration)
Bishop Timothy Henneberry
Bishop Paul Petko
Bishop Robert Neville
Bishop Christian Datessen
Bishop Palmar de Troya
Bishop Robert McKenna
Bishop Michel Guerard de Lauriers (confessor to Pope Pius XII)
There are many more... if any of your bishops come from these episcopal lineage, then they are truly a validly consecrated bishop.
-
?
A true schismatic denies the papacy, sedevacantist does't deny the papacy, in fact they defend it.
At CMRI we have the papal flag in our chapels; I wonder if the novus ordo does anymore? It seems the novus ordo and their friends are the ones who deny the papacy since they are the ones trying to destroy it.
Vatican II, the Great schism.
Why in the world would SSPX even want to unite with them, I ask in good faith?
Actually, denying the papacy would be heretical. A schismatic is one who "refuses to be subject to the Roman Pontiff or to communicate with the members of the Church subject to him."
True, if there were a True Roman Pontiff sitting in the Chair of Peter.
Well, the theological opinion of the lack of a true Roman Pontiff does not allow us to cut off communion with other Catholics who do not hold that view. It's not a "free-for-all," as I'm sure you'd agree.
<<Let no one deceive you in any way, for the day of the Lord will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and is exalted above all that is called (Vatican II ?) God, or that is worshipped, so that he sits in the temple of God (Chair of Peter ?) and gives himself out as if he were God.
Verse; 10,SAYS: For they have not received the love of truth that they might be saved. Therefore God sends them a misleading influence that they may believe falsehood. (Vatican II ?) >> 2 Thessalonians 3 READ IT!
We are told during this time period; if you continue reading: TO STAND FIRM AND HOLD TO THE TEACHINGS WE HAVE LEARNED FROM THE BEGINNING.
I suggest you read the entire chapter to get the full understanding, that is if you have eyes and ears to see the truth.
-
?A true schismatic denies the papacy, sedevacantist does't deny the papacy, in fact they defend it.
At CMRI we have the papal flag in our chapels; I wonder if the novus ordo does anymore? It seems the novus ordo and their friends are the ones who deny the papacy since they are the ones trying to destroy it.
Vatican II, the Great schism.
Why in the world would SSPX even want to unite with them, I ask in good faith?
Actually, denying the papacy would be heretical. A schismatic is one who "refuses to be subject to the Roman Pontiff or to communicate with the members of the Church subject to him."
True, if there were a True Roman Pontiff sitting in the Chair of Peter.
Well, the theological opinion of the lack of a true Roman Pontiff does not allow us to cut off communion with other Catholics who do not hold that view. It's not a "free-for-all," as I'm sure you'd agree.
<<Let no one deceive you in any way, for the day of the Lord will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and is exalted above all that is called (Vatican II ?) God, or that is worshipped, so that he sits in the temple of God (Chair of Peter ?) and gives himself out as if he were God.
Verse; 10,SAYS: For they have not received the love of truth that they might be saved. Therefore God sends them a misleading influence that they may believe falsehood. (Vatican II ?) >> 2 Thessalonians 3 READ IT!
We are told during this time period; if you continue reading: TO STAND FIRM AND HOLD TO THE TEACHINGS WE HAVE LEARNED FROM THE BEGINNING.
I suggest you read the entire chapter to get the full understanding, that is if you have eyes and ears to see the truth.
I have both eyes and ears. I'm merely saying there are Catholics other than those who hold your position on the present claimant to the papacy.
-
have both eyes and ears. I'm merely saying there are Catholics other than those who hold your position on the present claimant to the papacy.
I feel confident that God knows who they are! Since I do not pretend to know who out there denies even one Divine teaching of Jesus Christ.
-
have both eyes and ears. I'm merely saying there are Catholics other than those who hold your position on the present claimant to the papacy.
I feel confident that God knows who they are! Since I do not pretend to know who out there denies even one Divine teaching of Jesus Christ.
Myrna, you should know who some of them are because they are Catholics.
Some Novus Ordo adherents simply deny Catholic dogmas and we can't think anything except that they are heretics. Some do not. I'm speaking of those traditionalists who don't hold the Holy See as vacant or impeded. The point is, and I think you understand this, that the "pope issue" alone can't be a reason we judge other Catholics. It's an area of disagreement, but it's not a cause for breaking communion with them.
-
have both eyes and ears. I'm merely saying there are Catholics other than those who hold your position on the present claimant to the papacy.
I feel confident that God knows who they are! Since I do not pretend to know who out there denies even one Divine teaching of Jesus Christ.
Myrna, you should know who some of them are because they are Catholics.
Some Novus Ordo adherents simply deny Catholic dogmas and we can't think anything except that they are heretics. Some do not. I'm speaking of those traditionalists who don't hold the Holy See as vacant or impeded. The point is, and I think you understand this, that the "pope issue" alone can't be a reason we judge other Catholics. It's an area of disagreement, but it's not a cause for breaking communion with them.
What exactly do you mean by “breaking Communion with”? If you mean will I go receive “communion” in the novus ordo, the answer is, with God’s grace NO! Been there, done that!
If you mean do I believe that there are still Catholics trapped within the novus ordo, I hope so! Many that I hear of are still leaving the harlot (Interfaith) each day. Look at Spiritus he has only been out a year or so, he said. When I was there, I thought I was Catholic, but certainly confused. My story is on that other thread, “Calling all Traditional Catholics”, I will not repeat it here.
I will only add, that while I was there I was being taken in with that story the pope who changed the Mass, was an imposter, the real pope was hidden away. They had pictures in magazines showing picutres of the real pope, and the fake pope with different ears. Much like some do today with Sister Lucy. I was starting to believe the pope who changed the Mass to a Protestant service was an imposter.
-
What exactly do you mean by “breaking Communion with”? If you mean will I go receive “communion” in the novus ordo, the answer is, with God’s grace NO! Been there, done that!
If you mean do I believe that there are still Catholics trapped within the novus ordo, I hope so! Many that I hear of are still leaving the harlot (Interfaith) each day. Look at Spiritus he has only been out a year or so, he said. When I was there, I thought I was Catholic, but certainly confused. My story is on that other thread, “Calling all Traditional Catholics”, I will not repeat it here.
I'm not questioning your story (it's similar in many ways to mine, btw) but I am saying that we mustn't break communion with fellow Catholics, because that is schismatic. I'm referring to the definition of schism, which I provided. I even specifically stated I was talking about other trads, not the novus ordo.
-
Cupertino, let me ask you a question. If it is as you say, why does Bishop Williamson, one of the prelates closest to the Archbishop, call sedevacantists "schismatic"?
It is dogmatic that the Church is "holy" and that the Holy Ghost will see to it that nothing harmful can be found in the Church's universal doctrinal magisterium, in her disciplines or liturgies.
Michael Davies agreed with this, but he argued the contrary. The new form is valid and not directly harmful because of the Church's indefectibility, after studying the Latin texts of the rite himself. The reasoning you attempt to put forward is not dogmatically certain. For example, it could be that abuses have in practice become so indistinguishable from the rite itself, that one's judgment is prejudiced, and so can in no way be dogmatically certain. The problem, then, remains.
The way it is determined is directly due to the promise of protection by the Holy Ghost as I mentioned further above. A true pope, though lacking a superior that everyone else has in the Church, has something that nobody else has in the Church, a special promise of protection that the Holy Ghost will prevent him from promulgating officially anything harmful in the Church's universal doctrinal magisterium, in her disciplines or liturgies.
This ignores two things, first that perhaps even in the case of a Roman Pontiff who has at some time fallen into heresy, the Roman Church still remains indefectible as Pope St.Agatho said, and so perhaps wil stilll be prevented by Christ from loosing and binding error on earth, as He prevented Honorius.
Second, it assumes that the presumption of heresy, rather than a presumption of innocence, is the more prudent position. John Salza addresses this,
As we alluded to, Canon 2223, par. 4 sets forth the rules for when declaratory sentences are required:
In general, to declare a penalty latae sententiae is left to the prudence of the superior; but whether at the instance/request of a party who is involved, or because the common good requires it so, a declaratory sentence must be given.
While, according to Divine Law, formal heresy results in self-expulsion from the Church without the need for a declaratory sentence, ecclesiastical law (can 2223.4) requires a declaratory sentence (sententia declaratoria dari debet) of said heresy if the common good of the Church requires it. Needless to say, it is in the best interests of the Catholic Church to know whether we have a valid Pope. Nothing more important for the Church could possibly be imagined. Hence, a declaratory sentence proclaiming a Cardinal’s pre-election heresy “must be given.”
If such an ecclesiastical declaration were not required, the Church would never know with certainty whether Divine Law has been violated, and this uncertainty would undermine the Church’s very mission and existence. This also means maintaining the Sedevacantist position (that a given papal election is invalid) in the absence of a declaratory sentence attacks the best interests of the Church.
If anyone thinks that, he is mistaken. Admonitions and rebukes by anyone under a pope is only a means by which the Holy Ghost helps prevent a pope from making a mistake. It has nothing to do with determining pertinacity. Furthermore, it is actually the heresy of Gallicanism or Conciliarism that claims a general council can bring a true pope before it and depose him.
The answer is, from the above mentioned source,
Further, it should go without saying that the required declaratory sentence must be given by ecclesiastical authority (Mt 18:17; Titus 3:10-11). Of course, nothing in either positive law or Divine Law permits just any Catholic individual or group to issue declaratory sentences and ecclesiastical censures, nor does the law permit Catholics to licitly resist a duly elected Pope in the absence of these required ecclesiastical adjudications.
As applied here, since the elected Pope would be the object of the investigation, any declaratory sentence would have to come from the College of Cardinals – the next highest authoritative rank in the Church.
Further, we are reminded that a declaratory sentence of heresy against an anti-pope would simply affirm that he excommunicated himself (ecclesiastical law determining that self-expulsion occurred under Divine Law), and that a valid Pope has no judge on earth but God.
So this in no way resembles Gallicanism.
Cardinals were created by ecclesiastical law, not divine law. This means that Cardinals are not necessary by divine law for a valid election of a pope. The sedevacantist position does not include that except by some who mistakenly think so.
True enough, but here's the thing. The governing ecclesiastical law of our times, which is our guide in knowing and applying divine law, contains this provision,
Pope Pius XII: “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff” (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945).
Liberius is really out of the picture. Honorius is the one who came closest (by writing a letter to an Eastern Patriarch), but the significant thing was that he was prevented by the Holy Ghost from entering harm into the magisterium, discipline or liturgy. It is now a completely and substantially different case with Vatican II and its false popes.
Not so fast. When Honorius wrote that letter, the Monophysite heretics used it to support their heresies. They demanded that St.Maximus submit to them and to it. Rather, he held the Faith, but defended the person of Honorius from the charge of being a heretic. Was it a "dogmatic fact" that Honorius had become a heretic by writing that letter? If so Maximus should be a heretic not a Saint as he is, because he didn't believe that dogmatic fact, though the Third Council of Constantinople, recognized it, declaring Honorius anathema.
The Church has decided clearly that men can personally, without any special faculty or legal deliberation, become certain a man is no longer pope, and then gather together in Rome to make a declaration of that fact which was already predetermined individually.
Here is where Pope Liberius comes into the question, because this is what the Roman clergy did. They may have done so without schism, perhaps even without sin, they definitely acted quite imprudently and official Church lists their declaration as invalid and their candidate for election as an antipope.
(What is even more amazing, is that there is a principle, "a doubtful pope is no pope". A principle the SSPX don't want to even touch when it comes to this subject.)
Some consider Pope Pius XII "doubtful", and again some did of Pope Liberius. Was he not a Pope?
-
SJB, you quoted, St.Robert as saying,
Further, after explaining that Felix was for a time an antipope, he continues (no. 15): "Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.
But it was taken away in error, wasn't it? And the determination in any case was not made by private individuals, but by the Roman clergy. Pope Liberius was later exonerated and Felix II remains an antiPope, I believe. Would you disagree?
As Salza puts it,
Bellarmine does not say that “Catholics were justified in presuming Pope Liberius a heretic” based on their own private judgment. Quite the contrary, Bellarmine says “the Roman clergy..stripp[ed] Liberius of his pontifical dignity,” and “from that time, men could “judge him to be a heretic pure and simple.”
Liberius’ Catholic hierarchy (“the Roman clergy”) investigated the claim of heresy and then determined the loss of office. It was only after this ecclesiastical determination that the faithful could hold Liberius a public heretic. It was precisely because Liberius’ putative heresy was not “notorious” that the Catholic hierarchy had to make the determination (which is precisely my position, not to mention that of canon law).
This is proven by the fact that Liberius was later exonerated (see Blessed Pius IX’s Quartus Supra, No. 16, 1873), meaning his heresy was never “notorious.” Bellarmine’s quote is further evidence that an ecclesiastical investigation and censure is required if a pope is accused of heresy that has not been prove to be notorious and morally imputable.
-
Liberius’ Catholic hierarchy (“the Roman clergy”) investigated the claim of heresy and then determined the loss of office. It was only after this ecclesiastical determination that the faithful could hold Liberius a public heretic.
Bellarmine’s quote is further evidence that an ecclesiastical investigation and censure is required if a pope is accused of heresy that has not been prove to be notorious and morally imputable.
They judged the pope? This is clearly contrary to Bellarmine's view, the very view we are discussing:
"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: 'He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.'
At Rome, on the Aurelian Way, St. Felix II, pope and martyr. Being expelled from his See by the Arian emperor Constantius for defending the Catholic faith, and being put to the sword privately at Cera in Tuscany, he died gloriously. His body was taken away from that place by clerics, and buried on the Aurelian Way. It was afterwards brought to the Church of the Saints Cosmas and Damian, where, under the Sovereign Pontiff Gregory XIII, it was found beneath the altar with the relics of the holy martyrs Mark, Marcellian, and Tranquillinus, and with the latter was put back in the same place on the 31st of July. In the same altar were also found the bodies of the holy martyrs Abundius, a priest, and Abundantius, a deacon, which were shortly after solemnly transferred to the church of the Society of Jesus, on the eve of their feast.
-
SJB, OK, now, I'm confused. Your earlier quote from St.Robert, part of which I've seen before and part of which I have not, said " after explaining that Felix was for a time an antipope, he continues" so does St.Robert believe that Felix II was an antiPope or as he said is he "venerated as a [true] Pope and martyr"?
He also calls the antiPope Novatian "Pope" with a qualification in brackets. So sorry, but this is new to me. Which one did he hold, do you think?
They judged the pope? This is clearly contrary to Bellarmine's view, the very view we are discussing
Well, more strictly they determined that he had lost his office, for as you say being a manifest heretic. But was it a correct determination in your view? And in St.Robert's?
Anyway, in my view, since they were the Roman clergy, it fell to them by divine right to make that determination. But I would say two things, first that in the absence of such a determination from the Roman clergy in our day, the sedevacantist position would still be in my opinion imprudent. Finally, every duly elected person is in my opinion entitled to a presumption of innocence from the faithful regarding putative heresy until said determination is made. As St.Alphonsus put it, "We ought rightly to presume as Cardinal Bellarmine declares, that God will never let it happen that a Roman Pontiff, even as a private person, becomes a public heretic or an occult heretic." And so do the other Doctors teach, it is not a statement about its impossibility, merely that it can be safely and lawfully presumed in my opinion until said determination is made.
-
As St.Alphonsus put it, "We ought rightly to presume as Cardinal Bellarmine declares, that God will never let it happen that a Roman Pontiff, even as a private person, becomes a public heretic or an occult heretic."
Rightly so! However if John XXIII was a Freemason, he never was a Pope to begin with, and it is SSPX that judge their pope, since they claim he is one, and they certainly judge him, by not obeying him. They say, he is pope, but not worthy to obey.
-
As St.Alphonsus put it, "We ought rightly to presume as Cardinal Bellarmine declares, that God will never let it happen that a Roman Pontiff, even as a private person, becomes a public heretic or an occult heretic."
Rightly so! However if John XXIII was a Freemason, he never was a Pope to begin with, and it is SSPX that judge their pope, since they claim he is one, and they certainly judge him, by not obeying him. They say, he is pope, but not worthy to obey.
That's judging his acts, not judging whether or not he is a heretic or lost his office through some other crime, which judgment belongs to no man.
-
Well he is a heretic if he doesn't believe in the Divine 10 Commandments.
Thinking now of that FIRST COMMANDMENT, guilty of Interfaith.
SSPX judges their pope, sedevacantist have no pope to judge, because a Freemason can't be a pope and admit it or not there is much evidence to prove it. Research the Internet or even prior to the Internet, it was docuмented in a magazine John XXIII belonging to the Rosicrucian Order, I believe in Turkey, if I remember correctly about Turkey, that is.
-
Second, it assumes that the presumption of heresy, rather than a presumption of innocence, is the more prudent position.
You can speak of presuming innocence all you want, and years ago that would have been the right thing to do in some cases. But we're living in different times now. The "popes" are making statements that contain manifest heresy. So to always presume innocence even when dealing with manifest heresy is a load of crap.
-
Second, it assumes that the presumption of heresy, rather than a presumption of innocence, is the more prudent position.
You can speak of presuming innocence all you want, and years ago that would have been the right thing to do in some cases. But we're living in different times now. The "popes" are making statements that contain manifest heresy. So to always presume innocence even when dealing with manifest heresy is a load of crap.
Here's what a canon law study on this subject matter says:
"For example, ignorance would not [!] be presumed on the part of one who is versed in the law, or on the part of one who holds an office, in regard to the things pertaining to his office."
--Rev. Innocent Robert Swoboda, Ignorance in Relation to the Imputability of Delicts (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1941), p. 185
-
Interesting: You can avoid schism by simply refusing to acknowledge the pope (which is the traditional definition of schism)!
Excuse, but my position that Benedict XVI is the result of evaluating evidence in the light of Catholic principles and teachings. (You seem to insist, quite rashly, that I simply don't want him to be the Pope, and so therefore I have conveniently concluded he isn't. You don't even know me.)
But that wasn't the point. I am not trying to debate sedevacantism right now (though I'd be happy to do that with you privately if you like).
My point is merely to make you understand what schism is and isn't. The essence of schism includes that the man who is being refused submission to, be recognized as the Pope. I'm sorry if that doesn't fit into your conception of things right now, but that's what schism is. That is part of the traditional definition of schism.
You can believe sedevacantists are wrong all you like, but schism is not a fair accusation. The schismatic refuses submission to a man he believes is the Pope. He who refuses submission to someone (whether Pope or not) because he does not believe him to be the Pope, may be right or wrong on that point, but he's not a schismatic. That's all I'm trying to say.
“Finally, one cannot consider as schismatics those who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they would hold his person suspect or, because of widespread rumors, doubtfully elected (as happened after the election of Urban VI), or who would resist him as a civil authority and not as pastor of the Church.” (Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicuм [Rome: Gregorian 1937], 7:398.)
The Orthodox believe he has the title pope, or would if he returned to orthodox faith and gave up his heresies. They do not believe he has the power he claim as pope. Since they genuinely don't recognize his papacy, does that mean they are not schismatics?
It seems to me that the real question is, "Is he pope or not?"
-
When I held the sedevacantist position, I learnt that how office of the Pope functions:
Whether the Pope is mean, power-hungry, lustful, greedy, he is to obeyed when he speaks in faith and morals or when he legislate laws for the Church.
For example, Pope Alexander VI canonized St. Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury, as a saint in our Church. Pope Alexander VI was a corrupt pope, who was notorious in holding sex orgies. However, in spite of his corrupt personal life, the Church obeyed his decrees when he exercised his Papal office.
No Pope is to be opposed simply because he's mean. For example, if Pope Paul VI was a truly a Catholic pope, then the Society of St. Pius X is officially a suspended religious order. The Pope may remove an archbishop or remove faculties from a particular priest or bishop.
He holds executive powers (the power to govern and to enforce laws), legislature powers (the power to make laws or to undo laws), and judicial powers (the power to interpret laws according to his authority).
For example, when Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre told Paul VI, "I'm interpreting Vatican II according to the light of tradition", the latter scolded him and said, "The interpretation of the Council comes from Our Apostolic Authority".
That is why sedevacantism is a rational conclusion and opinion, because we acknowledge that the Roman Pontiff enjoys dictatorial rule over the Church. All are obliged to obey him under pain of damnation when the Bishop of Rome exercises his Papal Office under Faith and Morals.
Should a Pope teach heresy or fall into public heresy or schism, the clergy and faithful are obliged to not follow him. This doesn't apply if the Pope was mean, greedy, or a murderer because contemptuous character does not sever a Roman Pontiff from the Church save for public heresy, public schism, or public apostasy.
-
So many things the SSPX warp in Catholicism in trying to sustain their unsustainable position, and things grow worse and worse for them...
I'm not claiming that the SSPX position is sustainable or that their judgments of the Pope's acts are morally justified. I'm simply pointing out that there is a difference between judging the acts of a Pope on the one hand, and judging that the Pope has lost his office on the other. It may well be that the manner in which the SSPX acts toward the Pope is blameworthy.
-
As St.Alphonsus put it, "We ought rightly to presume as Cardinal Bellarmine declares, that God will never let it happen that a Roman Pontiff, even as a private person, becomes a public heretic or an occult heretic."
Rightly so! However if John XXIII was a Freemason, he never was a Pope to begin with, and it is SSPX that judge their pope, since they claim he is one, and they certainly judge him, by not obeying him. They say, he is pope, but not worthy to obey.
Yes. I do not agree with Sedevacantism, but I agree with Sedevacantists that this makes no sense.
-
As St.Alphonsus put it, "We ought rightly to presume as Cardinal Bellarmine declares, that God will never let it happen that a Roman Pontiff, even as a private person, becomes a public heretic or an occult heretic."
Rightly so! However if John XXIII was a Freemason, he never was a Pope to begin with, and it is SSPX that judge their pope, since they claim he is one, and they certainly judge him, by not obeying him. They say, he is pope, but not worthy to obey.
Then you're saying that St. Alphonsus was wrong when he wrote this:
It doesn’t matter that in past centuries some pontiff has been elected in an illegitimate fashion or has taken possession of the pontificate by fraud: it suffices that he has been accepted after as pope by all the Church, for this fact he has become the true pontiff.
Card. Billot is more explicit still [emphasis mine]:
God some times can allow that the vacancy of the Apostolic See be for a certain time. He can allow also that a doubt may come concerning the legitimacy of such-and-such an election, but He cannot allow that the whole Church accept as a pontiff one who is not really legitimate. Therefore, from the moment that the pope is accepted by the Church and is united to Her as the head to the body, we can no longer raise the doubt on the possible bias of election or the possible lack of the necessary conditions for legitimacy. Because this adherence of the Church heals in its root all faults committed at the moment of election, and proves infallibly the existence of all the conditions required.
So the fact that John XXIII was accepted as the Pope by the whole Church shows that he was in fact a true Pope. The validity of his election was never in dispute at the time it occurred.
-
Yes. I do not agree with Sedevacantism, but I agree with Sedevacantists that this makes no sense.
Right - but the fact that a person holds a position that is illogical doesn't make him heretical or schismatic.
-
Pepsuber said:
Then you're saying that St. Alphonsus was wrong when he wrote this:
Quote:
It doesn’t matter that in past centuries some pontiff has been elected in an illegitimate fashion or has taken possession of the pontificate by fraud: it suffices that he has been accepted after as pope by all the Church, for this fact he has become the true pontiff.
If John XXIII was a Mason before his election he was excommunicated, that is different than just a rigged election. The quote is talking about something different.
I doubt someone who is excommunicated can become Pope, even though cardinals who are Masons can apparently take part in a papal election according to Pius XII. Whatever the situation is with Masons becoming Popes, about which someone hopefully knows more, the quote doesn't apply.
-
So the fact that John XXIII was accepted as the Pope by the whole Church shows that he was in fact a true Pope. The validity of his election was never in dispute at the time it occurred.
Very weak argument. Pope Paul IV said in 1559 that a Pope's election could very well be invalid even with the acceptance of all the Cardinals. Read what he said:
"Further, if ever it should appear that any bishop (even one acting as an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff (whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election as Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define:
"- Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid and void.
"- It shall not be possible for such a promotion or election to be deemed valid or to be valid, neither through reception of office, consecration, subsequent administration, or possession, nor even through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff himself, together with the veneration and obedience accorded him by all.
"- Such promotion or election, shall not through any lapse of time in the foregoing situation, be considered even partially legitimate in any way..
"- Each and all of the words, as acts, laws, appointments of those so promoted or elected - and indeed, whatsoever flows therefrom - shall be lacking in force, and shall grant no stability and legal power to anyone whatsoever.
"- Those so promoted or elected, by that very fact and without the need to make any further declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power." Bull cuм ex Apostolatus Officio. 16 February 1559.
-
So the fact that John XXIII was accepted as the Pope by the whole Church shows that he was in fact a true Pope. The validity of his election was never in dispute at the time it occurred.
Very weak argument. Pope Paul IV said in 1559 that a Pope's election could very well be invalid even with the acceptance of all the Cardinals. Read what he said:
"Further, if ever it should appear that any bishop (even one acting as an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff (whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election as Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define:
"- Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid and void.
"- It shall not be possible for such a promotion or election to be deemed valid or to be valid, neither through reception of office, consecration, subsequent administration, or possession, nor even through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff himself, together with the veneration and obedience accorded him by all.
"- Such promotion or election, shall not through any lapse of time in the foregoing situation, be considered even partially legitimate in any way..
"- Each and all of the words, as acts, laws, appointments of those so promoted or elected - and indeed, whatsoever flows therefrom - shall be lacking in force, and shall grant no stability and legal power to anyone whatsoever.
"- Those so promoted or elected, by that very fact and without the need to make any further declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power." Bull cuм ex Apostolatus Officio. 16 February 1559.
:applause:
-
The Orthodox believe he has the title pope, or would if he returned to orthodox faith and gave up his heresies. They do not believe he has the power he claim as pope. Since they genuinely don't recognize his papacy, does that mean they are not schismatics?
The Orthodox are typically referred to as schismatic, but they are really both heretics and schismatics. I have no idea what exactly their position is on Benedict XVI (and don't really care), but their schism goes back to 1054, of course, when they refused submission to the Roman Pontiff and broke away from the Church. I think that's why they are typically called schismatics.
By the way, in the quote from Fr. Szal that I brought up, Fr. Szal is speaking about pure schism, whereas most schisms are mixed (that is, they include heresy also). Fr. Szal mentions that pure schism is extremely rare.
It seems to me that the real question is, "Is he pope or not?"
Ultimately, yes. I was simply responding to Seraphim's false accusation of schism against sedevacantists. I explained to him what schism really is.
-
It is always very refreshing, in discussions like this, to actually look up genuine Catholic sources, rather than discuss different people's "opinions" about what makes sense to them. Here's one:
"Thus the defection from the faith may be public by reason of the fact that it is already known to a notable part of the community. The law does not prescribe any special number as being necessary to constitute a notable part of the community. Determination of this point is left to man’s prudent judgment. [!] Besides being public by reason of actual divulgation, the defection from the faith may be public also because of the fact that the circuмstances force one to conclude that it will be easily divulged in the future. Thus if even only a few loquacious persons witnessed the defection from the faith, or if the sole and only witness was a taciturn person who later threatened to divulge the crime because of an enmity that has arisen between him and the delinquent, the delict would be public in the sense of canon 2197, n. 1."
--Rev. Gerald V. McDevitt, The Renunciation of an Ecclesiastical Office [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1946], p. 139[/b]
There are many more quotes at The Chair Is Still Empty - Reply to John Salza (http://www.novusordowatch.org/the_chair_is_still_empty.htm).
-
So the fact that John XXIII was accepted as the Pope by the whole Church shows that he was in fact a true Pope. The validity of his election was never in dispute at the time it occurred.
But what if (at least for the sake of argument), another Pope had already been elected and accepted the election? What if John XXIII was "forced in" afterwards? It is likewise a truth that he who is elected Pope and accepts, is the true Pope immediately. Then it wouldn't make a difference that the whole Church should accept a different man. First is first. Pope is Pope. The papal office cannot be taken away from a Pope by another man who may have been elected subsequently.
The following video shows the historical precedent of the case of Pope Innocent II, who was the true Pope but was not recognized and installed as the true Pope until about 8 years after his election. A usurper, Antipope Anacletus II, was illegitimately occupying the Holy See, and many recognized his false claim to the papacy.
Papal Imposters Video (click here) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQBP9HmZDGk)
My whole point only being that acceptance by the church might sometimes be a sure sign, but not absolutely at all times - it cannot be, given the theoretical scenario I described above. If someone is elected and accepts, he's the Pope -- even if people later recognize someone else.
I suspect that the St. Alphonsus quote is referring to irregularities in an election, such as bribery, errors in counting, etc., so that no one can later "discover" that Pope So-and-so really wasn't the Pope after all - if he has already been accepted by the whole church. But what I'm talking about in my scenario above is something quite different: a rivalry between two men who were both elected, but one before the other. Whoever is elected and accepts first, is Pope. Period.
-
Yes. I do not agree with Sedevacantism, but I agree with Sedevacantists that this makes no sense.
Right - but the fact that a person holds a position that is illogical doesn't make him heretical or schismatic.
Correct - the fact of being illogical, per se, does not make one a schismatic or a heretic. What makes one a schismatic is refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff or communion with members of the Church who are subject to the Roman Pontiff, and what makes one heretical is pertinaciously doubting or denying a dogma of the Church.
So, you are confusing apples with oranges. Simply being illogical is not schismatic or heretical - but it can become such. It depends on what one is being illogical about.
I cannot think of a better example of schism than the SSPX position. "Recognize but don't submit" - that, exactly, is schism. No one should be impressed by SSPX articles on "necessity" and justifications for their position. Doesn't every schismatic seek to justify his position?
-
I think Sigismund's point, and it is a good one, about the schismatics who broke from Rome in 1054 is that they did so claiming Rome had lost the Faith, too. They even cited the canons of Ephesus and Chalcedon regarding the addition of Filioque to the Creed. They claimed Rome had introduced liturgical innovations like azyme bread.
All very easily answered, mind you, but which can nonetheless seem superficially plausible to the average Christian not theologically equipped to deal with such schismatic claims, that is why they don't need to, but merely have a visible principle of authority to look to. It is a fact that the boast of several schismatics throughout history has been that they cling to the ancient Faith. The answer of all Catholics throughout history has been that we look to Rome.
Rightly so! However if John XXIII was a Freemason, he never was a Pope to begin with, and it is SSPX that judge their pope, since they claim he is one, and they certainly judge him, by not obeying him. They say, he is pope, but not worthy to obey.
Well, if he really was a Freemason, Myrna, it would be a very, very serious thing. However, in deciding what would happen even in that case, the positive law of the Church must be taken into account. Both Pope St.Pius X and Pope Pius XII introduced legislation to the effect that,
“None of the Cardinals may be in any way excluded from the active or passive election of the Sovereign Pontiff under pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment”
Passive election means one's own, and active means that of another Cardinal. So, how would you understand this?
Regarding whether he actually was, I've heard the allegations regarding both him and Pope Paul VI, but I don't think they have actually ever been proven. I know Padre Pio wrote a letter to Pope Paul VI in 1968 and in every way regarded him as Pope. Archbishop Sheen also personally knew every Pope from Pius XII to John Paul II and he didn't think any one of them was a Freemason.
You can speak of presuming innocence all you want, and years ago that would have been the right thing to do in some cases. But we're living in different times now.
Not really. Principles of Catholic theology as laid down by Doctors of the Church may be ignored on the basis of the times we live in? St.Alphonsus said we may safely and *rightly* presume that God will *never* let it happen, which is pretty clearly a guiding principle for all time.
Regarding cuм Ex, that's been answered before, by John Salza, from the governing law of the Church currently in force, according to sedevacantists, the 1917 Code of Canon law.
Hence, a declaratory sentence [(can 2223.4)] proclaiming a Cardinal’s pre-election heresy “must be given.” If such an ecclesiastical declaration were not required, the Church would never know with certainty whether Divine Law has been violated, and this uncertainty would undermine the Church’s very mission and existence. This also means maintaining the Sedevacantist position (that a given papal election is invalid) in the absence of a declaratory sentence attacks the best interests of the Church.
This means the governing ecclesiastical law – which Sedevacantists agree applies to the question at hand – presumes the validity of papal elections, until there is a determination by the Church of whether or not Divine Law has been violated. Ecclesiastical law, then, requires this formal determination to be made by the Church after the election.
If there were no presumptive validity of papal elections, then Catholics would never have assurance that they have a true Pope, for any ecclesiastical impediment would operate to nullify his election. This would cripple the Church.
In summary, ecclesiastical law presumes we have a valid Pope unless the Church formally declares otherwise. These ecclesiastical provisions serve the Divine Law and the Church’s unicity and indefectibility. They also reflect the wisdom of the Church which recognizes that determining formal heresy is a sensitive matter requiring great caution and prudence – especially when dealing with a claimant to the papal throne.
-
Regarding cuм Ex, that's been answered before, by John Salza, from the governing law of the Church currently in force, according to sedevacantists, the 1917 Code of Canon law.
Hence, a declaratory sentence [(can 2223.4)] proclaiming a Cardinal’s pre-election heresy “must be given.” If such an ecclesiastical declaration were not required, the Church would never know with certainty whether Divine Law has been violated, and this uncertainty would undermine the Church’s very mission and existence. This also means maintaining the Sedevacantist position (that a given papal election is invalid) in the absence of a declaratory sentence attacks the best interests of the Church.
This means the governing ecclesiastical law – which Sedevacantists agree applies to the question at hand – presumes the validity of papal elections, until there is a determination by the Church of whether or not Divine Law has been violated. Ecclesiastical law, then, requires this formal determination to be made by the Church after the election.
If there were no presumptive validity of papal elections, then Catholics would never have assurance that they have a true Pope, for any ecclesiastical impediment would operate to nullify his election. This would cripple the Church.
In summary, ecclesiastical law presumes we have a valid Pope unless the Church formally declares otherwise. These ecclesiastical provisions serve the Divine Law and the Church’s unicity and indefectibility. They also reflect the wisdom of the Church which recognizes that determining formal heresy is a sensitive matter requiring great caution and prudence – especially when dealing with a claimant to the papal throne.
Sorry, but John Salza has been roundly refuted not just on this point, but on many others, too:
Unfortunately for Salza, Canon 2223 §3, par. 4 does not speak about the validity of elections, papal or otherwise, but about the time when a superior is obliged to declare that an automatic penalty has been incurred:
Generally, the declaring of an automatic penalty is committed to the prudence of the Superior; but a declaratory sentence must be given either at the request of an interested party or when so required by the common good.
Note that whether the automatic penalty is declared or not has no bearing on its having been incurred, so that Salza’s case once again crumbles, for, supposing Salza’s understanding of this canon to be sound and relevant, it would mean only that the superior (who would that be?) has the obligation to declare that the papal claimant has automatically excommunicated himself for heresy; it would not in any way change the status of the heretic-posing-as-Pope.
(As an aside: Keep in mind once more that this canonico-theological mess Salza is dishing up is being argued entirely on his own authority – he does not quote canonists, theologians, or other secondary sources; he goes straight to the primary sources of Church law and doctrine and does all the interpreting himself. Can he not find any Church authorities at all who agree with his interpretation?)
But there is yet another problem for Mr. Salza: Despite his best efforts at canon law, apparently he missed Canon 2227, which expressly states that only the Roman Pontiff can impose or declare penalties against cardinals, and that cardinals are excluded from penal law. This is a problem for Salza because he just argued that Canon 2223 §3, par. 4 requires a declaratory sentence to be issued against a heretical cardinal-thought-to-be-Pope. But if such a cardinal – or the cardinal(s) “judging” him – are excluded from penal law, then this canon has no relevance. Besides, since only the Pope can judge a cardinal, considering that this heretic was thought to be the Pope, there obviously is no true Pope who could judge the cardinal. If we suppose that Salza is referring to a future true Pope, then he cannot argue that this is necessary for the good of the Church on the grounds that we must “know whether we have a valid Pope,” since at that point we would have a valid Pope, and all he’d have left to do is clean up the mess of the prior, invalid one.
(From "The Chair Is Still Empty"; http://www.novusordowatch.org/the_chair_is_still_empty.htm (http://www.novusordowatch.org/the_chair_is_still_empty.htm))
-
Regarding whether he actually was, I've heard the allegations regarding both him and Pope Paul VI, but I don't think they have actually ever been proven. I know Padre Pio wrote a letter to Pope Paul VI in 1968 and in every way regarded him as Pope. Archbishop Sheen also personally knew every Pope from Pius XII to John Paul II and he didn't think any one of them was a Freemason.
Padre Pio still said that Paul VI was a Mason. Archbishop Sheen left Tradition after Vatican II, and then returned to it before his death.
Not really. Principles of Catholic theology as laid down by Doctors of the Church may be ignored on the basis of the times we live in? St.Alphonsus said we may safely and *rightly* presume that God will *never* let it happen, which is pretty clearly a guiding principle for all time.
God has already let it happen... using your logic, we should even presume innocence if Benedict said something like "Abortion is ok" or "The First Vatican Council was wrong" (he actually did imply that in one of his writings). Sorry, but I'm not going to make cheap excuses for Rome apostates.
Regarding cuм Ex, that's been answered before, by John Salza, from the governing law of the Church currently in force, according to sedevacantists, the 1917 Code of Canon law.
What katholikos posted.
John Salza spends too much time debating sedevacantism. He needs to debate things that are important (i.e the Bogus Ordo).
-
Very weak argument. Pope Paul IV said in 1559 that a Pope's election could very well be invalid even with the acceptance of all the Cardinals.
Not talking about the acceptance of all the Cardinals, but rather the acceptance of the whole Church.
-
Whoever is elected and accepts first, is Pope. Period.
If such a thing actually happened then it would be impossible for the whole Church to accept anyone else as Pope. As Card. Billot points out, acceptance by the whole Church is an infallible sign that the Pope is a true Pope.
-
I cannot think of a better example of schism than the SSPX position. "Recognize but don't submit" - that, exactly, is schism.
Schism is not the refusal to obey this or that command, but the denial of the Pope's Divine right to command. Do you earnestly think that the SSPX denies the Pope's right to command?
-
Whoever is elected and accepts first, is Pope. Period.
If such a thing actually happened then it would be impossible for the whole Church to accept anyone else as Pope. As Card. Billot points out, acceptance by the whole Church is an infallible sign that the Pope is a true Pope.
Then we would next have to examine whether Cardinal Billot's view was shared by anyone else, or whether it was more of a personal view he held not shared by most others. At the same time, let us not forget that the condition Card. Billot speaks about is peaceful acceptance by the whole Church. You may be able to use that for John XXIII, but definitely not for Paul VI.
-
I cannot think of a better example of schism than the SSPX position. "Recognize but don't submit" - that, exactly, is schism.
Schism is not the refusal to obey this or that command, but the denial of the Pope's Divine right to command. Do you earnestly think that the SSPX denies the Pope's right to command?
No, on the contrary. Denying the Pope's divine right to command would be heresy, not schism. Schism, pure schism, precisely includes acceptance of his divine right to command. (See the Fr. Szal quote I posted earlier.)
And notice I didn't talk about refusal to "obey a command." I spoke about refusal of submission to the Pope. It is absolutely clear that the SSPX does not submit to Benedict XVI as required by Vatican I (though they do not deny Vatican I in theory), and they clearly do not submit to Benedict XVI the way they would to St. Pius X.
Which, of course, begs the question: Who gets to decide at what point submission must once again be given like to St. Pius X? Who gets to decide when the Pope is "okay" again and the resistance program is ending? And what if people disagree?
Let's just call a spade a spade: Regardless of what the SSPX may say in words, in practice they simply ignore the "Pope" and the local Novus Ordo hierarchy. (I used to be an SSPX adherent, so I am speaking from experience.) That is obviously not a Catholic position.
-
Sorry, but John Salza has been roundly refuted not just on this point, but on many others, too
I read your article just now, but I believe the folks at NOW have misunderstood the argument.
The reason why Salza believes sedevacantists are “taking matters into their own hands,” allegedly “usurping” rightful ecclesiastical authority, is that he fails to distinguish the order of law from the order of fact. This is a crucial mistake.
But this is not the case. If such a declaration came, it would lay out that the pontificate was void from the beginning, ab initio, or never valid. So Salza is not mistaking the order of law and the order of fact. In the order of fact, the person in question (the heretic excommunicated) was never Pope. But this must be laid out by the competent authority in order for it to become known.
I should also point out that Catholics have never speculated about antiPopes unless there have been at least two visible and credible claimaints to the Papal throne. This is more in vogue with historical precedents and also seems to be suggested by "perpetual successors" of Vatican I because there is a sucessor even as we are confused as to who it is.
To this you have responded using St.Bernard's criteria that someone else may have been elected first, before Pope John XXIII presumably, but this is problematic for several reasons. First, because whoever it is would presumably be dead, and moreover there is a law of the Church that Cardinals appointed in pectore or secretly cannot function as Cardinals unless publicly revealed by the Pope before the latter's death. The problem, then, remains. Second, because any reason alleged against the Popes following the Council would probably apply to such a person too by his silence for over 50 years now, which is unthinkable in the face of what has happened.
-
Padre Pio still said that Paul VI was a Mason.
This is a misunderstanding from a certain quote. Padre Pio wrote, "I unite myself with my brothers and present at your feet my affectionate respect, all my devotion to your august person in an act of faith, love and obedience ... renewing itself in the vitality and in the inner spirit, according to the guides of the Second Vatican Council... I know that your heart is suffering ... above all, for the lack of obedience of some, even Catholics, to the high teaching that you, assisted by the Holy Spirit and in the name of God, are giving us. Also, in the name of my spiritual children and the Prayer Groups, I thank you for your clear and decisive words that you especially pronounced in the last encyclical "Humanae Vitae"; and I reaffirm my faith, my unconditional obedience to your illuminated directions."
These are hardly the words of someone who suspected the Pope was a Mason.
Archbishop Sheen left Tradition after Vatican II, and then returned to it before his death.
Archbishop Sheen was always greatly distressed by false interpretations, but he himself preached the Faith throughout his life, bringing in Protestants, drug addicts and even Communists like Bella Dodd into the Church. He spent an hour every day in Eucharistic adoration and practiced the three Hail Marys devotion night and day, he was hardly an indifferentist who didn't practice the Faith.
God has already let it happen...
In your opinion. And precisely why, if St.Alphonsus is right, your opinion is wrong.
using your logic, we should even presume innocence if Benedict said something like "Abortion is ok" or "The First Vatican Council was wrong" (he actually did imply that in one of his writings).
I understand why you draw the conclusions you do, but in my opinion, it is a rationalistic conclusion. You believe that anything is possible, hence your hypothetical question, but in my interpretation, some things are absolutely not possible.
In any case, it falls by right not to laymen acting on their own authority, but to the Roman clergy to make the determination. And in the absence of such a determination, it is not prudent to maintain sedevacantism in my opinion.
John Salza spends too much time debating sedevacantism.
Salza actually said sedevacantists are schismatic. Obviously, I don't agree with him there.
Of course you disagree, but to me, sedevacantism is the soft option, the easy answer. "If it's not my Church, I don't have to bothered with it" no matter in what dire straits it is.
I think those who do acknowledge it is actually still the Church which is being so horribly devastated by faithless priests, by poor catechesis, by horrendous abuses, by scandalous celebrations, by shocking indifference, feel the real pinch of the problem she is in, which, humanly speaking, is beyond hope.
-
But this is not the case. If such a declaration came, it would lay out that the pontificate was void from the beginning, ab initio, or never valid. So Salza is not mistaking the order of law and the order of fact. In the order of fact, the person in question (the heretic excommunicated) was never Pope. But this must be laid out by the competent authority in order for it to become known.
Two things on that, Nishant:
Salza's argument is impossible. If the non-papacy of the "Pope" could not be known until after a judgment is rendered, that means he would have to be investigated while under the assumption that he is the Pope. But no one has authority to judge a Pope, or to examine him in a trial, etc. Salza's position is impossible in the Church.
Second, Salza does not quote any Catholic authorities. He merely offers his own opinion. But his opinion is worthless if it is not backed by the Church.
That's why the article says:
Salza, in effect, argues that we cannot know what the case is (fact) unless or until we have a legal judgment from the Church (law), but this claim he does not prove; he merely asserts it. Which canonists or theologians, which theological manuals, which Church docuмents, can Salza quote to show that someone cannot be known to be a heretic unless or until the Church renders a legal judgment on the case? Did people not know Martin Luther was pertinaciously denying Church dogma until the excommunication threatened by Pope Leo X took effect? And how could Pope Leo threaten an excommunication (a matter of law) if it was not already apparent that Luther was a heretic (a matter of fact)?
[...]
Perhaps it did not occur to Salza, as another sedevacantist writer has pointed out, that it is precisely the fact that a declaratory sentence is not necessary that serves the best interests of the Church, so that no charlatan may hide behind the absence of such a declaration. And besides, when there is confusion about who has the authority to render such a declaratory sentence because it is not clear who genuinely holds the papacy, such a declaration would be of no help anyway. But regardless, since such a declaration could not come until after a true Pope has been elected at some point in the future (by cardinals appointed by the papal impostor?), for no one in the Church has the authority to judge the Pope, such a charlatan could wreak havoc in the Church undisturbed for the rest of his life, and this would be considered as being “in the best interests of the Catholic Church” for Salza.
But it gets worse still for our Wisconsin lawyer. Having first conceded that a heretical cardinal does indeed, per the divine law and cuм Ex Apostolatus, incur self-expulsion from the Church without the need for a declaration (“Pope Paul IV’s decree on the invalidity of the papal election of a heretic affirms the Divine Law that formal heresy results in self-expulsion from the Church, without the need for ecclesiastical censure” [p. 1]), he then proceeds to argue that nonetheless a declaratory sentence is required in order to know that a certain papal claimant is not a true Pope because otherwise “the Church would never know with certainty whether Divine Law has been violated, and this uncertainty would undermine the Church’s very mission and existence” (p. 3). So, apparently, then, we can have a situation in which formal heresy prevents a cardinal from being validly elected Pope, but unless the Church officially recognizes this to be so, we cannot know it to be the case. So, what does this mean as regards the status of the papal claimant? Is he Pope or isn’t he? According to Salza’s argument, he is not the Pope in reality, but since the Church hasn’t “recognized” this (can the Church be blind?), we think him to be the Pope and so, for us, he is the Pope. In other words, he would be, per Salza’s reasoning, non-Pope because of his violation of divine law through heresy; yet, he would also be Pope for the Church as long as she does not tell us he is not the Pope.
What sort of ridiculous mess is this? Is this seriously supposed to be “in the best interests” of the Church? Are we to believe that men like Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI have been essential instruments of God in “safeguarding” the mission and existence of the Catholic Church – when we all know that these monsters have been essential in doing the very opposite, namely, in corrupting, harming, defiling, minimizing, relativizing, and destroying the Mystical Body, they more than anyone else? Regardless, Salza somehow arrives at the conclusion that because Canon 2223 §3, par. 4 (he actually references it wrong) says that in order to incur a particular penalty automatically, a declaratory sentence must be given if the common good requires it, therefore, since the common good of the Church requires it (so Salza thinks – without citing any authoritative evidence, of course), there needs to be a “declaratory sentence proclaiming a Cardinal’s pre-election heresy” (p. 3).
(quoted from same article, "The Chair Is Still Empty")
So, no, I don't think Salza's argument has been misunderstood at all.
You also said:
I should also point out that Catholics have never speculated about antiPopes unless there have been at least two visible and credible claimaints to the Papal throne.
That may be so, but I have no reason to believe that this has anything to do with the essential matter at hand; it seems to me solely to be an accident of history.
This is more in vogue with historical precedents and also seems to be suggested by "perpetual successors" of Vatican I because there is a sucessor even as we are confused as to who it is.
Even if that is so, that doesn't mean Benedict is that successor. We cannot somehow shoehorn Benedict into a valid papacy simply because it somewhere says we must have a Pope (something I concede only for the sake of argument). The reasons against Benedict's claim to the papacy are independent of whether or not we must have a Pope today. The two things are not connected. If Catholic teaching says he cannot be the Pope, then we cannot turn this upside down and make him Pope just because we don't know who else could be Pope.
To this you have responded using St.Bernard's criteria that someone else may have been elected first, before Pope John XXIII presumably, but this is problematic for several reasons. First, because whoever it is would presumably be dead, and moreover there is a law of the Church that Cardinals appointed in pectore or secretly cannot function as Cardinals unless publicly revealed by the Pope before the latter's death.
But the definition of "public" is not very strict. The bar is pretty low. Even so:
The problem, then, remains. Second, because any reason alleged against the Popes following the Council would probably apply to such a person too by his silence for over 50 years now, which is unthinkable in the face of what has happened.
I will concede that this is a gigantic problem for sedevacantism, but it is not a contradiction. The question simply remains to be answered, pending more research, more evidence, more facts. I can accept a silent Pope; I cannot accept a non-Catholic Pope.
-
I cannot think of a better example of schism than the SSPX position. "Recognize but don't submit" - that, exactly, is schism.
Schism is not the refusal to obey this or that command, but the denial of the Pope's Divine right to command. Do you earnestly think that the SSPX denies the Pope's right to command?
No, on the contrary. Denying the Pope's divine right to command would be heresy, not schism. Schism, pure schism, precisely includes acceptance of his divine right to command. (See the Fr. Szal quote I posted earlier.)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm
However, not every disobedience is a schism; in order to possess this character it must include besides the transgression of the commands of superiors, denial of their Divine right to command.
Now I do agree that some members of the SSPX evince a schismatic attitude; for example, when an SSPX priest says that SSPX adherents should not adore the "Novus ordo" Host in Eucharistic processions it's clear that he is refusing communion with those subject to the Pope.
-
I consider John Paul I to have been a true pope for the 33 days he was allowed to reign. He could have had the divine virtue of Faith but so seriously infected materially with ecuмenism that the Holy Ghost, according to the promise of protecting the Church, saw to it that he would not, as a true pope, confirm Vatican II, etc. Thus we could be in the 34th year of, not vacant, but an impeded Roman See, without a true pope.
I tend to agree with you Cupertino. Pope John Paul I (Cardinal Albino Luciani) wanted to restore the traditional Latin Mass. After having a private audience with Fr. Gommar de Paux (the traditionalist priest who served as a periti in Vatican II), John Paul I desired to restore the traditional Liturgy. He wasn't fond also of Masonic cardinals and wanted to get rid of them. But sad to say, they got to him before he could do something.
There was a History International channel special on John Paul I and one of his relatives doubts he died of heart failure. One of his female relatives said that heart disease does not run in our family and that her uncle was very strict when it came to handling money. In fact, the Vatican lost billions of dollars and this would have enraged Pope John Paul I.
I think if the New Order popes had a conversion experience back to the True Faith, they'd have serious difficulty in removing Masonic cardinals from key positions. Because even Fr. Malachi Martin stated, "You remove one. That one person has supporters below him and their supporters have supporters below them too".
-
I know that this thread has gone from discussing the Thuc consecrations to sedevacantism, but the Rorate Caeli article I started a thread about has a statement that pertains to the validity of the Thuc consecrations.
With this thesis, Father de Lauriers distanced himself from Abp. Lefebvre and in 1981 was consecrated a bishop, validly, but illicitly, by the emeritus Archbishop of Hué, the Vietnamese, Pierre Martin Ngò Dinh Thuc (1897-1984).
I think it is significant that someone like de Mattei now recognizes the validity of the Thuc consecrations, because he has become a very influential figure among those writers in Italy who now openly question whether V2's teaching contradicts previous Church teaching.
-
Whoever is elected and accepts first, is Pope. Period.
If such a thing actually happened then it would be impossible for the whole Church to accept anyone else as Pope. As Card. Billot points out, acceptance by the whole Church is an infallible sign that the Pope is a true Pope.
I think Paul IV made it clear that even with the acceptance by the whole Church he could still be an antipope.
-
This is a misunderstanding from a certain quote. Padre Pio wrote, "I unite myself with my brothers and present at your feet my affectionate respect, all my devotion to your august person in an act of faith, love and obedience ... renewing itself in the vitality and in the inner spirit, according to the guides of the Second Vatican Council... I know that your heart is suffering ... above all, for the lack of obedience of some, even Catholics, to the high teaching that you, assisted by the Holy Spirit and in the name of God, are giving us. Also, in the name of my spiritual children and the Prayer Groups, I thank you for your clear and decisive words that you especially pronounced in the last encyclical "Humanae Vitae"; and I reaffirm my faith, my unconditional obedience to your illuminated directions."
That's not the quote I was refering to.
Archbishop Sheen was always greatly distressed by false interpretations, but he himself preached the Faith throughout his life, bringing in Protestants, drug addicts and even Communists like Bella Dodd into the Church. He spent an hour every day in Eucharistic adoration and practiced the three Hail Marys devotion night and day, he was hardly an indifferentist who didn't practice the Faith.
What does that have to do with what I said about him? My point was that he left Tradition after Vatican II, then returned to it. In other words, he realized that he never should have accepted the changes in the first place.
In your opinion. And precisely why, if St.Alphonsus is right, your opinion is wrong.
St. Alphonsus had no way of knowing the Church would enter a horrible crisis.
I understand why you draw the conclusions you do, but in my opinion, it is a rationalistic conclusion. You believe that anything is possible, hence your hypothetical question, but in my interpretation, some things are absolutely not possible.
So you don't believe a heretical statement from the Roman Pontiff is necessary, even though it has already happened?
In any case, it falls by right not to laymen acting on their own authority, but to the Roman clergy to make the determination. And in the absence of such a determination, it is not prudent to maintain sedevacantism in my opinion.
The sedevacantist position is based around presumption, not authority. In other words, sedes presume that such and such a man is an antipope, just as we are free to presume someone is a Saint even if they are not Canonized.
I think those who do acknowledge it is actually still the Church which is being so horribly devastated by faithless priests, by poor catechesis, by horrendous abuses, by scandalous celebrations, by shocking indifference, feel the real pinch of the problem she is in, which, humanly speaking, is beyond hope.
The Church cannot produce heresy. The Vatican II church is, as Archbishop LeFebvre put it, the "counterfeit church".
-
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm
I wish you would comment and not just dump a link on me. If there be a contradiction between the Catholic Encyclopedia and a theological dissertation approved by the Catholic University of America, you'd have to side with the dissertation, because the dissertation is an exhaustive research piece on the question of schism, written by a theologian-in-the-making to be evaluated by competent theologians. The Catholic Encyclopedia is just a brief reference work even for laity.
Let me repeat the four conditions outlined by Fr. Szal for pure schism:
1) One must withdraw directly (expressly) or
indirectly (by means of one's actions) from obedience
to the Roman Pontiff, and separate oneself
from ecclesiastical communion with the rest of the
faithful, even though one does not join a separate
schismatical sect;
2) one's withdrawal must be made with obstinacy
and rebellion;
3) the withdrawal must be made in relation to
those things by which the unity of the Church is
constituted;
4) despite this formal disobedience the schismatic
must recognize the Roman Pontiff as the true
pastor of the Church, and he must profess as an article
of faith that obedience is due the Roman Pontiff
In all honesty, I cannot see how this does not fit the SSPX, under their supposition that Benedict XVI is the Pope.
-
Salza's argument is impossible. If the non-papacy of the "Pope" could not be known until after a judgment is rendered, that means he would have to be investigated while under the assumption that he is the Pope. But no one has authority to judge a Pope, or to examine him in a trial, etc. Salza's position is impossible in the Church.
Second, Salza does not quote any Catholic authorities. He merely offers his own opinion. But his opinion is worthless if it is not backed by the Church.
Well, let me address each in turn, because he has written about this before. Not that I need to defend him, he can do that himself, but because it is relevant to what we are discussing.
Instead, the Church has indicated that such a determination would have to be made in a formal, official capacity such as the invocation of an ecuмenical council. This is the teaching of Sts. Anthony of Florence and Alphonsus Liguori, the latter being a doctor of the Church. In fact, this has been the practice of the Church when investigating the heresy of a pope.
For example, when Pope John XXII in 1331 taught in a series of sermons that the holy souls do not see God until the Last Judgment, Cardinal Orsini called for a general council to declare the pope a heretic. As a result, the pope stated that he had not intended to bind the Church to his teaching and retracted his error the day before he died.
You see, whenever we look to history, we find the official reprimands coming from the Roman clergy, both in the primitive Church and in the Middle Ages. This is why in the absence of such required ecclesiastical adjudications, laymen may presume that this is only material error from the Popes, not formal heresy.
No one is judging the Pope, since a Pope who loses his office for heresy is merely shown to be already judged, by God. But only pertinacity can show beyond reasonable doubt that heresy is formal.
I hope I've also shown the procedure by which it is to be carried out, so I'm skipping the portion of the link you copied. Let me know if I've missed anything.
Even if that is so, that doesn't mean Benedict is that successor.
I understand where you're coming from. I don't even think your position is completely unreasonable, it is just that I think history is on my side, when I say I will not speculate about antiPopes unless I see or hear a credible report of at least two, as I said of visible and credible claimants to the Petrine See.
I will concede that this is a gigantic problem for sedevacantism, but it is not a contradiction.
Great. The thing is, if there were two or more persons, then it is not only legitimate, it is our right and duty to find out who is the true successor. In the absence of such a thing, it is by no means clear that it falls to us, rather than the Roman clergy, to determine the loss of office. Material error owing to a variety of circuмstances, and a weak Pope as Peter was weak during the passion, is to me the more likely explanation.
-
Nishant, you talk as if you never heard these quotes before.
I've always agreed by them. The Pope loses his office the instant he falls into heresy. He is treated as a heretic only after the Church determines this so, in accord with the word of Our Lord (Mat 18:17) and your own quote "he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church - i.e., by an oecuмenical council of the College of Cardinals."
Do you know also that the Church was, centuries ago, without a pope for a couple of years when heresy was not involved?
I think a lengthy interregnum is unlikely, but I do not rule out the possibility entirely. But if it does happen, it will not happen in the circuмstances you are speaking of, but if the Cardinals are separated due to war or other difficulties, and so are unable to convene in conclave. I do not accept that the person the Cardinals tell us is Pope can be simply rejected as such, us believing we are still in an interregnum.
Do you know the fact that the Church can be reduced to a handful?
Certainly.
That the Church is going to hide from the face of the Antichrist?
Undoubtedly, but equally undoubtedly those days are not upon us just yet, for Our Lady's promise of a temporal peace must come first before the days of AntiChrist and the end of all things to follow.
Yes, all these situations can exist separately, or all together.
What seems unlikely to exist together is that we have an antiPope without having a true Pope he is opposed by. This is the morally certain position, not the other one, for it is proved by historical precedent. The contrary opinion also reduces "perpetual successors" to utter meaninglessness.
-
I've always agreed by them. The Pope loses his office the instant he falls into heresy. He is treated as a heretic only after the Church determines this so, in accord with the word of Our Lord (Mat 18:17) and your own quote "he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church - i.e., by an oecuмenical council of the College of Cardinals."
The only way the Church can judge the pope is if he is a manifest heretic. You are at odds with Bellarmine, as has been shown multiple times.
The problem today is there is nobody who will judge him.
-
17. "On account of the distinction as explained [between sedes and sedens], in so far as the Apostolic See can never fail in its permanence by divine right and law, but the individual occupants [sedentes], being mortal, fail at intervals, the APOSTOLIC SEE ITSELF, as the necessary foundation and center of unity of the Church can never be called in doubt without heresy; but it can happen sometimes, in great disturbances, and it is evident from history that it has happened, that many men, while holily keeping the Faith and veneration towards the Apostolic See as true Catholics, without their own fault are not able to acknowledge the one seated in the Apostolic See, and therefore while in no way falling into heresy, slip into schism, which however is not formal but only material. Thus in the lamentable disturbance throughout forty years, from Urban VI until Gregory XII [the Great Western Schism], Catholics were split into two and then three obediences, as they were then called, while all acknowledged and revered the divine rights of the Apostolic See; nevertheless, not acknowledging the right of the one seated in the Apostolic See, from invincible ignorance of the lawful succession [i.e. as to which claimant was the lawful successor] and thus adhering either to no one, or to a pseudo-pontiff. Among these, even saints such as St. Vincent Ferrer for a time, and his brother Boniface, a Carthusian Prior, were implicated in material schism."
-
I've always agreed by them. The Pope loses his office the instant he falls into heresy. He is treated as a heretic only after the Church determines this so, in accord with the word of Our Lord (Mat 18:17) and your own quote "he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church - i.e., by an oecuмenical council of the College of Cardinals."
The only way the Church can judge the pope is if he is a manifest heretic. You are at odds with Bellarmine, as has been shown multiple times.
The problem today is there is nobody who will judge him.
"The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom (de auctor. papae et con., cap. 20 et 21) the manifestly heretical Pope is not "ipso facto" deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended. For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is "ipso facto" deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate - which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ. Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us?
The fact is that only those with jurisdiction can act, and even then they can only act if the pope is a manifest heretic (because he's separated himself from the Church by his manifest heresy) . They are the ones who take action, not us.
-
The only way the Church can judge the pope is if he is a manifest heretic. You are at odds with Bellarmine, as has been shown multiple times.
I respectfully disagree. Tell me, how would you explain the example of Cardinal Orsini and Pope John XXII I gave above? Did he not lose his office on account of the heresies he spouted in his sermons?
No, because formal and manifest heresy is determined by persisting obstinately in it. This is why when his error was confronted, he recanted, and that was the end of the matter.
Chris Ferrara writes,
The renowned Sixteenth Century theologian Francisco Suarez, called a pious and eminent theologian (eximius et pius) by Pope Paul V, explained the principle of resistance to a wayward Pope thus:
And in this second way the Pope could be schismatic, if he were unwilling to be in normal union with the whole body of the Church, as would occur if he attempted to excommunicate the whole Church, or, as both Cajetan and Torquemada observe, if he wished to overturn the rites of the Church based on Apostolic Tradition … If [the Pope] ... gives an order contrary to right customs, he should not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be lawful to resist him ...
It is remarkable that in the 16th Century an esteemed theologian would matter-of-factly discuss the possibility that the Pope could be guilty of schismatic acts his own subjects would be forced to resist. But nowhere does Suarez teach that any member of the faithful, even a priest or bishop, may declare that a Pope is actually in schism and has ceased to be the Roman Pontiff. On the contrary, Suarez speaks entirely in terms of resisting one who remains the Pope despite his schismatic acts.
The problem today is there is nobody who will judge him.
The fact that the Roman clergy in our day have not issued such a determination only strengthens the position that the Popes have merely fallen into material error, not formal heresy.
Among these, even saints such as St. Vincent Ferrer for a time, and his brother Boniface, a Carthusian Prior, were implicated in material schism.
I acknowledge the authority of the Cardinal cited, but I disagree there was even a material schism. Other authors have expressed that view as well, and the reason is because this does not rise to the level of the required conditions for a schism, even materially.
From this brief summary it will be readily concluded that this schism did not at all resemble that of the East, that it was something unique, and that it has remained so in history. It was not a schism properly so called, being in reality a deplorable misunderstanding concerning a question of fact, an historical complication which lasted forty years. In the West there was no revolt against papal authority in general, no scorn of the sovereign power of which St. Peter was the representative. Faith in the necessary unity never wavered a particle; no one wished voluntarily to separate from the head of the Church. Now this intention alone is the characteristic mark of the schismatic spirit (Summa, II-II, Q. xxxix, a. 1).
For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is "ipso facto" deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate - which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence.
And where pray tell, am I in opposition to this? In fact the example of Cardinal Orsini and Pope John XXII bolsters this view. Because the Pope respected the admonition of his Cardinal, he was not implicated for formal heresy.
The fact is that only those with jurisdiction can act, and even then they can only act if the pope is a manifest heretic (because he's separated himself from the Church by his manifest heresy) . They are the ones who take action, not us.
That is precisely what I'm saying. The Roman clergy make the determination (of a separation that has already happened), but not individuals on their own authority. I would go further in saying the lay faithful are allowed to presume innocence with regard to any accusation, because the formal determination that the See is vacant is not theirs to make.
-
Nishant,
I apologize, but for some reason the message board technology won't render the code, so this is a bit difficult to read but I have replaced at least the block quote code with quotation marks:
"Instead, the Church has indicated that such a determination would have to be made in a formal, official capacity such as the invocation of an ecuмenical council. This is the teaching of Sts. Anthony of Florence and Alphonsus Liguori, the latter being a doctor of the Church. In fact, this has been the practice of the Church when investigating the heresy of a pope."
An imperfect council could only meet to pronounce before the law that the man who had been Pope was no longer Pope. It could not determine it, because the council could not even be called unless this was already clear, else the cardinals would be getting together in council against the authority of the Pope, which is obviously not permitted.
John Salza uses half-truths in his arguments and has extremely flimsy research behind his position. He asserts a lot, but does not prove.
"For example, when Pope John XXII in 1331 taught in a series of sermons that the holy souls do not see God until the Last Judgment, Cardinal Orsini called for a general council to declare the pope a heretic. As a result, the pope stated that he had not intended to bind the Church to his teaching and retracted his error the day before he died."
That's a perfect example of a half-truth. Pope John XXII was not guilty of heresy because the teaching he denied in his sermons was not a dogma. He was guilty of error less than heresy; hence, he remained a Catholic, and hence Pope.
In addition, back in the 14th century there was, apparently, no real consensus yet on what a general council had the authority to do, so, while Cardinal Orsini may have held the opinion that a council could condemn the Pope, and therefore wanted to call a council, his opinion later turned out to be erroneous. St. Robert Bellarmine later listed all possible positions on the Pope heretic question, and it is clear today which opinions are acceptable and which ones are no longer.
"You see, whenever we look to history, we find the official reprimands coming from the Roman clergy, both in the primitive Church and in the Middle Ages. This is why in the absence of such required ecclesiastical adjudications, laymen may presume that this is only material error from the Popes, not formal heresy."
Not so. Fr. Swoboda says in his canonical study on ignorance and the imputability of delicts:
"For example, ignorance would not be presumed on the part of one who is versed in the law, or on the part of one who holds an office, in regard to the things pertaining to his office. It is for this reason also that even though ignorance is proved, it will be judged crass and non-excusing in these cases."
(Swoboda, Ignorance, pp. 185-186)
"I hope I've also shown the procedure by which it is to be carried out, so I'm skipping the portion of the link you copied. Let me know if I've missed anything."
Please summarize it for me, but I can tell you right now that my response is going to be this: Any sort of "procedure" to investigate the Pope for heresy to determine whether he is a Roman Catholic or not, is impossible, because no one has the authority to go against the Pope, and therefore it could be done only under the supposition that the "Pope" is not the Pope any longer -- in which case the procedure would be unnecessary.
"Great. The thing is, if there were two or more persons, then it is not only legitimate, it is our right and duty to find out who is the true successor."
I'm all for finding the true Pope. If you have any suggestions, let me know.
"In the absence of such a thing, it is by no means clear that it falls to us, rather than the Roman clergy, to determine the loss of office."
I think the problem here is the ambiguity of the term "determine." If you mean determine before the law, with all the legal bells and whistles, this probably could not be done without jurisdiction. But if you mean determine in the order of fact, that can and must be done by anyone who has the Faith, because of the seriousness of the matter: We must shun heretics. How can we do this if we can't determine who is a heretic? (See Fr. Sarda y Salvany's "Liberalism is a Sin," where he says any Catholic can determine heresy.)
Then again, remember also that canon law says that what is public and notorious is considered legally established and needs no further proof (see Canon 1747 n.1).
"Material error owing to a variety of circuмstances, and a weak Pope as Peter was weak during the passion, is to me the more likely explanation."
Please just let me refer you back to "The Chair Is Still Empty," where all this is addressed and, in my opinion, thoroughly refuted.
-
I respectfully disagree. Tell me, how would you explain the example of Cardinal Orsini and Pope John XXII I gave above? Did he not lose his office on account of the heresies he spouted in his sermons?
No, because formal and manifest heresy is determined by persisting obstinately in it. This is why when his error was confronted, he recanted, and that was the end of the matter.
Because both the heresy and the pertinacity are required to be a heretic. If the heretic is "manifest" as a heretic then his pertinacity is also manifest.
If there is no pertinacity, he's never been a heretic, no matter what was said in a sermon.
-
The fact that the Roman clergy in our day have not issued such a determination only strengthens the position that the Popes have merely fallen into material error, not formal heresy.
Or the problem is much greater than that of the "heretical pope."
-
I would like to note that the point is not the status (regarding membership of the Church) of the novus ordo claimants as private persons, but the fact that these men have completed acts that are impossible to be committed by rightful Popes of Rome. I find myself unable to submit to their 'magisterium' in good faith, seeing that the doctrine of this novus ordo entity clearly contradicts that of the Church that dwelt in the seven hilled city during the reign of His Holiness Pius XII. The theses of erudite men such as St. Robert Bellarmine dealt with the hypothesis of a Pope falling into private heresy, but they would never have asserted that a valid Pope could set up a pseudo-magisterium which could not be obeyed by the Church, attempting to seal it with the Keys of the Kingdom, to which would be added a habitual confirmation of this pseudo-magisterium for decades. Such a thing is impossible.
In other words, for me it is not so much about proving that one has fallen into heresy, but rather about the fact that recognising them for what they claim to be would, I believe, have disastrous ecclesiological implications to which I cannot subscribe in good faith.
-
Because both the heresy and the pertinacity are required to be a heretic. If the heretic is "manifest" as a heretic then his pertinacity is also manifest.
If there is no pertinacity, he's never been a heretic, no matter what was said in a sermon.
Which is precisely what I maintain in the case of Pope Benedict XVI. It's also what I said quoting the SSPX website long back, if I recall right, in this thread that "both the crime and its imputability must be notorious."
Or the problem is much greater than that of the "heretical pope."
This ignores things like the divine promise and the indefectibility of the Roman Church as interpreted by Pope St.Agatho and Pope St.Gregory even in the case of a Pope who falls into heresy. Any reprimand that could establish pertinacity must come from Rome.
An imperfect council could only meet to pronounce before the law that the man who had been Pope was no longer Pope. It could not determine it, because the council could not even be called unless this was already clear, else the cardinals would be getting together in council against the authority of the Pope, which is obviously not permitted.
The example of St.Maximus and Honorius is illustrative here. St.Maximus defended the true Faith against the Monothelites, he never cut off communion from the Roman Church, he even attempted a defense of Honorius. And very soon, Honorius was formally condemned in Council, declared anathema, meaning he had lost his office for heresy.
But notice what was important - keeping and defending the Faith, not declaring the See vacant, and even defending the person of the Pope from the charge of being a formal heretic before the determination was made as St.Maximus did was seen as entirely lawful. Pope Leo II confirmed the condemnation.
That's a perfect example of a half-truth. Pope John XXII was not guilty of heresy because the teaching he denied in his sermons was not a dogma. He was guilty of error less than heresy; hence, he remained a Catholic, and hence Pope.
It was laid out in the profession of faith of Michael Palaeologus in 1274, a full 50 years before this incident. That is why the Cardinal rightly knew it was heresy, and since he was next in ecclesiastical rank, it rightly devolved on him to make the threat. Since there was no pertinacity, but only material error, on the part of the Pope, this was heeded and that was the end of it.
In addition, back in the 14th century there was, apparently, no real consensus yet on what a general council had the authority to do, so, while Cardinal Orsini may have held the opinion that a council could condemn the Pope, and therefore wanted to call a council, his opinion later turned out to be erroneous. St. Robert Bellarmine later listed all possible positions on the Pope heretic question, and it is clear today which opinions are acceptable and which ones are no longer.
The 1887 docuмent the Holy Office approved quoted earlier? The teaching of St.Alphonsus Ligouri?
"For example, ignorance would not be presumed on the part of one who is versed in the law, or on the part of one who holds an office, in regard to the things pertaining to his office. It is for this reason also that even though ignorance is proved, it will be judged crass and non-excusing in these cases."
It is not ignorance that is presumed, but innocence, until the moral imputability of the crime is proven in the external forum. The comparison with other members of the episcopate fails because any of them can be removed or reinstated in the mystical body without a problem but the Pope holds a nominal role as head that is unique, and moreover canon law does not apply to him simply and without qualification.
Please summarize it for me
I maintain Cardinal Orsini's procedure is still valid for our time. Please explain to me also whether you think what happened to Pope Liberius was a correct determination? Also, St.Robert in my reading of him says they did not sin in doing so, however they still acted imprudently and Pope Liberius never truly lost his pontificate in the order of fact. Do you disagree?
I'm all for finding the true Pope. If you have any suggestions, let me know.
I don't think there is one. There were one or two reports among the Cardinals, but mostly it came to naught.
We must shun heretics. How can we do this if we can't determine who is a heretic? (See Fr. Sarda y Salvany's "Liberalism is a Sin," where he says any Catholic can determine heresy.)
Like I've said, the Pope is unique and canon law cannot be said to apply to him without qualification. In the case of Bishops or other prelates, I agree with what is said here.
-
Which is precisely what I maintain in the case of Pope Benedict XVI. It's also what I said quoting the SSPX website long back, if I recall right, in this thread that "both the crime and its imputability must be notorious."
Bellarmine says a manifest heretic. In other words the heresy and the pertinacity are external.
"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;
"2. Notorious in law, after judgment by a competent judge which has become res iudicata (cf. c. 1902), or after confession by the culprit in open court according to canon 1750;
"3. Notorious in fact, if it is publicly known and was committed under such circuмstances that no maneuver can conceal nor any legal defense excuse it;
"4. Occult, if not public; materially occult if the crime itself is hidden, formally occult if its imputability is hidden.
-
Or the problem is much greater than that of the "heretical pope."
This ignores things like the divine promise and the indefectibility of the Roman Church as interpreted by Pope St.Agatho and Pope St.Gregory even in the case of a Pope who falls into heresy. Any reprimand that could establish pertinacity must come from Rome.
Pertinacity doesn't come only from a reprimand from authority. Here's the CE on heresy:
The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.
-
I would like to note that the point is not the status (regarding membership of the Church) of the novus ordo claimants as private persons, but the fact that these men have completed acts that are impossible to be committed by rightful Popes of Rome. I find myself unable to submit to their 'magisterium' in good faith, seeing that the doctrine of this novus ordo entity clearly contradicts that of the Church that dwelt in the seven hilled city during the reign of His Holiness Pius XII. The theses of erudite men such as St. Robert Bellarmine dealt with the hypothesis of a Pope falling into private heresy, but they would never have asserted that a valid Pope could set up a pseudo-magisterium which could not be obeyed by the Church, attempting to seal it with the Keys of the Kingdom, to which would be added a habitual confirmation of this pseudo-magisterium for decades. Such a thing is impossible.
In other words, for me it is not so much about proving that one has fallen into heresy, but rather about the fact that recognising them for what they claim to be would, I believe, have disastrous ecclesiological implications to which I cannot subscribe in good faith.
:applause:
-
When I held the sedevacantist position, I learnt that how office of the Pope functions:
Whether the Pope is mean, power-hungry, lustful, greedy, he is to obeyed when he speaks in faith and morals or when he legislate laws for the Church.
For example, Pope Alexander VI canonized St. Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury, as a saint in our Church. Pope Alexander VI was a corrupt pope, who was notorious in holding sex orgies. However, in spite of his corrupt personal life, the Church obeyed his decrees when he exercised his Papal office.
No Pope is to be opposed simply because he's mean. For example, if Pope Paul VI was a truly a Catholic pope, then the Society of St. Pius X is officially a suspended religious order. The Pope may remove an archbishop or remove faculties from a particular priest or bishop.
He holds executive powers (the power to govern and to enforce laws), legislature powers (the power to make laws or to undo laws), and judicial powers (the power to interpret laws according to his authority).
For example, when Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre told Paul VI, "I'm interpreting Vatican II according to the light of tradition", the latter scolded him and said, "The interpretation of the Council comes from Our Apostolic Authority".
That is why sedevacantism is a rational conclusion and opinion, because we acknowledge that the Roman Pontiff enjoys dictatorial rule over the Church. All are obliged to obey him under pain of damnation when the Bishop of Rome exercises his Papal Office under Faith and Morals.
Should a Pope teach heresy or fall into public heresy or schism, the clergy and faithful are obliged to not follow him. This doesn't apply if the Pope was mean, greedy, or a murderer because contemptuous character does not sever a Roman Pontiff from the Church save for public heresy, public schism, or public apostasy.
Very well put. You speak of as SV as if you held it in the past but no longer. Can't imagine you still don't if you hold to the above. Am I missing something?
-
Have the people that claim to wonder about the Thuc-line consecrations read this?
http://thucbishops.com/
If not then they are not really concerned whether they are valid or not.
-
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm
I wish you would comment and not just dump a link on me. If there be a contradiction between the Catholic Encyclopedia and a theological dissertation approved by the Catholic University of America, you'd have to side with the dissertation, because the dissertation is an exhaustive research piece on the question of schism, written by a theologian-in-the-making to be evaluated by competent theologians. The Catholic Encyclopedia is just a brief reference work even for laity.
Let me repeat the four conditions outlined by Fr. Szal for pure schism:
1) One must withdraw directly (expressly) or
indirectly (by means of one's actions) from obedience
to the Roman Pontiff, and separate oneself
from ecclesiastical communion with the rest of the
faithful, even though one does not join a separate
schismatical sect;
2) one's withdrawal must be made with obstinacy
and rebellion;
3) the withdrawal must be made in relation to
those things by which the unity of the Church is
constituted;
4) despite this formal disobedience the schismatic
must recognize the Roman Pontiff as the true
pastor of the Church, and he must profess as an article
of faith that obedience is due the Roman Pontiff
In all honesty, I cannot see how this does not fit the SSPX, under their supposition that Benedict XVI is the Pope.
Right on! Or to summarize:
Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (UNAM SANCTAM, Pope Boniface VIII)
The SSPX has raised flocks of people who believe we can and should disobey the Pope, i.e. those with a schismatic attitude and they truly believe this attitude is what makes them true Catholics. The irony is Satanic.
-
Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (UNAM SANCTAM, Pope Boniface VIII)
You might want to remind the novus ordo and their ilk of the above quote, since by acknowledging the Conciliar "popes" they contradict the past over 250 true popes including St. Peter.
-
Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (UNAM SANCTAM, Pope Boniface VIII)
You might want to remind the novus ordo and their ilk of the above quote, since by acknowledging the Conciliar "popes" they contradict the past over 250 true popes including St. Peter.
You bet!
But the "conservative" NO's are more consistent than the SSPX types in that they obey whom they acknowledge as all good Catholics must.
-
Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (UNAM SANCTAM, Pope Boniface VIII)
You might want to remind the novus ordo and their ilk of the above quote, since by acknowledging the Conciliar "popes" they contradict the past over 250 true popes including St. Peter.
You bet!
But the "conservative" NO's are more consistent than the SSPX types in that they obey whom they acknowledge as all good Catholics must.
Except there's more to be truly Catholic than being "consistent." Do you prefer the more logical "novus ordo" type to somebody who, despite all the confusion, still has the Faith?
-
Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (UNAM SANCTAM, Pope Boniface VIII)
You might want to remind the novus ordo and their ilk of the above quote, since by acknowledging the Conciliar "popes" they contradict the past over 250 true popes including St. Peter.
You bet!
But the "conservative" NO's are more consistent than the SSPX types in that they obey whom they acknowledge as all good Catholics must.
Except there's more to be truly Catholic than being "consistent." Do you prefer the more logical "novus ordo" type to somebody who, despite all the confusion, still has the Faith?
No. The SSPXers are far more Catholic, from the exterior point of view, than the "conservative" NOers.
It seems to me that they are doing what they believe to be right. I know an indultee, however, that alwaw wears a dress or skirt to the ankles and long sleeves. It is a women yes. :roll-laugh1:
But some traditionalists, SV or not, play dress up on Sundays and dress like the pagans the rest of the week. Watch the same TV and movies. Put their young girls in make-up, earings, teach them vanity at a ripe young age. Flirt with men at work, dump their kids off at day-care all that pagan stuff. Yet some indultees are 100% Catholic during their visible life here on earth.
Now the more consistent or logical type can still have the faith as some NO's do. But I feel, for what that is worth, that the SSPXers are in fact more Catholic, generally speaking than the NOs.
Plus, the vast majority of time, they have valid Sacraments. And that is a damn important thing to have and a HUGE distinction between them and the NOs.
The SSPXers of good will acknowledge heretics to be the head of their Church because they feel they must. They feel the contrary would be schismatic and imperil their souls. In this respect forcing themselves to acknowledge him while acting as if he is not is praise-worthy so long as they are not culpably ignorant of knowing that not submitting to a Pope as they don't, in the objective realm, is what puts their souls in peril.
-
Bellarmine says a manifest heretic. In other words the heresy and the pertinacity are external.
That the Holy Father sometimes errs I grant, that he is pertinacious and that this has been established, I do not. You say his pertinacity is external. How so?
In the case of what he said about the Quran after his remarks on Mohammedanism caused a stir, for example, he may have done so out of a variety of reasons, say, because nuns were killed as a result of it. So even if he may have appeared to have said something objectively false, he may have done so out of pressure as St.Peter did. Holy writers say that St.Peter never became an apostate even though he denied Our Lord outwardly out of pressure and fear. It is somewhat analogous.
Similarly in other situations, there may be extenuating circuмstances. That is why it does not rise to the level that ""no maneuver can conceal nor any legal defense excuse it". In other words, not notorious.
Bouscaren said:
"Classification as to Publicity. A crime is:
I would say it could be argued that if they were crimes, then the crimes of Pope John XXII on denying the particular Judgment were formally occult. Otherwise, why didn't he lose his office even before his reprimand? And if so, then the same applies here, the personal imputability of the offense is in no way evident and therefore can be considered hidden.
The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.
True enough, but since you quote the Catholic Encyclopedia to make the point, the same volume also contains articles that say specifically,
It is also generally held, and rightly, that questions of dogmatic fact, in regard to which definite certainty is required for the safe custody and interpretation of revealed truth, may be determined infallibly by the Church.
Such questions, for example, would be: whether a certain pope is legitimate, or a certain council ecuмenical, or whether objective heresy or error is taught in a certain book or other published docuмent.
And they also speak of an acephalous council of the world's bishops being competent to make such determinations in extraordinary situations.
-
So even if he may have appeared to have said something objectively false, he may have done so out of pressure as St.Peter did. Holy writers say that St.Peter never became an apostate even though he denied Our Lord outwardly out of pressure and fear. It is somewhat analogous.
Nishant, this denial was before he was given the spiritual supremacy.
He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. [17] He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep. [John 21:17] [Latin] [18] Amen, amen I say to thee, when thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself, and didst walk where thou wouldst. But when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and lead thee whither thou wouldst not. [19] And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had said this, he saith to him: Follow me. [20] Peter turning about, saw that disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also leaned on his breast at supper, and said: Lord, who is he that shall betray thee?
[17] Feed my sheep: Our Lord had promised the spiritual supremacy to St. Peter; St. Matt. 16. 19; and here he fulfils that promise, by charging him with the superintendency of all his sheep, without exception; and consequently of his whole flock, that is, of his own church.
-
No. The SSPXers are far more Catholic, from the exterior point of view, than the "conservative" NOers.
It seems to me that they are doing what they believe to be right.
If I may add my five cents (inflation!) here for a moment:
The question, "Who is more Catholic? The SSPXer or the conservative Novus Ordo?", is a most curious one, and difficult to answer properly. Let me illustrate:
(1) The conservative Novus Ordo adherent is right (and therefore more Catholic) in his acceptance of the principles regarding the Magisterium, the papacy, and the Church's teaching and ruling authority. He adheres to the same principles in this regard as the sedevacantist does. But because he is mistaken about the identity of the Pope and the Church, i.e., because he is wrong about who the Pope is and where the Church is, and instead accepts a heretic for the Pope and a heretical body for the Magisterium, he is therefore drawn into heresy and other error. Hence, though he is right about the authority of the Pope and Church, he is wrong about who these are, and thereby falls into grievous error and heresy. For him, it's (the false) Pope first, then the Faith.
(2) The SSPX adherent is right in his acceptance of the content of the Faith, in almost all parts. He adheres, basically, to the Faith taught before the death of Pope Pius XII, but because he, like the Novus Ordo, is mistaken about the identify of the Pope and the hierarchy, he realizes that there is a disconnect between the (in his mind) true Pope and hierarchy and the Faith of the Ages. He "solves" this problem by modifying some Church doctrines and dogmas (authority of the Magisterium, papal primacy/jurisdiction, etc.), which in practice really means that he simply IGNORES the "Pope" and the "Church" whenever he thinks it necessary to safeguard his faith. For him, it's the Faith first (sort of), then the (false) Pope.
Neither position is truly Catholic. The error in both is that the Pope is no longer connected to the True Faith - an impossibility. (Vatican I declared that the Holy See cannot fail, and that true doctrine is always celebrated there.) One decides to give up the Faith for the Pope, whereas the other decides to give up the Pope for the Faith.
Only the sedevacantist escapes the dilemma: By recognizing that there can be no Pope who does not have the Faith, nor the Faith without submission to the Pope, he must necessarily conclude that, in order to keep the Faith intact, the only possible solution is that the men who have claimed to be Catholic Popes since 1958, cannot have been true Popes, and the entire church they led, cannot be the Catholic Church.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the whole story in a nutshell.
-
True enough, but since you quote the Catholic Encyclopedia to make the point, the same volume also contains articles that say specifically,
It is also generally held, and rightly, that questions of dogmatic fact, in regard to which definite certainty is required for the safe custody and interpretation of revealed truth, may be determined infallibly by the Church.
Such questions, for example, would be: whether a certain pope is legitimate, or a certain council ecuмenical, or whether objective heresy or error is taught in a certain book or other published docuмent.
This merely goes to show that we're not just dealing with the question of a false Pope, but also the question of a false church. This whole problem does not merely concern one man. It concerns the entire Novus Ordo establishment.
-
That the Holy Father sometimes errs I grant, that he is pertinacious and that this has been established, I do not. You say his pertinacity is external. How so?
In the case of what he said about the Quran after his remarks on Mohammedanism caused a stir, for example, he may have done so out of a variety of reasons, say, because nuns were killed as a result of it. So even if he may have appeared to have said something objectively false, he may have done so out of pressure as St.Peter did.
Nishant, the problem here is that "may have" isn't good enough. We know about the nature and motive of the sin of St. Peter because God has revealed them to us. Here's what a canon law study says on the matter of what we ought to presume regarding internal facts:
"Since subjective or internal facts cannot be proved by merely external arguments, they can be established only by presumptions and conjectures. The presumption is, moreover, in accord with common experience. Ordinarily it is assumed that when a man performs an action he is in possession of his faculties, that is, that he knows what he is doing and realizes the ordinary implications, both physical and moral, of his own conduct."
(Rev. Innocent Robert Swoboda, Ignorance in Relation to the Imputability of Delicts (http://www.novusordowatch.org/the_chair_is_still_empty.htm) [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1941], p. 180)
Your defense basically amounts to, "No, don't consider him a heretic, because he may have had good motives in spouting heresy." That's not how it works in the Church. Remember that even St. Pius X said we cannot judge the modernists' hearts, but at the same time, he condemned them as heretics/apostates. (Pascendi, par. 3)
Besides, let's look at this from a thoroughly Catholic perspective for a moment: Which is worse? A nun being murdered for the Faith (which is martyrdom, anyway), or the faithful being given heresy by the "Pope"? Which of these is a danger to people's souls?
Lastly, for Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, he has an entire pattern of denying, minimizing, neutralizing, and attacking the Faith, ever since his his ordination or even before. Such a man is certainly not entitled to a presumption of innocence or the benefit of the doubt. This was not a "one-off" for this man, but simply yet another salvo in his efforts to "raze the bastions" of Catholicism.
-
Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (UNAM SANCTAM, Pope Boniface VIII)
You might want to remind the novus ordo and their ilk of the above quote, since by acknowledging the Conciliar "popes" they contradict the past over 250 true popes including St. Peter.
You bet!
But the "conservative" NO's are more consistent than the SSPX types in that they obey whom they acknowledge as all good Catholics must.
Indeed!
-
No. The SSPXers are far more Catholic, from the exterior point of view, than the "conservative" NOers.
It seems to me that they are doing what they believe to be right.
If I may add my five cents (inflation!) here for a moment:
The question, "Who is more Catholic? The SSPXer or the conservative Novus Ordo?", is a most curious one, and difficult to answer properly. Let me illustrate:
(1) The conservative Novus Ordo adherent is right (and therefore more Catholic) in his acceptance of the principles regarding the Magisterium, the papacy, and the Church's teaching and ruling authority. He adheres to the same principles in this regard as the sedevacantist does. But because he is mistaken about the identity of the Pope and the Church, i.e., because he is wrong about who the Pope is and where the Church is, and instead accepts a heretic for the Pope and a heretical body for the Magisterium, he is therefore drawn into heresy and other error. Hence, though he is right about the authority of the Pope and Church, he is wrong about who these are, and thereby falls into grievous error and heresy. For him, it's (the false) Pope first, then the Faith.
(2) The SSPX adherent is right in his acceptance of the content of the Faith, in almost all parts. He adheres, basically, to the Faith taught before the death of Pope Pius XII, but because he, like the Novus Ordo, is mistaken about the identify of the Pope and the hierarchy, he realizes that there is a disconnect between the (in his mind) true Pope and hierarchy and the Faith of the Ages. He "solves" this problem by modifying some Church doctrines and dogmas (authority of the Magisterium, papal primacy/jurisdiction, etc.), which in practice really means that he simply IGNORES the "Pope" and the "Church" whenever he thinks it necessary to safeguard his faith. For him, it's the Faith first (sort of), then the (false) Pope.
Neither position is truly Catholic. The error in both is that the Pope is no longer connected to the True Faith - an impossibility. (Vatican I declared that the Holy See cannot fail, and that true doctrine is always celebrated there.) One decides to give up the Faith for the Pope, whereas the other decides to give up the Pope for the Faith.
Only the sedevacantist escapes the dilemma: By recognizing that there can be no Pope who does not have the Faith, nor the Faith without submission to the Pope, he must necessarily conclude that, in order to keep the Faith intact, the only possible solution is that the men who have claimed to be Catholic Popes since 1958, cannot have been true Popes, and the entire church they led, cannot be the Catholic Church.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the whole story in a nutshell.
Very succinctly stated.
-
Only the sedevacantist escapes the dilemma: By recognizing that there can be no Pope who does not have the Faith, nor the Faith without submission to the Pope, he must necessarily conclude that, in order to keep the Faith intact, the only possible solution is that the men who have claimed to be Catholic Popes since 1958, cannot have been true Popes, and the entire church they led, cannot be the Catholic Church.
While this is true, it leads to another dilemma. Where is the Church?
-
Only the sedevacantist escapes the dilemma: By recognizing that there can be no Pope who does not have the Faith, nor the Faith without submission to the Pope, he must necessarily conclude that, in order to keep the Faith intact, the only possible solution is that the men who have claimed to be Catholic Popes since 1958, cannot have been true Popes, and the entire church they led, cannot be the Catholic Church.
While this is true, it leads to another dilemma. Where is the Church?
But this is not a dilemma, only a difficulty. It is a question I cannot answer with certainty, but also not necessarily something I must be able to answer with certainty. We already know where the Church is not--in the Vatican, for example. Let us remember that we don't solve the difficulty of "Where is the Church?" by pointing to a false church and saying, "Here she is." That doesn't solve anything. On the contrary.
I think the times we live in are comparable to Holy Saturday. The Apostles were standing in front of a closed tomb, perhaps thinking, "Now what? How can God die?" We are simply required to believe, not necessarily to solve or answer all questions. While some on Holy Saturday may have been tempted to go the "quick fix" route of providing a false answer, such as, "He wasn't really God" or "He didn't really die," the right solution was to believe and persevere.
Let us do likewise.
-
The example of St.Maximus and Honorius is illustrative here. St.Maximus defended the true Faith against the Monothelites, he never cut off communion from the Roman Church, he even attempted a defense of Honorius. And very soon, Honorius was formally condemned in Council, declared anathema, meaning he had lost his office for heresy.
But notice what was important - keeping and defending the Faith, not declaring the See vacant, and even defending the person of the Pope from the charge of being a formal heretic before the determination was made as St.Maximus did was seen as entirely lawful. Pope Leo II confirmed the condemnation.
For questions like this one, I caution against simply drawing conclusions from popular historical accounts. St. Robert Bellarmine, for example, believed that the whole issue about Pope Honorius was based on forged manuscripts (see http://www.eclipseofthechurch.com/HonoriusCalumny.htm (http://www.eclipseofthechurch.com/HonoriusCalumny.htm)).
We must look at what theologians have said about the matter, for they were extremely well-learned in these things. In particular, I would be interested in reading about the disputations at the First Vatican Council regarding the case of Pope Honorius I.
It was laid out in the profession of faith of Michael Palaeologus in 1274, a full 50 years before this incident.
That's nice, but that doesn't make it a dogma, to deny which would be heresy and thus make the denier a non-Catholic. That's a crucial difference. No one denies that what Pope John XXII preached was wrong - but it wasn't incompatible with his claim to be a valid Pope.
That is why the Cardinal rightly knew it was heresy, and since he was next in ecclesiastical rank, it rightly devolved on him to make the threat.
You've been reading too much John Salza. :-) No inferior can issue a canonically valid warning. Only a superior can.
The 1887 docuмent the Holy Office approved quoted earlier? The teaching of St.Alphonsus Ligouri?
I don't know specifically what sentences you are referring to. The worst possible scenario is that Cardinal Orsini was simply wrong.
It is not ignorance that is presumed, but innocence, until the moral imputability of the crime is proven in the external forum.
Yes, but you're leaving out the fact that moral imputability is sometimes presumed, so that the burden of proof falls on the defendant to prove that he was not morally imputable. This is only reasonable:
"Since subjective or internal facts cannot be proved by merely external arguments, they can be established only by presumptions and conjectures. The presumption is, moreover, in accord with common experience. Ordinarily it is assumed that when a man performs an action he is in possession of his faculties, that is, that he knows what he is doing and realizes the ordinary implications, both physical and moral, of his own conduct."
(Rev. Innocent Robert Swoboda, Ignorance in Relation to the Imputability of Delicts [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1941], p. 180)
You go on to say:
The comparison with other members of the episcopate fails because any of them can be removed or reinstated in the mystical body without a problem but the Pope holds a nominal role as head that is unique, and moreover canon law does not apply to him simply and without qualification.
I am disturbed by your use of the phrase "nominal role." What do you mean? In any case, I fail to understand your point here.
I maintain Cardinal Orsini's procedure is still valid for our time. Please explain to me also whether you think what happened to Pope Liberius was a correct determination? Also, St.Robert in my reading of him says they did not sin in doing so, however they still acted imprudently and Pope Liberius never truly lost his pontificate in the order of fact. Do you disagree?
One would first have to establish with certitude the facts surrounding Pope Liberius. Once it is established with certitude that he defected from the Faith pertinaciously, then, yes, of course you would have to consider him to no longer be Pope. You simply cannot have a non-Catholic Pope. Whether or not the determination by those St. Robert Bellarmine speaks of was rash or prudent, I have no idea. All I can say is that if it was rash, it was wrong; if it was not rash, it was right. The point being that forsaking a heretic was right in theory; whether or not that was actually the case with Pope Liberius is, strictly speaking, a side issue.
I don't think there is one. There were one or two reports among the Cardinals, but mostly it came to naught.
I don't know of a true Pope either. Regardless, we must not presume to know all there is to know about this. It would be foolish, in my opinion.
Like I've said, the Pope is unique and canon law cannot be said to apply to him without qualification. In the case of Bishops or other prelates, I agree with what is said here.
But divine law applies to the Pope nonetheless. And as you know, there is no requirement of canonical warnings in divine law.
-
Sedevacantism, all told, seems to be the least likely solution to the crisis. :) For any difficulty that can be alleged to a contrary position, there are more than one that can be demonstrated for the sedevacantist position. For the record, I incline to the FSSP view myself. Here are four dilemmas for the sedevacantist position, which we haven't even scraped the surface of yet.
1: The indefectibility of the Roman Church: This is taught by Pope St.Agatho ("this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error ... from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself") and Pope St.Gregory VII ("the Roman Church has never erred and never will err till the end of time, the Scripture bearing witness"). If this is the case, it could be said that sedevacantism stems from a loss of faith in the divine promise.
2: The loss of ordinary jurisdiction: All Bishops consecrated without explicit Papal approval cannot exercise ordinary jurisdiction. This is well known, and I'll back it up if need be. So, practically nobody has ordinary jurisdiction today, only supplied jurisdiction can be claimed for matters relating to the sacraments. This has been the case for 53 years. So not only can no one can say who is subject to whom, or whom should everyone rally around and be in communion with, but this creates still greater problems which brings me to my next point.
3: The absence of a principle of unity: If "independent" Bishop A splits from "independent" Bishop B, who is in schism from the Church and who remains in communion with her? No one can say, because it's not just a matter of an interregnum here, but like I said, a wholesale rejection of communion with the Roman Church itself which always maintains ordinary power over every other Church ("by divine ordinance" - Vatican I). This absence of a visible principle of unity also makes it impossible to tell who is in schism from whom and who is not. Ordinarily, anyone who separates from the Pope and the Bishops subject to him or someone who separates from Rome in an interregnum are identified to be in schism.
4: Conclavism: Continuing, we see for example that after Pope Liberius was declared deposed, very soon after Felix II was elected. This is only logical. In fact, most of the sedevacantists of yesterday are the conclavists of today. If it is recognized with absolute and infallible certainity, as is being claimed here, that "the Pope is not the Pope", then the logical and immediate thing to do is diligently elect a new Pope, not wait indefinitely, nor even less speculate there may be another unknown Pope somewhere else (especially someone who would have died by now, any Cardinals appointed in pectore being unable to function as such anyway), and especially for others when it is anyway known there are no more Cardinals now if the last 5 Popes have been invalid. This would also help address the problems of jurisdiction created and all that were mentioned above. So that begs the question, if sedevacantism was true yesterday, why isn't conclavism true today? Or why aren't you electing new Popes or subjecting yourself to one such already elected?
5. Marks: Needless to say, sedevacantism does not depict any of the marks of the Church, especially unity (much less "Catholic unity and unconquerable stability" - Vatican I), usually and predictably splintering into any number of sects not infrequently at variance with each other and often wrapped in internecine and unprofitable conflicts.
This is not to pick on them, I understand many, even home-aloners are probably trying to do their best. But it remains a fact that sedevacantists cannot in any way show themselves to possess all the necessary and exclusive marks of the true Church, and it can even be said that these necessary marks indeed disqualify them from laying any claim to it.
In light of all this, truly insurmountable *dilemmas* I would think, the *difficulties* faced by traditional groups which remain more or less in communion with the Pope pale to utter insignificance.
Katholikos, let me reply to what you said.
Nishant, the problem here is that "may have" isn't good enough.
I said what I did in response to something specific that SJB had said. I'm not denying what you said about this, but I was giving an example of a "maneuver" or "legal defense" that the definition he provided referrred to.
But before we even come to investigating Pope Benedict XVI personally, the more important premise, the major of the whole thesis ("everyone must absolutely make that determination in case a Pope appears to have fallen into heresy") must be solidly established first, so harping about the minor ("the Pope appears to have fallen into heresy") does not prove anything without that.
If instead of the major premise, something like "every member of the Catholic faithful is free to defend the Pope from the charge of being a heretic even if he is wrong" of course without embracing the heresy in question himself is true, then the whole dogmatic sedevacantist thesis collapses. This I believe is what St.Maximus did.
We must look at what theologians have said about the matter, for they were extremely well-learned in these things. In particular, I would be interested in reading about the disputations at the First Vatican Council regarding the case of Pope Honorius I.
St.Robert is generally held to be mistaken in good faith about the historical facts on this point. He was concerned about those who used such incidents to deny the Pope's authority which he rightly defended. They did this all the way up to the First Vatican Council. But after it was once and for all decided by the Church, there was no danger in saying that Honorius was a heretic so long as the dogma indirectly involved, of Papal infallibility as such, is not denied. The Catholic Encyclopedia, a publication a 100 years ago, after the Council plainly says Honorius was certainly a heretic and Catholics need not defend him from that charge now.
That's nice, but that doesn't make it a dogma, to deny which would be heresy and thus make the denier a non-Catholic.
It could be argued that the doctrine in question was already universally taught by the ordinary Magisterium infallibly and so could not be called into question obstinately without the forfeiture of membership in the Church. That is why it was in a profession of Faith.
You've been reading too much John Salza. :-) No inferior can issue a canonically valid warning.
Not a canonically valid one, no, as I said in this thread long ago. :) But one that the situation and the supreme law of the Church nonetheless urgently demands, yes.
Those in competent positions who can act in the name of the Church must make the binding determination. Those who are not cannot make the determination then usurp that authority by pretending it to be binding and then finally and fancifully declare themselves alone the Church for doing so. That is the real "ridiculous mess" your article speaks of and the whole situation turns out to be quite amusing.
Yes, but you're leaving out the fact that moral imputability is sometimes presumed, so that the burden of proof falls on the defendant to prove that he was not morally imputable.
Yes any person especially a Pope would be entitled to rebut the presumption and I would argue as the SSPX website says, "socially as regards loss of office etc it must be proven, not presumed". In the absence of this chance for the person in question to defend himself from specific charges, one can hold the presumption as an opinion, not rashly treat it as a sort of infallibly certain superdogma in the light of which all else is to be judged, in my opinion, and wait to see if that presumption can be acted upon to go to the extent of judicial proof. I would go back to the historical example, and say Cardinal Orsini made the presumption, and because the Pope changed his mind and accepted the rebuke of the Cardinal, the presumption was relaxed.
One would first have to establish with certitude the facts surrounding Pope Liberius.
Haha. I think this is the real shifting of the burden of proof. It comes down to this, in the reading of history that even most Catholic theologians before Vatican II subscribed to, there are no precedents from which the dogmatic sedevacantism position can be deduced, and many that seem to render it implausible.
Of course we can go back and forth about history ad nauseam with nothing "established with certitude" unless we are willing to admit the majority opinion of theologians as determinative. I think on Pope Liberius, Honorius and Pope John XXII, I am in line with what Catholic theologians say, the Catholic Encyclopedia says and the Holy Office said.
Moreover, if it is even possibly true (i.e. a permissible reading of history) that Honorius was a heretic and Maximus who died defending him is a Saint not a heretic, dogmatic sedevacantism is necessarily false.
So when all of this is considered, sedevacantism especially of the dogmatic variety becomes the least likely position and so other options must be considered within the pale of the Church and under Pope Benedict XVI.
-
Hi Nishant, what you explain is quite clear and more or less what I have held to be true in the past. But in the current situation it appears to me that the political and spiritual Church are not always one and the same. For example, when SSPX were "excommunicated" this was merely a political matter, I hope you agree, and in retrospect this was never binding. Yet many bishops in the political Church are clearly public heretics, obstinate and proud, let alone vile sinners, and while politically they still hold power, spiritually they are defunct. Are we to hold these bishops in higher regard than those who have Orthodoxy and Orthopraxis but not political union?
Now say that a Bishop in Exampleville who is an Orthodox patriarch turns out to have exactly the same completely correct beliefs as a Bishop in Sampleville who is under Pope Benedict, they are spiritually united, as both are valid bishops, neither is heretical, but they are separated politically - be it under Canon Law or however you wish to put it. Perhaps they will or won't unite, for whatever reason, but until they do they are merely separated on earth and not in Heaven. Or am I mistaken?
I'm saying this because I can see the day coming, perhaps soon, that we will as a result of violence be left with a remnant, no Pope, and little in the way of political structure. The Church can survive a long time without a Pope, and just because one day down the track a new Pope is elected by all known remaining Bishops in an enclave, does not mean that bishops who later pop up out of the jungle were not in communion the entire time.
-
But before we even come to investigating Pope Benedict XVI personally, the more important premise, the major of the whole thesis ("everyone must absolutely make that determination in case a Pope appears to have fallen into heresy") must be solidly established first, so harping about the minor ("the Pope appears to have fallen into heresy") does not prove anything without that.
If instead of the major premise, something like "every member of the Catholic faithful is free to defend the Pope from the charge of being a heretic even if he is wrong" of course without embracing the heresy in question himself is true, then the whole dogmatic sedevacantist thesis collapses. This I believe is what St.Maximus did.
Nishant, considering that the Pope has no superior on earth, it must necessarily be possible, at least in theory, for each and every member of the Church to ascertain public pertinacious defection from the Faith (just as he can with any other individual, not just the one claiming to be the Pope). That there might be borderline cases here and there where it's not entirely clear whether or not there is pertinacity, this is irrelevant to our case at hand because here the evidence for pertinacity is overwhelming. In other words, we don't need to worry about exactly where to draw the line of demarcation simply because wherever that line might need to be drawn, it's definitely been crossed!
Secondly, pertinacity may not even matter. At the end of the day, you cannot have a Pope who does not profess the Catholic Faith. Whether he does so innocently or not, is secondary, according to a theological opinion. The majority opinion of dogmatic theologians is that even material heretics are not members of the Church.
Regarding your minor premise - yes, you are free to defend a papal claimant if you think he is the Pope, but at the end of the day, everything needs to be grounded in evidence and in reality. In other words, defenses must be reasonable. For example, arguing that Ratzinger doesn't know that separation of Church and state is against Catholic teaching, is ludicrous.
St.Robert is generally held to be mistaken in good faith about the historical facts on this point. He was concerned about those who used such incidents to deny the Pope's authority which he rightly defended. They did this all the way up to the First Vatican Council. But after it was once and for all decided by the Church, there was no danger in saying that Honorius was a heretic so long as the dogma indirectly involved, of Papal infallibility as such, is not denied. The Catholic Encyclopedia, a publication a 100 years ago, after the Council plainly says Honorius was certainly a heretic and Catholics need not defend him from that charge now.
Again, I caution people to simply go by the Catholic Encyclopedia on such a touchy subject, and leave it at that. To attempt to draw a parallel with Pope Honorius I and the likes of Joseph Ratzinger, Giovanni Montini, and Karol Wojtyla is absurd on its face. I suggest that the best sources on the subject of the Pope Honorius question are the writings that were penned after Vatican I by recognized Church authorities who witnessed the discussions at the council on this topic. To use the Honorius case to defend the idea that a Pope can be a heretic and remain Pope, is not warranted.
It could be argued that the doctrine in question was already universally taught by the ordinary Magisterium infallibly and so could not be called into question obstinately without the forfeiture of membership in the Church. That is why it was in a profession of Faith.
Let's just cut through all the fog and go straight to the real thing: If you can give me any approved dogmatic theologian since Vatican I who taught (with the Church's approval) that Pope John XXII was a heretic and did not cease to be Pope, please quote him, and I will consider it.
Not a canonically valid one, no, as I said in this thread long ago. :) But one that the situation and the supreme law of the Church nonetheless urgently demands, yes.
But if it's not canonically valid, then it can have no impact on canon law. Please show me where Church law says an inferior can issue a warning against a superior and it having any sort of effect.
Those in competent positions who can act in the name of the Church must make the binding determination.
But that's just the point. If the "Pope" is valid, then no one can make a binding determination, for no one can bind the Pope or bind someone else against the Pope's authority. Nor could they act in the name of the Church against the Pope's approval.
Those who are not cannot make the determination then usurp that authority by pretending it to be binding and then finally and fancifully declare themselves alone the Church for doing so.
But nobody does that! No sedevacantist I know of tries to "usurp" legal authority in the Church. You, like Salza, confuse the order of law with the order of fact. Not everything is a matter of law. And nobody declares himself the Church. No, it simply follows with logical necessity that the Conciliar Establishment in the Vatican cannot be identical to the Roman Catholic Church of Pope Pius XII.
Yes any person especially a Pope would be entitled to rebut the presumption and I would argue as the SSPX website says, "socially as regards loss of office etc it must be proven, not presumed".
The "Pope" cannot rebut the presumption because that would mean there is an ecclesiastical trial to which the Pope could be subjected. Impossible. Heretical. The First See is judged by no one. Second, what your defense really amounts to is saying that it is per se impossible to convict the "Pope" of heresy because, ultimately, he being the Supreme Ruler, he can always acquit himself. Or who would be in a position to decide whether the "Pope's" rebuttal was conclusive?
The whole argument that it would first have to be "determined" by cardinals or whoever that the Pope is pertinacious is an impossible argument. It would only hold water if it is conceded that the "Pope" in question has already lost the papacy, else he could not be judged. So, if anything, your argument actually works in favor of sedevacantism.
Look, the point is that you cannot really use Church law against a Pope, since the Pope is technically above Church law anyway. You need to go beyond the legal stuff and look at what Church law is actually trying to accomplish: identify those who do not profess the Catholic Faith as non-Catholics, at the very least if it is clear that they know the Catholic Faith and still refuse to profess it.
And that's the whole point. Ratzinger is the last person on earth who could plead "inculpable ignorance" on Catholic theology.
In the absence of this chance for the person in question to defend himself from specific charges, one can hold the presumption as an opinion, not rashly treat it as a sort of infallibly certain superdogma in the light of which all else is to be judged, in my opinion, and wait to see if that presumption can be acted upon to go to the extent of judicial proof.
Please realize that the entire sedevacantist position can be proved even without accusing a single person of heresy, simply by showing that the Novus Ordo church has done things the Catholic Church cannot do. John Daly's talk at a conference in 2002 explained this very well. It has since been transcribed and given the title, "The Impossible Crisis," here:
http://www.thefourmarks.com/articles.htm#crisis (http://www.thefourmarks.com/articles.htm#crisis)
Haha. I think this is the real shifting of the burden of proof. It comes down to this, in the reading of history that even most Catholic theologians before Vatican II subscribed to, there are no precedents from which the dogmatic sedevacantism position can be deduced, and many that seem to render it implausible.
Try the case of Antipope Anacletus II. Pope Innocent II was the true Pope. Again, if you can show me any time in history where a Pope was a heretic and yet still had a valid papacy, let me know.
Of course we can go back and forth about history ad nauseam with nothing "established with certitude" unless we are willing to admit the majority opinion of theologians as determinative. I think on Pope Liberius, Honorius and Pope John XXII, I am in line with what Catholic theologians say, the Catholic Encyclopedia says and the Holy Office said.
You're moving way too fast here. First, let's agree that we cannot use the Catholic Encyclopedia alone to "settle" anything. It's not a magisterial docuмent. I will quote it on occasion, but only to underscore a point, never to be the binding last word on anything. Second, you speak of the majority opinion. Perhaps I haven't followed all of the posts recently, but it would be good if you could list which theologians you are referring to, but it would have to be theologians during or after Vatican I, for obvious reasons. As for the Holy Office, I don't know what you're referring to.
Moreover, if it is even possibly true (i.e. a permissible reading of history) that Honorius was a heretic and Maximus who died defending him is a Saint not a heretic, dogmatic sedevacantism is necessarily false.
No. After establishing that Honorius was a heretic, you would then have to prove that he still retained the papacy during and after his heresy.
So when all of this is considered, sedevacantism especially of the dogmatic variety becomes the least likely position and so other options must be considered within the pale of the Church and under Pope Benedict XVI.
A church that isn't Catholic, a Pope who isn't a Catholic, a Pope who isn't the highest authority in the Church - is not the Catholic Church, no matter what the difficulties may be with sedevacantism.
I will reply to the other things you said later today.
-
Sedevacantism, all told, seems to be the least likely solution to the crisis. :) For any difficulty that can be alleged to a contrary position, there are more than one that can be demonstrated for the sedevacantist position. For the record, I incline to the FSSP view myself.
The FSSP stance is WRONG. They celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass, sure. But in doing so, they sell out to modernist Rome. They unite themselves with the very people responsible for the crisis in the Church. Archbishop LeFebvre gave a great sermon in 1988 about such groups (he wasn't talking about the FSSP since they weren't around at the time, but his sermon would certainly apply to them). I believe I posted his sermon before for you to read. He stated that such groups are "doing the handwork of the devil" or something to that affect, because they unite themselves with modernist Rome. I'd post the sermon again but I don't remember where I found it.
The indefectibility of the Roman Church: This is taught by Pope St.Agatho ("this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error ... from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself") and Pope St.Gregory VII ("the Roman Church has never erred and never will err till the end of time, the Scripture bearing witness"). If this is the case, it could be said that sedevacantism stems from a loss of faith in the divine promise.
This actually gives credibility towards the sedevacantist thesis. If you truly believe that this church of Vatican II is the true Catholic Church, you must accept Vatican II, Benedict XVI, and the Novus Ordo because the Catholic Church cannot produce a sacreligious Mass or a heretical council. The Vatican II church, however, is not the true Catholic Church. It is, as Archbishop LeFebvre stated, "the counterfeit church".
The loss of ordinary jurisdiction: All Bishops consecrated without explicit Papal approval cannot exercise ordinary jurisdiction.
Sorry, but it would have been wrong for ABL to NOT have Consecrated the four Bishops, to give an example. The whole "He went against JPII's demands" argument is bullcrap.
This absence of a visible principle of unity also makes it impossible to tell who is in schism from whom and who is not. Ordinarily, anyone who separates from the Pope and the Bishops subject to him or someone who separates from Rome in an interregnum are identified to be in schism.
Vatican II separated itself from the true Catholic Church. Therefore, they are the ones in schism.
So that begs the question, if sedevacantism was true yesterday, why isn't conclavism true today? Or why aren't you electing new Popes or subjecting yourself to one such already elected?
This is nothing more than a nonsense question that has nothing to do with the serious issues at hand. Laypeople cannot elect a Pope.
Marks: Needless to say, sedevacantism does not depict any of the marks of the Church, especially unity (much less "Catholic unity and unconquerable stability" - Vatican I), usually and predictably splintering into any number of sects not infrequently at variance with each other and often wrapped in internecine and unprofitable conflicts.
Does Vatican II contain any of the Marks of the Church? Was Vatican II's theology in-line with Catholic teaching? Is there unity in the Vatican II church, or is it a mixed bag? Your argument swings both ways, Nishant, and it's swinging against you.
St.Robert is generally held to be mistaken in good faith about the historical facts on this point.
So a Saint is mistaken? Who has more theological knowledge? You or the Saints?
So when all of this is considered, sedevacantism especially of the dogmatic variety becomes the least likely position and so other options must be considered within the pale of the Church and under Pope Benedict XVI.
So in other words, I should submit to a heretical counterfeit church headed by a manifest heretic? That is sheer insanity.
-
SS, I think if you had the opportunity to know some of the FSSP clergy you would not be so convinced they are wrong.
The ones I have known are very holy, trying to save souls in the crisis. They are almost miraculous in their zeal for souls. all things considered.
-
SS, I think if you had the opportunity to know some of the FSSP clergy you would not be so convinced they are wrong.
The ones I have known are very holy, trying to save souls in the crisis. They are almost miraculous in their zeal for souls. all things considered.
I actually watch an FSSP Mass every Sunday.
I never said the FSSP wasn't Catholic. I said their position is wrong.
-
Sedevacantism, all told, seems to be the least likely solution to the crisis. :) For any difficulty that can be alleged to a contrary position, there are more than one that can be demonstrated for the sedevacantist position. For the record, I incline to the FSSP view myself. Here are four dilemmas for the sedevacantist position, which we haven't even scraped the surface of yet.
Quick clarification: A thousand difficulties do not make a single contradiction. On the other hand, one single contradiction (absurdity/impossibility) suffices to show a position to be false.
1: The indefectibility of the Roman Church: This is taught by Pope St.Agatho ("this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error ... from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself") and Pope St.Gregory VII ("the Roman Church has never erred and never will err till the end of time, the Scripture bearing witness"). If this is the case, it could be said that sedevacantism stems from a loss of faith in the divine promise.
Not in the least. It is precisely because the sedevacantist agrees with this that he knows the Novus Ordo church cannot be the Catholic Church. For example: To be Novus Ordo, he would be obliged to renounce the Catholic doctrine on the Social Kingship of Christ, in favor of religious liberty. These two doctrines are contradictory and so they cannot both be true and not both be held. One of them must be false. But it is clear that religious liberty is false. Ergo...
2: The loss of ordinary jurisdiction: All Bishops consecrated without explicit Papal approval cannot exercise ordinary jurisdiction. This is well known, and I'll back it up if need be. So, practically nobody has ordinary jurisdiction today, only supplied jurisdiction can be claimed for matters relating to the sacraments. This has been the case for 53 years. So not only can no one can say who is subject to whom, or whom should everyone rally around and be in communion with, but this creates still greater problems which brings me to my next point.
I will agree that the problem of jurisdiction is the greatest problem, or one of the greatest. Probably more study and research is required on the subject. However, we do not solve this problem by granting jurisdiction to the bishops of the Novus Ordo church, for they do not even profess the Catholic faith.
3: The absence of a principle of unity: If "independent" Bishop A splits from "independent" Bishop B, who is in schism from the Church and who remains in communion with her?
Both are required to be in communion with the Holy See. THAT is the principle of unity, and that is what keeps the Church together. In the absence of a Pope and during a period in which the Holy See is eclipsed, it is only to be expected that confusion should reign. As long as both submit to the Holy See (i.e. to the Pope until October 9, 1958), I see no problem of schism at all. Again, this difficulty is not resolved by declaring a non-Catholic to be Pope - and especially not if we then insists that despite this, this "Pope" can be contradicted and resisted by anyone.
No one can say, because it's not just a matter of an interregnum here, but like I said, a wholesale rejection of communion with the Roman Church itself which always maintains ordinary power over every other Church ("by divine ordinance" - Vatican I).
No, there is only a rejection of communion with the false church.
This absence of a visible principle of unity also makes it impossible to tell who is in schism from whom and who is not. Ordinarily, anyone who separates from the Pope and the Bishops subject to him or someone who separates from Rome in an interregnum are identified to be in schism.
Yes, and since you cannot accuse any sedevacantists of that, you cannot accuse them of schism.
4: Conclavism: Continuing, we see for example that after Pope Liberius was declared deposed, very soon after Felix II was elected. This is only logical. In fact, most of the sedevacantists of yesterday are the conclavists of today. If it is recognized with absolute and infallible certainity, as is being claimed here, that "the Pope is not the Pope", then the logical and immediate thing to do is diligently elect a new Pope, not wait indefinitely,
Funny - the very same people who chastise sedevacantists for not electing a Pope also chastise those who do "elect a Pope." We just can't win here, apparently. Nishant, the matter is a bit more complicated than just "electing a Pope." One would first need to declare with legal authority that the Holy See is vacant (arguably, Bp. Thuc did that in 1982); then one would have to know with certitude who can be considered a Roman Catholic (this is difficult today for obvious reasons); then one would have to know who is and isn't allowed to participate in an election; and then one would have to know that one has the legal authority to elect a successor. There is way too much doubt here for anyone to produce a certainly valid Pope. And the last thing we need is another doubtful Pope.
nor even less speculate there may be another unknown Pope somewhere else (especially someone who would have died by now, any Cardinals appointed in pectore being unable to function as such anyway),
You're assuming that any such cardinals would have been "in pectore." But not necessarily so. If the Pope divulges the names/identities of the cardinals, even just to a few, then they would no longer be in pectore. Speculating about a true Pope somewhere is a lot better than insisting that a public non-Catholic is the Pope and then resist him.
and especially for others when it is anyway known there are no more Cardinals now if the last 5 Popes have been invalid. This would also help address the problems of jurisdiction created and all that were mentioned above. So that begs the question, if sedevacantism was true yesterday, why isn't conclavism true today? Or why aren't you electing new Popes or subjecting yourself to one such already elected?
As I explained above.
5. Marks: Needless to say, sedevacantism does not depict any of the marks of the Church, especially unity (much less "Catholic unity and unconquerable stability" - Vatican I), usually and predictably splintering into any number of sects not infrequently at variance with each other and often wrapped in internecine and unprofitable conflicts.
Well, if the principle of unity is missing, then it would only stand to reason that some unity is lost, no? This does not make sedevacantism false; it actually shows it to be consistent and vindicates the papacy. At least we have a reason for a lack of unity in certain non-essential things: we have no Pope. You guys, on the other hand, have a Pope (so you think), and you still have chaos. The SSPX is the perfect example of running a parallel church on the side.
Sedevacantists are united on all matters of faith and morals they need to be united in. If you think otherwise, please give me an example of where they are divided. All of the "controversial" issues today - from Thuc bishops to una cuм Masses to the Holy Week rites - are things people can legitimately disagree on as long as their disagreement is based on sound evidence and reasoning.
In light of all this, truly insurmountable *dilemmas* I would think, the *difficulties* faced by traditional groups which remain more or less in communion with the Pope pale to utter insignificance.
I like this: "more or less in communion with the Pope." :-) See if you can find any magisterial docuмents that allows people to be in communion with the Holy See "sort of."
None of what you have pointed to is a dilemma - a difficulty, yes, but not a dilemma.
-
Nishant said:
The Catholic Encyclopedia, a publication a 100 years ago, after the Council plainly says Honorius was certainly a heretic and Catholics need not defend him from that charge now.
Since this is just one mistake I won't assume anything from it, but SSPX articles are full of blatant errors just like yours here.
Catholic Encyclopedia on Honorius I:
"It is true that the words of Honorius are inconclusively though not necessarily, heretical. Unfortunately the Monophysites habitually argued in just the same inconclusive way, from the fact that Christ could have no rebellious lower will, to prove that His Divine and human will were not distinct faculties. No doubt Honorius did not really intend to deny that there is in Christ a human will, the higher faculty; but he used words which could be interpreted in the sense of that heresy, and he did not recognize that the question was not about the unity of the Person Who wills, nor about the entire agreement of the Divine Will with the human faculty, but about the distinct existence of the human faculty as an integrant part of the Humanity of Christ."
In other words he was ambiguous in a way that savored of heresy, he didn't defend the faith strongly enough. The reason people argue about whether he was or was not a heretic is because he sinned by omission, not by commission. It's not clear, and never will be clear to anyone on this Earth because we can't read hearts. We can only speculate. But at worst, he was a private heretic. There is no formal recorded proof of his being a heretic; he just failed to defend the faith vigorously enough.
Isn't it interesting how you are so quick to label Honorius a heretic, so eager to denigrate him, while making one excuse after the next for people like Benedict who are on record saying things that don't just savor of heresy, but really are heretical, and who commit acts of blasphemy like at the Blue Mosque?
What Honorius did, being mealy-mouthed and ambiguous in a way that smacks of heresy, is something Benedict does almost every time he speaks or writes. Even then, sedes don't declare him a heretic on that basis. We declare him a heretic based on the relatively few times -- but it's enough -- where he unmistakeably crossed the line.
We are being more prudent towards him than you are towards Honorius, in your attempt to explain away the contradictory SSPX position. Isn't it sad that the SSPX position makes you scour Church history in desperation to prove a Pope was a manifest heretic? First you say this abomination known as VII is the real Church, which is tantamount to calling Christ a liar, since you are saying His spotless bride could lead people into error; then you go around trying to show that Popes were heretics. Think about it.
There are two questions here: What is the Church, and who is the Pope? The Council contains heretical statements that could not come from the true Catholic Church, so if you reject VII as the Church while accepting JPII or Paul VI as Pope, as ABL seemed to sometimes -- not that he was consistent -- then what are they the Pope OF?
Some say that JPII, Paul VI, and Benedict are heads of VII, in the way that Protestant pastors are heads of mega-churches which are not the true Church, while being materially heads of the true Church, which is in the shadows and which they have driven essentially underground... This is the sedeprivationist position. They say that Benedict is materially Pope, but not formally, meaning that he could become Pope again if he converted to the true faith. They would say his election is valid, from which they conclude -- controversially -- that he is now materially the true Pope of the true Church, but will formally become Pope if he abjures his heresies and becomes Catholic. But for now, like the sedevacantists, they say he has fallen outside the Church through heresy.
But leaving that aside, besides this Council which could not possibly be ratified by the true Church, we know that Benedict was a heretic before his election, his books are full of heresy, and by the tenets of cuм Ex Apostolatus he cannot be Pope. There is also the fact that a manifest heretic simply loses his office, as has been pointed out many times. John XXII was given some time and recanted his errors, but JPII never recanted after saying "the Old Testament has never been revoked." By his actions, visiting ѕуηαgσgυєs and the Wailing Wall, being a rampant Judaizer -- and we all know that great numbers of those in VII believe that Jews will be saved despite rejecting Christ, meaning these errors are rampant and are protected under JPII and Benedict -- gave no reason why we should believe that he just made a simple mistake.
Not to mention that any Catholic, let alone the Pope, would be expected to know that the Old Covenant is very much dead! Heresies simply don't get any more severe. Even saying "I worship Satan" is not worse than this; to say the Old Covenant is still valid is denial of Christ. If people could be saved by the Old Covenant, then there was no reason why Christ had to die. This is a vile heresy, the most vile imaginable, that reduces the faith to rubble, cutting it off right at the root.
So if you want to be even slightly logical while saying that JPII or Benedict is Pope, you'd have to be a sedeprivationist, the SSPX position doesn't work.
-
Katholikos, I owe you a more detailed response, which I'll get to later today hopefully, but here is what you asked for, regarding theologians on papal infallibility and Honorius, from that same article I cited.
at the time of the Vatican Council Honorius figured in every pamphlet and every speech on ecclesiastical subjects. The question has not only been debated in numerous monographs, but is treated by the historians and the theologians, as well as by the professed controversialists. Only a few typical views need here be mentioned.
On the other hand the chief advocates of papal infallibility, for instance, such great men as Melchior Canus in the sixteenth century, Thomassinus in the seventeenth, Pietro Ballerini in the eighteenth, Cardinal Perrone in the nineteenth, have been careful to point out that Honorius did not define anything ex cathedra.
And for Raoul, the Encyclopedia says Honorius was a heretic "not in intention but in fact". Further, if Honorius was not a heretic, it is difficult to see how anyone could lawfully cast an anathema on him.
-
I pray for your conversion, Nishant. Please, for your souls sake, leave this erroneous mindset and see the truth about the Church and God being said here by many posters.
-
Raoul said: Isn't it interesting how you are so quick to label Honorius a heretic, so eager to denigrate him, while making one excuse after the next for people like Benedict who are on record saying things that don't just savor of heresy, but really are heretical, and who commit acts of blasphemy like at the Blue Mosque?
Great point! :applause:
-
In the past, anti-infallibilists always talked about Pope Honorius in an attempt to discredit Pontifical Infallibility. But the fact that Doctors such as St. Robert Bellarmine have rejected the claim that he was a heretic, even holding the position that forgery had taken place, should at least make it clear that you cannot now bring up Honorius here to support your arguments.
I believe that there has never been a valid Pope who was a heretic.
And I note again that the problems flowing from the present scenario since the last few decades are not about private heresy, but about a pseudo-magisterium which cannot bind the faithful. Pope St. Agatho, whom Nishant quoted, declared in a letter that none of his predecessors have failed in confirming their brethren in the faith. I confess the same, but my conclusions are different than those of Nishant.
These things will be resolved when the legitimate bearer of the Keys will reclaim what is his. You have mentioned that some have abandoned faith in the divine protection which the Roman Church enjoys in her doctrine and members, Nishant. But you cannot accuse me of this, for I believe both that she is still intact in her doctrine and religious practice, and that she still exists with clergy in a hierarchy. I simply do not know where the latter reside at present.
-
And for Raoul, the Encyclopedia says Honorius was a heretic "not in intention but in fact". Further, if Honorius was not a heretic, it is difficult to see how anyone could lawfully cast an anathema on him.
... for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.
-
Interesting that Nishant ignored most of what Raoul posted and completely ignored my post...
-
Great points, everybody. Let me reiterate that for this Honorius argument to have any force at all for Nishant, he would have to demonstrate that not only was Honorius a public heretic, but also that despite being one, he remained a valid Pope, and the "solution" for the faithful and other clergy was to simply "sift" and "resist" what was coming from the Holy See under Honorius, and that this "sifting" and "resisting" could be done by any Catholic whomsoever, or was spearheaded by some self-appointed clergy who started "babysitting" the Magisterium of Pope Honorius. (And note that even the council that condemned Honorius condemned him as "Honorius the heretic," not as "Pope Honorius the heretic"!)
The whole scenario is absurd, but if Nishant cannot do that, then his argument has no force against sedevacantism.
I always chuckle at the non-Catholic idea that a valid Pope can be "resisted" in his teachings, laws, disciplines, liturgical rites, and canonizations. If that were true, what's the purpose of the papacy? Isn't the Holy See, "always unimpaired by any error" (Vatican I) supposed to be the defender of sound doctrine and the principle of unity? What becomes of that if anyone can just ignore at all if he thinks the Pope has "defected"? Didn't Christ pray that St. Peter's faith would not fail?
Going through history, when was the last time that an individual or a group "disagreed" with the Holy See doctrinally, and the Holy See ended up being wrong? (The "negotiating" SSPX should think about that!) The Holy See is NEVER wrong on doctrine - that's the whole point! Christ gave us a beacon of orthodoxy to cling to, to guide the way, to be a perpetual light of truth and holiness.
When I left the SSPX for sedevacantism nearly 10 years ago, an SSPX parishioner told me, "Look, you just take from the Pope what is good, and you reject what is bad! What more do you want?" I couldn't believe it. How does such a position treat the Pope any differently than, say, Protestants treat their "Pastor Bob"? Don't they, too, "take what is good" from him and "reject what is bad"? Is, then, the Pope simply a glorified "Pastor Bob"?
Is that the kind of "church" Our Blessed Lord came to establish? Of course not! Instead, He gave us a Church to keep us in the truth: "Until we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ; that henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive." (Eph 4:13-14)
Thank God for giving us a truly glorious and spotless Church, and not the sorry mess that the SSPX think is the "Church" today.
-
Wow.
Ok, sorry about the delay in responding to the various posts, but it was Lent and I was busy.
Since many people have weighed in, this is going to be lengthy, and also I'm going to respond topic by topic, in order, rather than by copying line by line, because the same points are often raised by different posters.
1. The indefectibility of the Roman Church:
On the indefectibility of the Roman Church. I think the rejoinders miss the point. Cupertino, I am not saying that this by itself requires a Pope cannot by his obstinate heresy cease to be Pope. What I am saying is that in this case, he would have to be condemned and cast out by the Roman clergy for it to be maintained.
This also easily explains SJB's quote. It was the Roman clergy who at least had the right to determine such a thing, it mattered not that in this particular instance they determined it wrongly. This is very different from any and everybody deciding something personally, then treating that permissible opinion as incontrovertible fact. Rather, one should after forming that opinion then proceed to ask the Cardinals or Rome for an excommunication.
Another example, when the Greek schismatics in 1054 separated from Rome, they had all sorts of claims to make too, about Rome falling into heresy and contradicting the canons and Ecuмenical Councils regarding filioque and liturgical malpractices regarding unleavened bread and the like. How did Catholics respond? Not necessarily by engaging in lengthy discussions on those topics alone, but also by simply pointing out the proximate rule of Faith, the Church’s teaching authority as such, and that the Roman Church is indefectible and visibly so. The Greek schismatics reasoned like sedevacantists do today, that since *they have not defected* therefore the Church has not defected, which is absurd and circular on the face of it. All schismatics in history have in one way or another implied Rome has lost the Faith, and that is why this defense does not strike me as particularly compelling. And the fact that Rome has not accepted their claims for many generations should have been sufficient motive for them to reconsider even at that point.
2. Impossibility of the rule of faith
This argument is also successful in another regard. If sedevacantism in the way it is espoused today (with a wholesale rejection of communion with the Church of Rome required of the faithful) were even possible, the Catholic assent of faith owed to the Roman Magisterium in any age would be impossible. For anyone who separates from Rome may do so on the claim that Rome has fallen into and embraced heresy and deviated from the ancient and orthodox Faith (as the Greek schismatic “Orthodox” have always done and do to this day)
3. The case of Honorius:
Now, Katholikos, coming to Honorius, what his example establishes - in either case, he being a heretic, or not - is at least this much; if anyone wishes to anathematize him who by all appearances had remained Pope, they have to do it the right way, that is they have to lawfully convene in Council under legitimate authorities, (not pretend that no such authorities exist, nor anathematize everyone who disagrees on this point prior to the determination by the Church thereby making it so), then examine the issue or, at least announce what was made known through prior examination, that the pontificate was invalid beyond a point or was wholly invalid. I know this was Archbishop Lefebvre's position as well, for one, which as a whole I'll get back to later. Anyway, only after such a determination was made by the Church would all Catholics be bound to adhere to it.
4. A Council must declare what has transpired:
You object that a Pope cannot be entitled to rebut a presumption because he cannot be subjected to a canonical trial. I reply that a trial is unnecessary, merely the threat by a Cardinal to summon such a Council on account of some manifest heresy of the Pope or some such similar action dictated as a matter of prudence would suffice after which pertinacity may be reasonably presumed.
Apart from the authorities adduced for this position (St.Alphonsus, St.Anthony certainly, perhaps St.Francis de Sales, and finally also the Holy Office approved citation in 1887 that “Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church - i.e., by an oecuмenical council of the College of Cardinals.” Cupertino brought up earlier,), the contrary position you hold to entails that the more eminent the member of the body, the less rights he is entitled to, which as a matter of justice strikes me as not fitting. Yes, only divine law applies to the Pope, but to the extent that the dictates of divine law must be carried out in the visible Church, prudence must be exercised by the men who wish to show its applicability in a certain instance.
5. In case of difficulty, lawfully resisting but not pretending to declaring a Pope deposed:
Since it was brought up, regarding Pope Paul IV's statement that the Roman Pontiff "may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith."
This is a remarkable statement for two reasons: First, it confirms the constant teaching of the Church that no one may judge the First See, even when confronted with alleged papal deviations from the Faith. Second, it nevertheless admits the possibility that a Pope might deviate from the Faith while remaining Pope.
He also quotes Suarez, Cajetan and Torquemada to the same or similar effect. This is lawful, this is probable, the other is speculative, it is doubtful who has the requisite authority.
6. Sedevacantism and schism:
I do not deny that persons can suspect that the Pope is not the Pope on account of some apparently obstinate heresy of his without falling into schism. They can. What I deny is that they can usurp authority by pretending that this determination of theirs is binding. It is not. And while like I said the suspicion of Papal heresy is in itself not schismatic, and I’m sure many sedevacantists are good Catholics, this latter pretence certainly appears to me to be an objectively schismatic act, in which case at least some dogmatic sedevacantists would be schismatics.
Some say they do not pretend that sedevacantism is an article of faith, but my answer is, when you call the whole Church under Pope Benedict XVI a false Church you do exactly that. You yourself said, katholikos, so rightly that
“One would first need to declare with legal authority that the Holy See is vacant … then one would have to know that one has the legal authority to elect a successor” is exactly true and this is why I say there is no unity – there is no recognized authority. Only when the question comes to the successor, does the lack of authority become so glaringly obvious.
Was the Church which until Constantinople III had never repudiated Honorius personally a false Church? Or for that matter was the Church that recognized antipopes when there were other true Popes at the same time a false Church? No, it was still the true Catholic Church, and this matters because it is the authorities of this Church, not ones of one’s own choosing, who would have to make the legally binding declaration.
7. Unity and authority:
Again, it illustrates like I said the lack of unity in the sedevacantist world. In the Catholic Church, the unity of the episcopate is preserved by hierarchy and authority, as the Fathers said and as Vatican I taught. All consecrated bear a special bond to one another that is visibly manifested through obedience to a recognized authority. For this reason, Pope Pius XII also describes a Bishop consecrated without Papal mandate as gravely criminal and sacrilegious and an affront and attack on her unity. The reason I speak about the antipopes the conclavists elected is not because I take some sort of pleasure in this lamentable spectacle, but because it illustrates like nothing else, the complete lack of any real and meaningful unity in the sedevacantist world. It is truly, as Archbishop Lefebvre put it, "an inextricable situation".
Some "Popes" elected even claim divine intervention in their cases, what ever could convince sedevacantists finally to give up individual causes and submit to a single claimant? There are no recognized authorities today, therefore there can never be even in future, no matter how long this goes on.
The relevant authorities in the Catholic Church would be the Roman clergy or the Cardinals. With these in place, and recognized as such (not excluded under any pretext of excommunication from participating in election), there is very much the necessary unity and visibly so, because there is recognized authority even during an interregnum. And as for today’s problems, the fact that all who wish to be Catholic, even if they may not know their Faith as they must or have fallen into one material heresy or another, are at least subject to all they believe the Church to teach shows they have a Catholic spirit, just like all the members of a body, however diverse among themselves, are known to be united because they are visibly subject to one head and clearly obedient to its slightest dictates.
8. When petitions to call a Council are refused:
This raises the obvious question, when can such a Council be actually convened and when will it surely be refused? Obviously, when it is true, a Cardinal will suddenly or otherwise be brought to his senses and recognize this, and when it is false, the whole idea will be dismissed.
In words of the wise Gamaliel, when God is on your side, He will ensure what you do "cannot be overthrown" or in this case that it is brought in time to the notice of some Cardinal or clergy in Rome, who must proceed to announce it to others, who must all agree to make the declaration. But if as I believe sedevacantism is merely the "work of men" this is shown by the fact that "it will be brought to naught".
So the fact that Rome, her clergy and Cardinals, have not even entertained suspicions that the Pope has fallen into heresy and even the sedevacantists have given up trying are reasons to believe sedevacantism is not true in this case.
The fact that all such attempts to secure a declaration have ended in failure for 53 years is sufficient reason to conclude sedevacantism is false. If such petitions are dismissed out-of-hand, then one’s position is likely wrong. [Ironically, all this would make something like the SSPX approach (of talking to the Roman authorities and trying to gradually bring Rome back) the correct one to take even for those who suspect sedevacantism may be true]
8. Term limits of an interregnum?:
The problem of jurisdiction and others explained above also seem to put practical limitations on the possible "term limits" of a hypothetically lengthy interregnum (even a lengthy interregnum should, properly speaking, only occur if Cardinals are unable to meet in conclave owing to war or other temporal difficulties not because there is an unchallenged succession of Popes that aren't real Popes). So, anyway, given what I said above it doesn't seem possible that God would allow an interregnum lengthier than one generation, for then there would be no Ordinary consecrated with Papal authority and mandated to exercise jurisdiction even in matters unrelated to the sacraments (where supplied jurisdiction suffices). And a 53 year interregnum definitely seems to stretch that limit.
Some Catholic principles based on faith contra-sedevacantism:
Here are some principles based solely on faith, not law, on which a plausible non-sedevacantist Catholic position is based,
1. It is probable that a Pope could never become a heretic
2. The Catholic faithful may always rightly presume this (even if they are wrong)
These principles or their equivalents are enunciated by no less than St.Robert, followed by St.Alphonsus. These are not conclusions following from canon law but from faith. Their object is divine Providence, their warrant is the divine promise (Lk 22:31). This is a probable theological opinion and may be held and taught as such, according to these eminent Doctors. This is a further burden for those who intend to imply sedevacantism can ever be dogmatically certain to contend with.
It is also finally upheld in a measure by current canon law and Church legislation. Specifically, given its timing, it seems to me that it has been Providentially provided through Pope Pius XII precisely to avoid conscientious scruples like sedevacantism,
1. A Papal election is presumed valid until the contrary is declared (for no Cardinal can be excluded from participating in an election under the pretext that he has been automatically excommunicated; after the election, the normal procedure outlined above is followed)
2. Only the Cardinals (failing which the Roman clergy) have the right to convoke the Council that would announce the determination (and for that matter, probably elect a new Pope. And those who admit they cannot do the one should not pretend they can do the other)
A hidden hierarchy?
Of course, Exile no more, highly speculative possibilities like, perhaps a true Pope in hiding or being a prisoner, some of which katholikos also seems open to, cannot be ruled out by anyone who is not Omniscient. But that hardly seems to me grounds for entertaining such a theory. I would not claim it impossible, but I think it is not prudent to suppose such things, especially since all who have held sedeimpedism in some form or the other have generally been greatly disappointed in the candidates they chose, some of whom have flatly denied being the Pope and refused to support them.
And to Maizar, I don't disagree with you that Bishops can be unconsciously in communion with each other. I also don't deny these are difficult times when ravenous wolves attack the flock, whose deeds are hidden but will soon be brought to light. But not only orthodoxy in Faith and orthopraxy in practice but also subjection to authority in mind and will is necessary in the Church to maintain in obedience her unity, and there is no contradiction between the two. Moreover, theologians stress that the Church is a body, a visible society. Her bonds cannot be purely invisible, and are typically manifested in some way (even if only implicit, like professed obedience to a recognized authority).
And concerning His sheep, the Lord Himself said "And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd." , so while I don't condemn sedevacantists I obviously disagree strenuously with their position and their efforts to lead souls away from him I believe the Chief Shepherd of the flock, and believe that it is only around him, their head, can unity be maintained among Bishops by divine institution no matter any personal failings of the Pope, or even unjust acts.
FSSP and Archbishop Lefebvre:
And finally to SS, your accusations against the FSSP are, well, unfounded. Concerning ordinary jurisdiction as such, the Archbishop was well aware of what I said here and took care to manifest it. Now, the FSSP charter as such is very similar to what Archbishop Lefebvre signed on May 5, 1988 before he later changed his mind, and following which the priests of those who would later form this Fraternity requested Rome for similar provisions to be offered them.
In case you are not aware of it, the Archbishop signed an accord that said, in 1982,
1. If certain of my words or deeds have displeased the Holy See, I bitterly regret this.
2. As to the Council, I reaffirm that I subscribe to what the Holy Father said, asking that it should be received “in the light of Tradition and the constant Magisterium of the Church.”
3. As to the reform of the Liturgy, I personally signed the conciliar decree, and have never said that its applications are in themselves invalid or heretical.
4. The sending of a pontifical delegate would make it easier to solve the problems and to normalize our activities.
And then in 1988 after the Code of Canon Law was promulgated as I said earlier,
I, Marcel Lefebvre, archbishop-bishop emeritus of Tulle, along with the members of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X, which I founded:
1. We promise always to be faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Roman Pontiff, its supreme pastor, the vicar of Christ, successor of blessed Peter in his primacy and head of the body of bishops.
2. We declare that we will accept the doctrine contained in No. 25 of the Second Vatican Council's dogmatic constitution, "Lumen Gentium" on the ecclesiastical magisterium and the adherence owed it.
3. Regarding certain points taught by the Second Vatican Council or concerning subsequent reforms of the liturgy and law which appear difficult to reconcile with tradition, we commit ourselves to a positive attitude of study and of communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all polemics.
4. We declare moreover that we will recognize the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does and according to the rites in the typical editions of the missal and rituals of the sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.
5. Last, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, particularly those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II, except for the special discipline conceded to the fraternity by particular law.
So while you feel they are wrong, the simple fact is that no one who is not already a sedevacantist can logically prefer as a matter of principle to stay away from Rome forever, only that the current situation is regarded as a sort of interim necessity, and I'll remind you that, all said, the SSPX still prays for the Pope as Pope to this day.
Also, it'’s clearly not unreasonable in light of the foregoing for the FSSP to believe that they are what the SSPX was originally intended to be, a fraternal society of consecrated life, in communion with Rome, and showing evidently and by their good fruits in apostolate that believing the Faith and living in obedience to authority are not mutually exclusive even today when the proper distinctions are made, and with the Holy Father's generosity in certain provisions being gratefully acknowledged with a filial devotion to him by them.
-
Of course, Exile no more, highly speculative possibilities like, perhaps a true Pope in hiding or being a prisoner, some of which katholikos also seems open to, cannot be ruled out by anyone who is not Omniscient. But that hardly seems to me grounds for entertaining such a theory. I would not claim it impossible, but I think it is not prudent to suppose such things, especially since all who have held sedeimpedism in some form or the other have generally been greatly disappointed in the candidates they chose, some of whom have flatly denied being the Pope and refused to support them.
The core of the problem is that 'Vatican II' has done what no eucuмenical council, presided over by a valid Pope in communion with his Bishops, can do. I will not submit to a docuмent which says that we ought to hold in esteem the sect of Mahomet, for example. At the same time, I agree with you when you say that the Roman Church cannot simply vanish from the earth, for indeed, she is indefectible and will exist intact with a clergy until the consummation of time. This is why I believe there to be a clandestine Hierarchy today, though I do not know who and where it's members are.
The Hierarchy has continued after the death of Pope Pius XII, but I believe that she is in the catacombs.
I find it interesting, though, that you at least concede that it may be true. I truly think that it solves many problems left unadressed by many adherents of the sede vacante thesis.
-
Exile no more, yes, I concede it may be true. In fact, when I thought about it seriously, if I had any reason to think any such clergy really existed underground, I would probably even embrace the theory of an alternately elected Pope who was forced into hiding as the more probable opinion, given some of the scandalous things we have seen in the last 50 years. But personally, and also given Church history where there was always one Pope whenever there was an antipope, I think prudence dictates not to speculate about Popes and antipopes unless there are at least two visible and credible claimants to the Papal throne.
The same for a hidden hierarchy in any other form, it is one thing to know someone who has gone underground, it is another to speculate, apparently without sight of end, that a hierarchy must exist somewhere, despite 53 years of silence and every appearance to the contrary. So personally, I don't hold to it but I can understand why some do.
As for Vatican II, well it defined nothing new and bound nothing on Catholics and must be read in the light of Tradition. As for Mohammedanism, yes, I know how strongly the Church has repudiated this sect over the centuries, but at the same time, hear Pope St.Gregory VII, writing to the Muslim king Azair, into which too much cannot be read. But if we read such things like sedevacantists do, we would draw unwarranted conclusions.
"affection we and you owe to each...because we worship and confess the same God though in diverse forms and daily praise and adore him as the creator and ruler of this world....This grace granted to you by God is admired and praised by many of the Roman nobility who have learned from us of your benevolence and high qualities....how highly they regard your prudence and high character and how greatly they desire and are able to be of service to you." (St. Gregory VII, letter XXI to Anzir (Nacir), King of Mauritania (Pl. 148, col. 450f.).
-
Exile no more, yes, I concede it may be true. In fact, when I thought about it seriously, if I had any reason to think any such clergy really existed underground, I would probably even embrace the theory of an alternately elected Pope who was forced into hiding as the more probable opinion, given some of the scandalous things we have seen in the last 50 years. But personally, and also given Church history where there was always one Pope whenever there was an antipope, I think prudence dictates not to speculate about Popes and antipopes unless there are at least two visible and credible claimants to the Papal throne.
I do not think it is imprudent, since I find myself forced to do so. I can assure you, sir, that I do not enjoy how things are at present, although the present state of things is most likely being prolonged partially because of our sins. As for visibility, I think that the popular definition of that word is not necessarily always the same as it's philosophical one. The latter is, I think, very well illustrated when, as we recite the Credo, we say: "... visibilium omnium et invisibilium."
Take, for analogy (albeit of course imperfect), a kind of flower which has not yet been discovered by specialists. This flower is part of the visible world, regardless of whether we see it or not. We do not say that the flower is invisible. It's existence does not depend upon our knowledge or actual sight of it.
The same for a hidden hierarchy in any other form, it is one thing to know someone who has gone underground, it is another to speculate, apparently without sight of end, that a hierarchy must exist somewhere, despite 53 years of silence and every appearance to the contrary. So personally, I don't hold to it but I can understand why some do.
Again, I do not think that in this case they are merely vain speculations, because one arrives to the conclusion by several necessary deductions made to show that the apparent contradictions in the present state of things can be solved in a way which gives no injury to traditional Catholic doctrine, so that it becomes clear that they only appear to be contradictory now, while in truth God is still consistent with what He promised to His Church and it will be made clear to the whole world when He wills it.
As for Vatican II, well it defined nothing new and bound nothing on Catholics and must be read in the light of Tradition.
In this too you follow, of course, the school of the sede plena thesis. I would disagree that it did not define anything, as it presented itself as an eucuмenical council, enshrining the teachings which Catholics have always rejected, and attempting to bind it upon the people with the apostolic authority of the Keys, which I hold to be impossible.
When I tried to read the docuмents in the light of Tradition, that which I saw in the said light shocked me so much that if the shock were a little greater, I might have thought that I had seen the devil. Please, dear sir, spare me from experiencing that again!
Actually, no, I see that experience as a great blessing, for it opened my eyes to the fact that something was very wrong with those hailed docuмents, the praise whereof the lips of the modern iconoclasts and churchwreckers sing without cease.
As for Mohammedanism, yes, I know how strongly the Church has repudiated this sect over the centuries, but at the same time, hear Pope St.Gregory VII, writing to the Muslim king Azair, into which too much cannot be read. But if we read such things like sedevacantists do, we would draw unwarranted conclusions.
"affection we and you owe to each...because we worship and confess the same God though in diverse forms and daily praise and adore him as the creator and ruler of this world....This grace granted to you by God is admired and praised by many of the Roman nobility who have learned from us of your benevolence and high qualities....how highly they regard your prudence and high character and how greatly they desire and are able to be of service to you." (St. Gregory VII, letter XXI to Anzir (Nacir), King of Mauritania (Pl. 148, col. 450f.).
Please be willing to correct me if I am wrong, but if I am right this seems to be a private diplomatic letter, which is not the same as teaching magisterially in an eucuмenical council (and confirming the particular doctrines in subsequent acts for several decades). In the context of the Magisterium, the Pope lays forth what the Church must believe. A private diplomatic letter is of an entirely different nature. If you maintain that 'Vatican II' was 'pastoral', it does not change the fact that it is still doctrine, regardless of it being 'pastoral' doctrine.
The esteem in which 'Vatican II' holds the sect of Mahomet is but one example, however. I'm sure you know the main points of doctrine to which we object.
-
Well, I am not sure why the quotation brackets do not seem to work for me, since they used to work fine in the past. Could Matthew or Mater be so kind to fix the mess in my above posts, please?
-
And finally to SS, your accusations against the FSSP are, well, unfounded. Concerning ordinary jurisdiction as such, the Archbishop was well aware of what I said here and took care to manifest it. Now, the FSSP charter as such is very similar to what Archbishop Lefebvre signed on May 5, 1988 before he later changed his mind, and following which the priests of those who would later form this Fraternity requested Rome for similar provisions to be offered them.
You only prove that Archbishop LeFebvre did not take the sedevacantist route. You did not address what I said, which was that the Archbishop had no desire to be in communion with the modernist Rome until they converted first. He also criticized those who place themselves in communion with modernist Rome.
As for Vatican II, well it defined nothing new and bound nothing on Catholics and must be read in the light of Tradition.
So saying there is "truth in all religions" is nothing new? Saying the Muslims worship the One True God is nothing new? Calling for the faithful to be more active in the Mass is nothing new? Calling for a move to the vernacular is nothing new? How can you read any of that crap in the light of Tradition?
-
SS, I think if you had the opportunity to know some of the FSSP clergy you would not be so convinced they are wrong.
The ones I have known are very holy, trying to save souls in the crisis. They are almost miraculous in their zeal for souls. all things considered.
I actually watch an FSSP Mass every Sunday.
I never said the FSSP wasn't Catholic. I said their position is wrong.
I just want to make sure. When talking about the FSSP we are talking about the Novus Ordo Indultees whose Priests are forced to say one NO mass a year, last time I checked, most of which are "ordained" by invalid "Bishops"?
-
Before replying to the other posts, everyone, let me share with you this beautiful quote I was just made aware of, of the Holy Father, Pope Pius XII:
For both the juridical mission of the Church, and the power to teach, govern and administer the Sacraments, derive their supernatural efficacy and force of the building up of the body of Christ from the fact that Jesus Christ, hanging on the Cross, opened up to His Church the fountain of those divine gifts, which prevent her from ever teaching false doctrine and enable her to rule them for the salvation of their souls through divinely enlightened pastors and to bestow on them an abundance of heavenly graces.
-Pius XII, Encyclical "Mystici Corporis" (1943), par. 31
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MYSTI.HTM
This is the essence of the sedevacantist position. And it's definitely something the SSPX does not believe, no matter what interpretational gymnastics they might come up with.
-
My friend, I do believe the issue is far more complex for both sides of the sede opinion.
-
Certainly. I was just reducing it to the basic, big picture, so that we don't lose sight of the forest for the trees.
-
What I am saying is that in this case, he would have to be condemned and cast out by the Roman clergy for it to be maintained.
That's fine, Nishant, but what theological reasons can you offer that it must come about this way? If anything, this is simply your opinion, and one that runs into some real problems. For example, the Roman clergy could only condemn a "Pope" as an Antipope and cast him out if they have privately discerned him to be a non-Catholic. So, this doesn't solve anything for you, because it is essentially no different than the position maintained by sedevacantists. Since a Pope cannot be judged by anyone, it has to be clear already that we are dealing with a non-Pope. But if that is clear already, then what is the problem?
Secondly, what does your theory amount to if the "Roman clergy" are likewise heretics or apostates? Does the "Pope" then remain Pope? In other words, modernists recognizing another modernist as a Catholic makes him a Catholic? What??
This also easily explains SJB's quote. It was the Roman clergy who at least had the right to determine such a thing, it mattered not that in this particular instance they determined it wrongly. This is very different from any and everybody deciding something personally, then treating that permissible opinion as incontrovertible fact. Rather, one should after forming that opinion then proceed to ask the Cardinals or Rome for an excommunication.
See my explanation above. Your scenario is totally unworkable, and, I believe, heretical. It assumes, heretically, that the Pope can be judged by his inferiors. (I am not saying, Nishant, that you are a heretic; I am merely saying that, as I see it, what your expressed implies a heretical error.)
What makes the non-papacy of Joseph Ratzinger and at least 2 of his 4 predecessors an "incontrovertible" fact is not the private determination by any individual, but the fact that all other alternative views are unacceptable Catholic positions.
Another example, when the Greek schismatics in 1054 separated from Rome, they had all sorts of claims to make too, about Rome falling into heresy and contradicting the canons and Ecuмenical Councils regarding filioque and liturgical malpractices regarding unleavened bread and the like. How did Catholics respond? Not necessarily by engaging in lengthy discussions on those topics alone, but also by simply pointing out the proximate rule of Faith, the Church’s teaching authority as such, and that the Roman Church is indefectible and visibly so.
That's fine, but that's exactly why I am a sedevacantist. If the Roman Church is indefectible, which I believe, well then the V2 church can't be it. Secondly, precisely because the Catholic Church IS the proximate rule of Faith, the V2 church is disqualified, because the same True Church cannot teach in 1925 the Social Kingship of Christ and then in 1965 religious liberty. Both is impossible.
Tell me, Nishant, which do you adhere to? Religious liberty or the Social Kingship of Christ? Quas Primas or Dignitatis Humane? Both cannot be adhered to, because they are mutually exclusive. You will search in vain in Dignitatis Humanae for a reference to Quas Primas, just like you won't find one in Ut Unum Sint to Mortalium Animos either. Funny, isn't it? So much for the "light of Tradition" in which we're supposed to read the docuмents of the New Religion.
Therefore, there is only one conclusion: the church in Rome today is not -- cannot be -- the Catholic Church of Pius XII and before. It is not identical to that Church which is the proximate rule of Faith for Catholics in all ages.
The Greek schismatics reasoned like sedevacantists do today, that since *they have not defected* therefore the Church has not defected, which is absurd and circular on the face of it. All schismatics in history have in one way or another implied Rome has lost the Faith, and that is why this defense does not strike me as particularly compelling. And the fact that Rome has not accepted their claims for many generations should have been sufficient motive for them to reconsider even at that point.
Nishant, we sedevacantists simply continue to believe, worship, and act as the Catholic Church has demanded we do, up until the death of Pope Pius XII. If that puts us at odds with what "Catholics" of today believe and do, then that's because these new "Catholics" have changed the Faith. And this is what is the essential difference between the sedevacantists and the situation today, and the heretics/schismatics you've been trying to compare us to.
Everyone who examines the situation level-headedly can see that the "Romans" of today do not believe, but rather condemn, what was taught before. Any "hermeneutics of continuity" to the contrary notwithstanding.
If religious liberty were true and and a right intricately bound up with human nature and dignity, then Moses would not have been allowed to prevent the Israelites from worshipping the Golden Calf! Vatican II's new doctrine was the error of Fr. John Courtney Murray, long condemned by the Church. What many don't know is that the Holy Office in 1958 was working on a condemnation of John Courtney Murray by name. The only thing that prevented it was the death of Pius XII.
This argument is also successful in another regard. If sedevacantism in the way it is espoused today (with a wholesale rejection of communion with the Church of Rome required of the faithful) were even possible, the Catholic assent of faith owed to the Roman Magisterium in any age would be impossible. For anyone who separates from Rome may do so on the claim that Rome has fallen into and embraced heresy and deviated from the ancient and orthodox Faith (as the Greek schismatic “Orthodox” have always done and do to this day)
That's a convenient way to ignore the primary question that matters here: Has the Rome of today deviated from the ancient and orthodox Faith or not? Please answer it. We all know it has. I guarantee you I could walk into the office of my local "archbishop" and we could compare what he believes with what I believe, and it wouldn't match. Again, that is the essential difference between sedevacantists and heretics/schismatics: The sedevacantist simply adheres to what everyone had to adhere to until the changes; the heretic adheres to that which the Church did not teach before and has condemned. Just because the Eastern Orthodox say that the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son isn't an apostolic teaching doesn't make it so. Just because the so-called "Old Catholics" reject papal infallibility doesn't mean the First Vatican Council invented new doctrine. The council merely defined and clarified the nature and limits of papal infallibility.
On the other hand: For those who want to argue that, likewise, Vatican II didn't teach anything new: Where, pray tell, did the Church teach religious liberty ever? THAT is the big difference.
Now, Katholikos, coming to Honorius, what his example establishes - in either case, he being a heretic, or not - is at least this much; if anyone wishes to anathematize him who by all appearances had remained Pope, they have to do it the right way, that is they have to lawfully convene in Council under legitimate authorities, (not pretend that no such authorities exist, nor anathematize everyone who disagrees on this point prior to the determination by the Church thereby making it so), then examine the issue or, at least announce what was made known through prior examination, that the pontificate was invalid beyond a point or was wholly invalid. I know this was Archbishop Lefebvre's position as well, for one, which as a whole I'll get back to later. Anyway, only after such a determination was made by the Church would all Catholics be bound to adhere to it.
Again, such a "solution" is theologically impossible and totally erroneous, probably heretical. You cannot convene a council against the authority of the Pope.
As for Pope Honorius, I just got a book from the library written by Cardinal Henry Manning, published in 1905. He says: "...the case of Honorius is doubtful. It is in vain for the antagonists of Papal Infallibility to quote this case as if it were certain. Centuries of controversy have established . . . that the accusation against Honorius cannot be raised . . . to more than a probability." (Manning, The Vatican Council and Its Definitions, p. 244.)
And this from a cardinal who was present at the council and was privy to all that was said about the case of Pope Honorius. Do you really want to keep bringing this up as an argument somehow relevant for the issues we're discussing? The best you could accomplish is produce a doubtful argument, anyway.
You object that a Pope cannot be entitled to rebut a presumption because he cannot be subjected to a canonical trial. I reply that a trial is unnecessary, merely the threat by a Cardinal to summon such a Council on account of some manifest heresy of the Pope or some such similar action dictated as a matter of prudence would suffice after which pertinacity may be reasonably presumed.
The cardinal cannot summon a council. In fact, the Pope could deprive him, right then and there, of the office of cardinal, and that would be the end of it. I think you don't understand how things work in the Catholic hierarchy. No one can sit in judgment on the Pope and "determine", after the manner of a trial, if he is guilty of heresy. That would suppose that the Pope has an earthly judge. He doesn't. If he is a manifest heretic, he ceases to be Pope automatically. End of story.
Apart from the authorities adduced for this position (St.Alphonsus, St.Anthony certainly, perhaps St.Francis de Sales, and finally also the Holy Office approved citation in 1887 that “Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church - i.e., by an oecuмenical council of the College of Cardinals.” Cupertino brought up earlier,),
Hold it! I do not concede for a moment that the Church approved the idea that the Pope himself can be judged by others. Absolutely not. Please quote me some strong evidence to that effect. I suspect you might be confusing something here. That the Church would say it is necessary to declare when a former Pope has ceased being Pope, that's fine. But that's not the same as saying that the Church herself can deprive the Pope of the pontificate. No, we are here talking about merely legally declaring what has already happened in fact. And that this would have to be done before a new Pope can be elected, pretty much stands to reason.
the contrary position you hold to entails that the more eminent the member of the body, the less rights he is entitled to, which as a matter of justice strikes me as not fitting. Yes, only divine law applies to the Pope, but to the extent that the dictates of divine law must be carried out in the visible Church, prudence must be exercised by the men who wish to show its applicability in a certain instance.
We're talking apples and oranges here. The Pope doesn't have fewer rights; on the contrary, unlike everyone else, he has the right not to be subjected to a trial. No one else has that right! Any manifest heretic ceases to be a Roman Catholic, and all offices are vacated by that fact (see Canon 188.4). This applies to the Pope also, because this is not a matter of Church law but of divine law; and the vacating of the office isn't so much a punishment as it is the necessary consequence of ceasing to be a member of the Church.
This is a remarkable statement for two reasons: First, it confirms the constant teaching of the Church that no one may judge the First See, even when confronted with alleged papal deviations from the Faith. Second, it nevertheless admits the possibility that a Pope might deviate from the Faith while remaining Pope.
Ferrara is always fun. For him to stand there and say "no one may judge the First See," when this is what Ferrara practically does for a living, is beyond absurd. Apparently for Ferrara, "judging the First See" simply means no one is allowed to call a non-Catholic a non-Catholic, if that non-Catholic happens to claim to be the Pope. But that's not what that canon means.
One can deviate from the Faith without being a heretic, depending on what exactly Pope Paul IV meant by "deviate" and by "Faith." For example, is a doctrinal error that doesn't merit the censure of heresy considered deviating from the Faith? It depends on how strictly you define "Faith." But that's not for you, Nishant, nor for me, not for an American lawyer like Ferrara to figure out, but for a genuine Catholic theologian, who could examine Pope Paul IV's bull in the original Latin, knew the surrounding context, etc.
What I deny is that they can usurp authority by pretending that this determination of theirs is binding. It is not. And while like I said the suspicion of Papal heresy is in itself not schismatic, and I’m sure many sedevacantists are good Catholics, this latter pretence certainly appears to me to be an objectively schismatic act, in which case at least some dogmatic sedevacantists would be schismatics.
Interesting theory.... but let's get back to the facts. Perhaps you could name names, because I do not know of a single sedevacantist who says that his own determination that Ratzinger is not a Catholic is binding on anyone. I think you might be confusing some things here.
We have to distinguish. Certainly what I have come to understand about the situation in the Church today in the last 15 or so years is not, by that very fact, binding on anyone. I do not bind anyone to anything on the grounds that "I" have determined or recognized it. (And I don't know anyone else who does so either.)
But this doesn't mean everyone has the right to any position he likes. What can and does bind everyone is the conclusions of human reason from the facts as discerned from reality and the principles of Catholic teaching as learned from our theology books and catechisms. Our conscience binds us, and we have the duty to inform it accordingly. Thus, when a sedevacantist argues that you MUST recognize the false church in Rome to be exactly that, then this is not because "we" have determined it so, but because the facts applied to Catholic principles necessitate this conclusion. It is your own intellect that requires you to draw this conclusion, and that is what makes it binding. We are merely pointing out what is going on.
That this conclusion is necessary is furthermore underscored by the fact that any alternative position runs contrary to Catholic teaching. Hence it is correct to say both that sedevacantism, per se, is not an article of Faith; and yet also, that sedevacantism is a necessary conclusion that must be accepted. Because there is no viable alternative.
this is why I say there is no unity – there is no recognized authority. Only when the question comes to the successor, does the lack of authority become so glaringly obvious.
Thanks, having been a sedevacantist for over 8 years now, I am reminded every day that there is a lack of authority. And believe you me, I hate it! When you say "there is no unity," if you mean no unity in government, then I can only respond, "Of course not! That's because there is no Pope." So, I find this constant accusation, "You guys have no governing authority" quite absurd, because we are the very ones who keep pointing this out, and lament it: "There is no governing authority! Wake up!" To now use this somehow against us is beyond me. It's like saying, "You guys believe there's no Pope!" And we respond, "Exactly!"
Was the Church which until Constantinople III had never repudiated Honorius personally a false Church? Or for that matter was the Church that recognized antipopes when there were other true Popes at the same time a false Church? No, it was still the true Catholic Church, and this matters because it is the authorities of this Church, not ones of one’s own choosing, who would have to make the legally binding declaration.
Again, apples versus oranges. The reason we know the false church in Rome to be a false church is because that church, precisely as church, has done things the Roman Catholic Church cannot do. (Try to find something that the Catholic Church under Pope Honorius did that she couldn't do.)
The absolutely worst even Pope Honorius could be accused of, is writing a private heretical letter to Sergius. (Not that I concede it was heretical!)
I will end this post here now and continue in another one.
-
(continuing the prior post.... in response to Nishant:)
Again, it illustrates like I said the lack of unity in the sedevacantist world. In the Catholic Church, the unity of the episcopate is preserved by hierarchy and authority, as the Fathers said and as Vatican I taught. All consecrated bear a special bond to one another that is visibly manifested through obedience to a recognized authority. For this reason, Pope Pius XII also describes a Bishop consecrated without Papal mandate as gravely criminal and sacrilegious and an affront and attack on her unity. The reason I speak about the antipopes the conclavists elected is not because I take some sort of pleasure in this lamentable spectacle, but because it illustrates like nothing else, the complete lack of any real and meaningful unity in the sedevacantist world. It is truly, as Archbishop Lefebvre put it, "an inextricable situation".
What is your point, Nishant? You cannot use the alleged "lack of any real and meaningful unity" among sedevacantists as an argument against sedevacantism because sedevacantism is, essentially, a diagnosis of the problem rather than a solution. You're accusing the diagnosis of having no solution! Well, just because a doctor diagnoses a man with cancer and has no way to heal the cancer, doesn't mean the diagnosis is wrong!
And as far as "inextricable" goes, the mess that Abp. Lefebvre has created with his "recognize-and-resist" empire, that is an even worse mess than sedevacantism because, as I have pointed out before, it can, in principle, never end, because if each individual privately gets to choose whether or not he will submit to the Pope at any point in time, anyone can at any time "resist" at will, with Denzinger in hand, judging the Holy Father and choosing what he will and won't accept from the magisterium. Reject a canonization here, blast an encyclical there, and doubt a liturgical rite. What sort of a mess is that? What makes this much worse than sedevacantism is that it is hopelessly forlon because it cannot be resolved ever, even with a valid Pope! It is a position not without the Pope, but against the Pope!
Some "Popes" elected even claim divine intervention in their cases, what ever could convince sedevacantists finally to give up individual causes and submit to a single claimant? There are no recognized authorities today, therefore there can never be even in future, no matter how long this goes on.
Worry not, Nishant. When God restores His Church and the papacy, it will be glorious and beyond doubt. No one will be able to doubt it. A "conclave" in a trailer in Montana, a "papal" election by phone in which even women participate, or a former SSPX seminarian donning a white cassock on a farm in Kansas -- no, that's not going to be how God restores the Church. It reminds me of Our Lord's warning about His Return, that we should not believe those who say, "He is in the closet." He told us, "Believe it not."
The relevant authorities in the Catholic Church would be the Roman clergy or the Cardinals. With these in place, and recognized as such (not excluded under any pretext of excommunication from participating in election), there is very much the necessary unity and visibly so, because there is recognized authority even during an interregnum.
That's nice, except there's one little problem: the people in question do not hold or profess the Roman Catholic Faith, so they are necessarily excluded. It doesn't matter if they "mean well." If they profess a different religion, they cannot hold office in the Roman Catholic Church. Otherwise, unity in Faith is completely gone. It will in the end only amount to a "unity in good will."
And as for today’s problems, the fact that all who wish to be Catholic, even if they may not know their Faith as they must or have fallen into one material heresy or another, are at least subject to all they believe the Church to teach shows they have a Catholic spirit, just like all the members of a body, however diverse among themselves, are known to be united because they are visibly subject to one head and clearly obedient to its slightest dictates.
You do not live in the real world, Nishant. Let's take a concrete example: "Archbishop" Robert Zollitsch, head of the Novus Ordo "bishops" conference in Germany. This man gave an interview about 2 years ago, I think during Holy Week, in which he explicitly denied that Christ on the Cross offered a sin-atoning Sacrifice to the Father on our behalf.
Will you really reduce this to a "material heresy" that Zollitsch holds "in good faith"? (And no, don't tell me about CONTEXT. I know the context. It does not save him. On the contrary. Yes, he really and truly denied that Christ died for our sins. He said that in "his" view, Christ died on the Cross to show solidarity with us, to participate in and take up our sufferings to the Heavenly Father.)
This raises the obvious question, when can such a Council be actually convened and when will it surely be refused? Obviously, when it is true, a Cardinal will suddenly or otherwise be brought to his senses and recognize this, and when it is false, the whole idea will be dismissed.
In words of the wise Gamaliel, when God is on your side, He will ensure what you do "cannot be overthrown" or in this case that it is brought in time to the notice of some Cardinal or clergy in Rome, who must proceed to announce it to others, who must all agree to make the declaration. But if as I believe sedevacantism is merely the "work of men" this is shown by the fact that "it will be brought to naught".
Interesting theory. Which theologians or magisterial docuмents can you quote to support it?
So the fact that Rome, her clergy and Cardinals, have not even entertained suspicions that the Pope has fallen into heresy and even the sedevacantists have given up trying are reasons to believe sedevacantism is not true in this case.
The fact that all such attempts to secure a declaration have ended in failure for 53 years is sufficient reason to conclude sedevacantism is false. If such petitions are dismissed out-of-hand, then one’s position is likely wrong. [Ironically, all this would make something like the SSPX approach (of talking to the Roman authorities and trying to gradually bring Rome back) the correct one to take even for those who suspect sedevacantism may be true]
I'm sorry, you and I are not in the same "world" here. You need to deal with the facts, and we know what the facts are regarding how the new religion came about. You will need to deal with the historical facts rather than speculate about unproven theories about how certain things "would have to" happen in your imagination.
I hope you can at least see that the Conciliar Church is being "brought to naught." At this point, it is obvious that it is merely a tool of the devil to send souls to hell. It can hardly claim to be the Ark of Salvation. In fact, attachment to the Vatican II Church is such a dangerous obstacle to salvation, that even the SSPX and other "recognize but resisters" must constantly filter and judge what comes out of Rome, lest people be led astray. Behold, the "Ark of Salvation"! Behold the church outside of which no one can be saved! This is laughable, simply laughable.
The problem of jurisdiction and others explained above also seem to put practical limitations on the possible "term limits" of a hypothetically lengthy interregnum (even a lengthy interregnum should, properly speaking, only occur if Cardinals are unable to meet in conclave owing to war or other temporal difficulties not because there is an unchallenged succession of Popes that aren't real Popes). So, anyway, given what I said above it doesn't seem possible that God would allow an interregnum lengthier than one generation, for then there would be no Ordinary consecrated with Papal authority and mandated to exercise jurisdiction even in matters unrelated to the sacraments (where supplied jurisdiction suffices). And a 53 year interregnum definitely seems to stretch that limit.
If you have a better solution, I am all ears, but the one you're proposing here doesn't jibe with Catholic teaching. Again: You do not solve the interregnum problem by making the Novus Ordo Church into the Catholic Church.
1. It is probable that a Pope could never become a heretic
Great. I don't have a problem with that. If anything, YOU now have a problem. It's called Honorius.
2. The Catholic faithful may always rightly presume this (even if they are wrong)
I am okay with this idea too. It simply proves, if anything, that Paul VI was never Pope for one instant. Works for me.
These principles or their equivalents are enunciated by no less than St.Robert, followed by St.Alphonsus. These are not conclusions following from canon law but from faith. Their object is divine Providence, their warrant is the divine promise (Lk 22:31). This is a probable theological opinion and may be held and taught as such, according to these eminent Doctors. This is a further burden for those who intend to imply sedevacantism can ever be dogmatically certain to contend with.
Nishant, you are again arguing apples against oranges. Your error lies in assuming that any of the V2 "Popes" ever started out as true Popes. In other words, your argument here begs the question. Secondly, these are not principles but opinions. Thirdly, you are again not dealing with reality. Do you really think that saying that "A Catholic may always presume a Pope is not a heretic" has any relevance when it comes to evaluating such sorry and obviously heretical scenarios as Joseph Ratzinger saying that Protestants or Orthodox have a "mission" from God to bring people to the "Faith" (which one?), or praying in a mosque, or Wojtyla praying with animists in the "sacred forests of Togo"?
It is also finally upheld in a measure by current canon law and Church legislation. Specifically, given its timing, it seems to me that it has been Providentially provided through Pope Pius XII precisely to avoid conscientious scruples like sedevacantism,
1. A Papal election is presumed valid until the contrary is declared (for no Cardinal can be excluded from participating in an election under the pretext that he has been automatically excommunicated; after the election, the normal procedure outlined above is followed)
Refuted by sedevacantists a hundred times. Once more, apples versus oranges:
"What the Pope is doing here is lifting all ecclesiastical censures, including that of excommunication, which any cardinal may be laboring under at the time of the conclave, for the purposes of allowing him to licitly elect the Pope – and licitly be elected himself. In other words, the Pope is saying that no one may bar from the conclave a cardinal who has any ecclesiastical penalty against him. Note that the emphasis is on the word “ecclesiastical.” The Pope, obviously, can only dispense from ecclesiastical penalties, not from divine ones, for he has no power to reinstate into the Mystical Body of Christ those who have been cut off from it by the divine law.... What this means, quite simply, is that heretics, schismatics, and apostates are, of course, banned from a conclave, but not because they are excommunicated by the Church, but because they are not members of the Church to begin with, because of their heresy, schism, or apostasy. Put differently: The heretic is excluded from the valid election of the Pope not under the aspect of being ecclesiastically excommunicated, but under the aspect of being a heretic, i.e., a non-Catholic. Note that Pius XII’s legislation merely speaks of “any . . . ecclesiastical impediment.” However, being a non-Catholic is not per se an ecclesiastical impediment, it is, first and foremost, a divine impediment, and, naturally, not one the Pope has any power to dispense from. If the Pope, hypothetically, had wished to do the impossible and include even heretics as “licit” electors or recipients of an election, he would have said so – he would have written, “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any apostasy, heresy, schism, excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical or divine impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff.” But of course, such a statement would have been absurd on the face of it, especially considering that, just as a “heretical Pope” is no Pope at all, neither is a “heretical cardinal” even a cardinal."
(http://www.novusordowatch.org/the_chair_is_still_empty.htm (http://www.novusordowatch.org/the_chair_is_still_empty.htm); see "Salza Error #4")
2. Only the Cardinals (failing which the Roman clergy) have the right to convoke the Council that would announce the determination (and for that matter, probably elect a new Pope. And those who admit they cannot do the one should not pretend they can do the other)
That's all well and good, but what about a situation in which a Pope is elected and accepts, is then threatened into (invalid) resignation, and a new, false "Pope" is then pushed on the faithful?
Of course, Exile no more, highly speculative possibilities like, perhaps a true Pope in hiding or being a prisoner, some of which katholikos also seems open to, cannot be ruled out by anyone who is not Omniscient. But that hardly seems to me grounds for entertaining such a theory. I would not claim it impossible, but I think it is not prudent to suppose such things, especially since all who have held sedeimpedism in some form or the other have generally been greatly disappointed in the candidates they chose, some of whom have flatly denied being the Pope and refused to support them.
We do not entertain the theory simply because it "cannot be ruled out by aonyone who is not omniscient." We entertain the theory because it might be necessary to suppose this in order not to do damage to Catholic teaching. Unlike the SSPX, we sedevacantists don't simply scratch certain passages from the theology manuals (such as the ones on the authority of the Magisterium). Bizarre though such a theory might be, it definitely beats the "non-Catholic Pope" thesis or the "recognize-but-resist" position.
And to Maizar, I don't disagree with you that Bishops can be unconsciously in communion with each other. I also don't deny these are difficult times when ravenous wolves attack the flock, whose deeds are hidden but will soon be brought to light.
Funny how people can always somehow detect the "ravenous wolves" and then turn a totally blind eye to the ravenous Wolf-in-Shepherd's-Clothing. A perfect example of such a person who does exactly that is Chris Ferrara. Ever since April 19, 2005, Joseph Ratzinger has been that innocent little sheep who is merely misled; before April 19, of course, Ratzinger was just as much of a wolf, or rather, "termite", as the others (see http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-ratzinger%20consecrates.htm).
And concerning His sheep, the Lord Himself said "And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd." , so while I don't condemn sedevacantists I obviously disagree strenuously with their position and their efforts to lead souls away from him I believe the Chief Shepherd of the flock, and believe that it is only around him, their head, can unity be maintained among Bishops by divine institution no matter any personal failings of the Pope, or even unjust acts.
Please, let's make sure we don't constantly misrepresent the facts. We are not talking about "personal failings" or "unjust" actions of a "Pope." We are talking about the (putatively licit) exercise of his putative office! We are talking about encyclicals, canonizations, liturgical rites, canon law, conciliar dogmatic constitutions, etc. All of it - ALL OF IT - is infested from top to bottom with the most gravely harmful errors, so much so that even those who "recognize" must still "resist"! And what are they "resisting"? "Personal failings" or "unjust acts"? No, they are resisting teachings, disciplines, practices, liturgical rites, you name it.
This has been a long rebuttal but, I believe, necessary. God bless all.
-
Dear Katholikos,
You have done us a great service by this excellent refutation of the remarks made by Nishant.
I was concerned that they might lead some readers astray, because they were persuasive in their rhetoric, but they were lacking in substance.
What Nishant wrote was more opinion than sound theological discourse.
God Bless you, Katholikos.
-
Nishant, you need to read this article from Catholic Apologetics:
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/defense/Indult.htm
Two gems from the article I'd like to point out, the first regarding the FSSP:
Those who support the INDULT MASSES often point to the Newly-founded Fraternity of St. Peter as their proof positive of the good-will of the modernist hierarchy.
Most traditional Catholics are not aware that, before the changes in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (the traditional Mas was changed by a gradual process) were those changes in the Rite of Priestly Ordinations and Episcopal Consecration in 1968. While it is not my intention to prove the invalidity of the new Rites, suffice it to say, they are doubtful at best, and in accord with the sound theology of the Church, we cannot proceed on a doubt. Seeing that the new Rites are dubious as to validity (due to lack of form and intention) one cannot be positively certain of any valid ordinations of either Priests or Bishops since 1968.
So you have it, a "conservative" Priest ordained by a "Bishop" of the new Rite of Consecration may not be a Priest at all, simply because the Bishop was not a true/valid Bishop! The implications of this are frightening to say the least.
Many of the newly ordained Priests of the Fraternity of St. Peter were ordained in the traditional Rite. However, they were ordained by Cardinal Ratzinger and Meyer, who themselves were consecrated according to the New Rite. So now we have a situation of a "traditional" Fraternity with "traditional" Priests(?) who in fact may not be validly ordained at all.
The Fraternity was founded merely to win the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre back into the fold. It will not have a major impact, and certainly has not received encouragement on a large scale.
In regard to Diocesan Priests requesting INDULTS for the Latin Mass, an interesting article appeared in a recent edition of the Latin Mass Magazine, which is a pro-Indult/Ecclesia Dei publication., It seems a number of Diocesan Priests in England formed a Latin Mas Association, and requested Indults so as to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass. These requests were denied. Why? These were Diocesan Clergy, and not traditional Priests. It would seem that someone in Rome does not wish the Indult to have any far-reaching effect or application, but simply in particular areas of large traditional Catholic populations. Certainly the Indult was not meant for the "average" Catholic, nor is it encouraged for them, as cases prove this time after time.
And the second regarding John Paul II:
Many would proclaim John Paul II as a conservative Pope. Perhaps during the first few years of his pontificate we had good reason to think this, or at least hope that it might be so. In reviewing his pontificate, we must conclude that John Paul II is very liberal, and certainly more so than those who came before him. In fact, his ecuмenical activity has caused great scandal to the faithful, such as his giving praise to Martin Luther, or his receiving the "sign of Testa of the Tilak" during his 1986 visit to India, from a Hindu Priestess, or his participating in the animist Rites in Togo in 1985 with pagan Priests, or his meeting with world Religions ink Assisi in 1986, where he allowed the Buddha to be enthroned above a tabernacle containing the Blessed Sacrament. When we see such activities as this, the Catholic must certainly have a broken heart. It must be mentioned that, during his Cardinalate in Poland, John Paul II allowed Billy Graham to preach in his Cathedral, as well as being the one who invited the Charismatic movement into once Catholic Poland. I would hope the laity would take the time to read his writings, before they make a judgment in this regard.
According to the February 1992 issue of the conservative Catholic World Report, in an article by a Robert Moynihan, it states that "The Pope privately acknowledged his perplexity at the passionate attachment of the traditionalist to the traditionalist Mass...He personally does not understand this."
We would wonder why a Pope thought to be a conservative, and favoring the old Latin Mass, upset over the doctrinal and liturgical abuses (we were told) would not "understand" and or be "perplexed" as to why some would be so attached to the traditional Rites of the Church. Perhaps this explains why John Paul II has never publicly offered the traditional Latin Mass?
Keep in mind that this article was written by a Traditional Catholic priest (likely written before Benedict was elected, since he refers to JPII in the present tense).
-
Katholicos,
I'm not sure if I can even come up with words that would adequately describe my admiration of your recent posts.
I have seen more and more SV posters on this site with the ability to articulate the SV position accurately. I do not say this as some expert looking down on the beginners in admiration as they advance but as whatever I am in the grand scheme of things looking up to those who have a knowledge and the ability to express that knowledge in a way that I can only wish to emulate.
It seems the person you are responding to is sincere though, which can only be good because that would mean he is open to truth wherever it will lead.
I say unto thee, well done Mr. Katholics.
:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:
:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:
I say this not to condemn the objector but in admiration of your ability to defend the position. Perhaps you can offer your services to Mike Cain or Kathleen Plumb.
I can say this knowing you won't let whatever compliments come your way go to your head. Keep up the good work. Stay holy and keep praying and include me in those prayers.
-
Two gems from the article I'd like to point out, the first regarding the FSSP:
Those who support the INDULT MASSES often point to the Newly-founded Fraternity of St. Peter as their proof positive of the good-will of the modernist hierarchy.
Most traditional Catholics are not aware that, before the changes in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (the traditional Mas was changed by a gradual process) were those changes in the Rite of Priestly Ordinations and Episcopal Consecration in 1968. While it is not my intention to prove the invalidity of the new Rites, suffice it to say, they are doubtful at best, and in accord with the sound theology of the Church, we cannot proceed on a doubt. Seeing that the new Rites are dubious as to validity (due to lack of form and intention) one cannot be positively certain of any valid ordinations of either Priests or Bishops since 1968.
So you have it, a "conservative" Priest ordained by a "Bishop" of the new Rite of Consecration may not be a Priest at all, simply because the Bishop was not a true/valid Bishop! The implications of this are frightening to say the least.
Many of the newly ordained Priests of the Fraternity of St. Peter were ordained in the traditional Rite. However, they were ordained by Cardinal Ratzinger and Meyer, who themselves were consecrated according to the New Rite. So now we have a situation of a "traditional" Fraternity with "traditional" Priests(?) who in fact may not be validly ordained at all.
The Fraternity was founded merely to win the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre back into the fold. It will not have a major impact, and certainly has not received encouragement on a large scale.
In regard to Diocesan Priests requesting INDULTS for the Latin Mass, an interesting article appeared in a recent edition of the Latin Mass Magazine, which is a pro-Indult/Ecclesia Dei publication., It seems a number of Diocesan Priests in England formed a Latin Mas Association, and requested Indults so as to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass. These requests were denied. Why? These were Diocesan Clergy, and not traditional Priests. It would seem that someone in Rome does not wish the Indult to have any far-reaching effect or application, but simply in particular areas of large traditional Catholic populations. Certainly the Indult was not meant for the "average" Catholic, nor is it encouraged for them, as cases prove this time after time.
I thought the above was obvious but after reading some comments on the FSSP on this site I realized it wasn't. Thanks for posting this.
-
To katholikos, et all-
I read through your response to Nishant, and was left still less than convinced. You see, I think a major issue with SVism is the depth of theology it dives into; or perhaps the issues is not with SVism, but most SVists failing to understand a few key points.
This type of theological conversation is not really proper, much less required, for Joe Catholic. To discuss Cannon law, Church history, and advanced theological teachings, which were never really meant for anyone, not even yourselves, but for theologians of the Church, never has been, is not now, and never will be the responsibility of the average laity; and this is where I think many SVists fail.
I'm not saying its wrong to be SV, or to hold these debates. But you do come off as contradictory when you get to this point:
I do not bind anyone to anything on the grounds that "I" have determined or recognized it. (And I don't know anyone else who does so either.)
But this doesn't mean everyone has the right to any position he likes. What can and does bind everyone is the conclusions of human reason from the facts as discerned from reality and the principles of Catholic teaching as learned from our theology books and catechisms. Our conscience binds us, and we have the duty to inform it accordingly. Thus, when a sedevacantist argues that you MUST recognize the false church in Rome to be exactly that, then this is not because "we" have determined it so, but because the facts applied to Catholic principles necessitate this conclusion. It is your own intellect that requires you to draw this conclusion, and that is what makes it binding. We are merely pointing out what is going on.
So you do not bind anyone "on the grounds that [you] have determined or recognized" sedevecantism to be correct; but you go on to essentially say, without using the same words, that SVists are justified in arguing that people are bound to accept the SV conclusion because "the facts", which are arguments above and beyond which the average laity is required to be able to discern, and "facts" as you have determined them but not because you have determined them, are the truth. Then you go on to say, very nonchalantly, that you are merely pointing out what's going on, when everything else you've stated is contrary.
I'm not trying to pick a fight, so please don't get me wrong; and I'm no theologian, have never studied cannon law, and am not versed enough in anything to argue this position. Lastly, let me add that while I am not an adherent to the SV position, I do not think it is outright wrong; its just moot for me as a Catholic living my faith, and is moot because it determines nothing of my salvation, as long as I adhere to Tradition, and live a Holy life according to Catholicism. You can dig up my post on me being an "agnostic Sedevecantist" if you want to know how I really feel about the issue.
But I am trying to show you why people may be less than enthusiastic about your lengthy argument, which I read in its entirety, than people who are already swayed to the SVist position (such as Lover of Truth, and SedeCatholic). I'm also trying to show a contradiction I found in your argument, which I think is a very important one because it isn't about SVism itself, but about the mind and mentality of most, in my experience, SVists.
-
To katholikos, et all-
I read through your response to Nishant, and was left still less than convinced. You see, I think a major issue with SVism is the depth of theology it dives into; or perhaps the issues is not with SVism, but most SVists failing to understand a few key points.
This type of theological conversation is not really proper, much less required, for Joe Catholic. To discuss Cannon law, Church history, and advanced theological teachings, which were never really meant for anyone, not even yourselves, but for theologians of the Church, never has been, is not now, and never will be the responsibility of the average laity; and this is where I think many SVists fail.
I'm not saying its wrong to be SV, or to hold these debates. But you do come off as contradictory when you get to this point:
I do not bind anyone to anything on the grounds that "I" have determined or recognized it. (And I don't know anyone else who does so either.)
But this doesn't mean everyone has the right to any position he likes. What can and does bind everyone is the conclusions of human reason from the facts as discerned from reality and the principles of Catholic teaching as learned from our theology books and catechisms. Our conscience binds us, and we have the duty to inform it accordingly. Thus, when a sedevacantist argues that you MUST recognize the false church in Rome to be exactly that, then this is not because "we" have determined it so, but because the facts applied to Catholic principles necessitate this conclusion. It is your own intellect that requires you to draw this conclusion, and that is what makes it binding. We are merely pointing out what is going on.
So you do not bind anyone "on the grounds that [you] have determined or recognized" sedevecantism to be correct; but you go on to essentially say, without using the same words, that SVists are justified in arguing that people are bound to accept the SV conclusion because "the facts", which are arguments above and beyond which the average laity is required to be able to discern, and "facts" as you have determined them but not because you have determined them, are the truth. Then you go on to say, very nonchalantly, that you are merely pointing out what's going on, when everything else you've stated is contrary.
I'm not trying to pick a fight, so please don't get me wrong; and I'm no theologian, have never studied cannon law, and am not versed enough in anything to argue this position. Lastly, let me add that while I am not an adherent to the SV position, I do not think it is outright wrong; its just moot for me as a Catholic living my faith, and is moot because it determines nothing of my salvation, as long as I adhere to Tradition, and live a Holy life according to Catholicism. You can dig up my post on me being an "agnostic Sedevecantist" if you want to know how I really feel about the issue.
But I am trying to show you why people may be less than enthusiastic about your lengthy argument, which I read in its entirety, than people who are already swayed to the SVist position (such as Lover of Truth, and SedeCatholic). I'm also trying to show a contradiction I found in your argument, which I think is a very important one because it isn't about SVism itself, but about the mind and mentality of most, in my experience, SVists.
Divine Law and ecclessiastical law teach that the public heretic is shown to be already judged by God and that that he loses his office, if he ever held it, ipso facto, without the need of a declaration. This is God and the Church binding it on us, not the SVs. The SVs just point the reality out we do not depose the Pope but show the false pope to be a false pope based upon theological principals and what seems to be an ex Cathedra statement by Paul IV who uses the strongest words possible to affirm these facts.
Again, insisting a public heretic can be pope is like insisting that a bachelor is married or that a triangle has 4-sides. It is a contradiction.
Insisting a public heretic can be pope mocks Christ, the Holy Ghost and the Papacy; Christ because He founded the Church upon the papacy, the Holy Ghost because he protects the Popes from erring, and the Papacy because it makes the Pope a mere figure-head who can be ignored and disobeyed on things he binds on the Church. It is one or the other not both and. If a public heretic can be Pope there is no need for a Pope.
The people who defend Ratzinger as being a legitimate Pope are defending the wolf from the sheep. A most unlaudable thing to do. I do not accuse those who defend Ratzinger of intending to defend the wolf from the sheep though.
We must flee the heretic. Not acknowledge him as our head. We must submit to a true pontiff under pain of eternal damnation. Traditional Catholics do not submit to Ratzinger. The SVs don't because he is not Pope. The recognize and resisters do because of the well-intentioned schismatic attitude they have been forced to accept as the Catholic response to a purported heretical Pope.
-
Divine Law and ecclessiastical law teach that the public heretic is shown to be already judged by God and that that he loses his office, if he ever held it, ipso facto, without the need of a declaration. This is God and the Church binding it on us, not the SVs. The SVs just point the reality out we do not depose the Pope but show the false pope to be a false pope based upon theological principals and what seems to be an ex Cathedra statement by Paul IV who uses the strongest words possible to affirm these facts.
Again, insisting a public heretic can be pope is like insisting that a bachelor is married or that a triangle has 4-sides. It is a contradiction.
Insisting a public heretic can be pope mocks Christ, the Holy Ghost and the Papacy; Christ because He founded the Church upon the papacy, the Holy Ghost because he protects the Popes from erring, and the Papacy because it makes the Pope a mere figure-head who can be ignored and disobeyed on things he binds on the Church. It is one or the other not both and. If a public heretic can be Pope there is no need for a Pope.
The people who defend Ratzinger as being a legitimate Pope are defending the wolf from the sheep. A most unlaudable thing to do. I do not accuse those who defend Ratzinger of intending to defend the wolf from the sheep though.
We must flee the heretic. Not acknowledge him as our head. We must submit to a true pontiff under pain of eternal damnation. Traditional Catholics do not submit to Ratzinger. The SVs don't because he is not Pope. The recognize and resisters do because of the well-intentioned schismatic attitude they have been forced to accept as the Catholic response to a purported heretical Pope.
You see LoT- this is what I'm talking about. It doesn't matter how m any spiel's you give, you've done nothing to change the mind of anyone. At least not I. Is it because people are bad willed? Not at all. Are they even required to do anything over and above what I'd written in my previous post? No.
So if you'd like to actually respond to what I'd addressed earlier, I'd appreciate it. If you haven't figured it out yet, I'm not here arguing about SVism.
-
Divine Law and ecclessiastical law teach that the public heretic is shown to be already judged by God and that that he loses his office, if he ever held it, ipso facto, without the need of a declaration. This is God and the Church binding it on us, not the SVs. The SVs just point the reality out we do not depose the Pope but show the false pope to be a false pope based upon theological principals and what seems to be an ex Cathedra statement by Paul IV who uses the strongest words possible to affirm these facts.
Again, insisting a public heretic can be pope is like insisting that a bachelor is married or that a triangle has 4-sides. It is a contradiction.
Insisting a public heretic can be pope mocks Christ, the Holy Ghost and the Papacy; Christ because He founded the Church upon the papacy, the Holy Ghost because he protects the Popes from erring, and the Papacy because it makes the Pope a mere figure-head who can be ignored and disobeyed on things he binds on the Church. It is one or the other not both and. If a public heretic can be Pope there is no need for a Pope.
The people who defend Ratzinger as being a legitimate Pope are defending the wolf from the sheep. A most unlaudable thing to do. I do not accuse those who defend Ratzinger of intending to defend the wolf from the sheep though.
We must flee the heretic. Not acknowledge him as our head. We must submit to a true pontiff under pain of eternal damnation. Traditional Catholics do not submit to Ratzinger. The SVs don't because he is not Pope. The recognize and resisters do because of the well-intentioned schismatic attitude they have been forced to accept as the Catholic response to a purported heretical Pope.
You see LoT- this is what I'm talking about. It doesn't matter how m any spiel's you give, you've done nothing to change the mind of anyone. At least not I. Is it because people are bad willed? Not at all. Are they even required to do anything over and above what I'd written in my previous post? No.
So if you'd like to actually respond to what I'd addressed earlier, I'd appreciate it. If you haven't figured it out yet, I'm not here arguing about SVism.
I am terribly sorry. Can you please state what you want me to respond to again that does not have to do with SV?
-
No problem. It is what you quoted me on 3 posts ago:
To katholikos, et all-
I read through your response to Nishant, and was left still less than convinced. You see, I think a major issue with SVism is the depth of theology it dives into; or perhaps the issues is not with SVism, but most SVists failing to understand a few key points.
This type of theological conversation is not really proper, much less required, for Joe Catholic. To discuss Cannon law, Church history, and advanced theological teachings, which were never really meant for anyone, not even yourselves, but for theologians of the Church, never has been, is not now, and never will be the responsibility of the average laity; and this is where I think many SVists fail.
I'm not saying its wrong to be SV, or to hold these debates. But you do come off as contradictory when you get to this point:
I do not bind anyone to anything on the grounds that "I" have determined or recognized it. (And I don't know anyone else who does so either.)
But this doesn't mean everyone has the right to any position he likes. What can and does bind everyone is the conclusions of human reason from the facts as discerned from reality and the principles of Catholic teaching as learned from our theology books and catechisms. Our conscience binds us, and we have the duty to inform it accordingly. Thus, when a sedevacantist argues that you MUST recognize the false church in Rome to be exactly that, then this is not because "we" have determined it so, but because the facts applied to Catholic principles necessitate this conclusion. It is your own intellect that requires you to draw this conclusion, and that is what makes it binding. We are merely pointing out what is going on.
So you do not bind anyone "on the grounds that [you] have determined or recognized" sedevecantism to be correct; but you go on to essentially say, without using the same words, that SVists are justified in arguing that people are bound to accept the SV conclusion because "the facts", which are arguments above and beyond which the average laity is required to be able to discern, and "facts" as you have determined them but not because you have determined them, are the truth. Then you go on to say, very nonchalantly, that you are merely pointing out what's going on, when everything else you've stated is contrary.
I'm not trying to pick a fight, so please don't get me wrong; and I'm no theologian, have never studied cannon law, and am not versed enough in anything to argue this position. Lastly, let me add that while I am not an adherent to the SV position, I do not think it is outright wrong; its just moot for me as a Catholic living my faith, and is moot because it determines nothing of my salvation, as long as I adhere to Tradition, and live a Holy life according to Catholicism. You can dig up my post on me being an "agnostic Sedevecantist" if you want to know how I really feel about the issue.
But I am trying to show you why people may be less than enthusiastic about your lengthy argument, which I read in its entirety, than people who are already swayed to the SVist position (such as Lover of Truth, and SedeCatholic). I'm also trying to show a contradiction I found in your argument, which I think is a very important one because it isn't about SVism itself, but about the mind and mentality of most, in my experience, SVists.
-
I'm about to go. At first glance it looks like it has to do with SV. I'll have to re-read it first thing and try to respond to your specific objection not having to do with SV.
Thanks for your patience.
-
Thank you , and I await your response.
If I can clarify, I never said it has nothing "to do" with SV; only that it wasn't an argument for or against SV. The entirety of the post is about what the responsibility of Catholics are in regard to the crisis in the Church today, how binding is the opinion of SV as it relates to Catholics, and, keeping these things in mind, the attitudes SVists take with Catholics in regards to the SV opinion.
-
I just noticed that a web link I had referenced wasn't coded properly and so led to a non-existent web page. Let me fix this error right here. The page I was referencing was Chris Ferrara's article "Ratzinger Consecrates Neo-Modernist Bishop" (Feb. 2005). In this piece, Ferrara chastises "Cardinal" Ratzinger for continually doing grave damage to the Faith and the Church.
In fact, Ferrara does not mince words. Listen to this:
Yes, “our only friend in the Vatican” has struck again. More and more it becomes apparent that this man is perhaps the most industrious ecclesial termite of the post-conciliar epoch, tearing down even as he makes busy with the appearance of building up. The longer Ratzinger “guards” Catholic doctrine, the more porous the barriers that protect it become.
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-ratzinger%20consecrates.htm (http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-ratzinger%20consecrates.htm)
Only a few weeks later, Mr. Ferrara cried tears of joy at the election of this "ecclesiastical termite" to the "papacy," on April 19 of the same year. And - voila! The man he so sarcastically referred to above as "our only friend in the Vatican" suddenly became -- Ferrara's only friend in the Vatican! Overnight!
Amazing what a few weeks can do to you if you're in the Novus Ordo... I can only hope Ratzinger's successor will be "Cardinal" Walter Kasper....
More interesting stuff on the REAL Ratzinger (both pre- and post-April 2005):
http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_001_CondemnationRatzinger.htm (http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_001_CondemnationRatzinger.htm)
http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_040_LubacRatz.htm (http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_040_LubacRatz.htm)
http://www.novusordowatch.org/benedict/originalsin.htm (http://www.novusordowatch.org/benedict/originalsin.htm)
http://www.novusordowatch.org/no_friend_of_fatima.htm (http://www.novusordowatch.org/no_friend_of_fatima.htm)
We always ought to engage in an analysis of the facts, rather than providing spin. And sedevacantism is the reasonable conclusion from examining the facts.
-
I just noticed that a web link I had referenced wasn't coded properly and so led to a non-existent web page. Let me fix this error right here. The page I was referencing was Chris Ferrara's article "Ratzinger Consecrates Neo-Modernist Bishop" (Feb. 2005). In this piece, Ferrara chastises "Cardinal" Ratzinger for continually doing grave damage to the Faith and the Church.
In fact, Ferrara does not mince words. Listen to this:
Yes, “our only friend in the Vatican” has struck again. More and more it becomes apparent that this man is perhaps the most industrious ecclesial termite of the post-conciliar epoch, tearing down even as he makes busy with the appearance of building up. The longer Ratzinger “guards” Catholic doctrine, the more porous the barriers that protect it become.
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-ratzinger%20consecrates.htm (http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-ratzinger%20consecrates.htm)
Only a few weeks later, Mr. Ferrara cried tears of joy at the election of this "ecclesiastical termite" to the "papacy," on April 19 of the same year. And - voila! The man he so sarcastically referred to above as "our only friend in the Vatican" suddenly became -- Ferrara's only friend in the Vatican! Overnight!
Amazing what a few weeks can do to you if you're in the Novus Ordo... I can only hope Ratzinger's successor will be "Cardinal" Walter Kasper....
More interesting stuff on the REAL Ratzinger (both pre- and post-April 2005):
http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_001_CondemnationRatzinger.htm (http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_001_CondemnationRatzinger.htm)
http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_040_LubacRatz.htm (http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_040_LubacRatz.htm)
http://www.novusordowatch.org/benedict/originalsin.htm (http://www.novusordowatch.org/benedict/originalsin.htm)
http://www.novusordowatch.org/no_friend_of_fatima.htm (http://www.novusordowatch.org/no_friend_of_fatima.htm)
We always ought to engage in an analysis of the facts, rather than providing spin. And sedevacantism is the reasonable conclusion from examining the facts.
:applause:
You have made another insightful post, Katholikos.
I am glad that you read http://www.traditioninaction.org
They are not Sedes, but they are very, very, good on many other issues.
Also, I have reason to believe that Atila Sinke Guimaraes is more in line with Sede thinking than he shows...
-
I just noticed that a web link I had referenced wasn't coded properly and so led to a non-existent web page. Let me fix this error right here. The page I was referencing was Chris Ferrara's article "Ratzinger Consecrates Neo-Modernist Bishop" (Feb. 2005). In this piece, Ferrara chastises "Cardinal" Ratzinger for continually doing grave damage to the Faith and the Church.
In fact, Ferrara does not mince words. Listen to this:
Yes, “our only friend in the Vatican” has struck again. More and more it becomes apparent that this man is perhaps the most industrious ecclesial termite of the post-conciliar epoch, tearing down even as he makes busy with the appearance of building up. The longer Ratzinger “guards” Catholic doctrine, the more porous the barriers that protect it become.
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-ratzinger%20consecrates.htm (http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-ratzinger%20consecrates.htm)
Only a few weeks later, Mr. Ferrara cried tears of joy at the election of this "ecclesiastical termite" to the "papacy," on April 19 of the same year. And - voila! The man he so sarcastically referred to above as "our only friend in the Vatican" suddenly became -- Ferrara's only friend in the Vatican! Overnight!
Amazing what a few weeks can do to you if you're in the Novus Ordo... I can only hope Ratzinger's successor will be "Cardinal" Walter Kasper....
More interesting stuff on the REAL Ratzinger (both pre- and post-April 2005):
http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_001_CondemnationRatzinger.htm (http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_001_CondemnationRatzinger.htm)
http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_040_LubacRatz.htm (http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_040_LubacRatz.htm)
http://www.novusordowatch.org/benedict/originalsin.htm (http://www.novusordowatch.org/benedict/originalsin.htm)
http://www.novusordowatch.org/no_friend_of_fatima.htm (http://www.novusordowatch.org/no_friend_of_fatima.htm)
We always ought to engage in an analysis of the facts, rather than providing spin. And sedevacantism is the reasonable conclusion from examining the facts.
:applause:
You have made another insightful post, Katholikos.
I am glad that you read http://www.traditioninaction.org
They are not Sedes, but they are very, very, good on many other issues.
Also, I have reason to believe that it is is possible that Guimaeres is more in line with Sede thinking than he states to the public...
-
I apologise to the Forum.
I tried to edit that post, but I messed it up and somehow it posted it twice.
I think "the concrete" might have been setting.
My fault.
Sorry.
-
Thank you for your thoughtful reply, s2srea. I do not mind disagreement, as long as it is reasonable. And your response was reasonable.
Which is not to say, of course, that I agree with it. But I thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify some things:
To katholikos, et all-
I read through your response to Nishant, and was left still less than convinced. You see, I think a major issue with SVism is the depth of theology it dives into; or perhaps the issues is not with SVism, but most SVists failing to understand a few key points.
This type of theological conversation is not really proper, much less required, for Joe Catholic. To discuss Cannon law, Church history, and advanced theological teachings, which were never really meant for anyone, not even yourselves, but for theologians of the Church, never has been, is not now, and never will be the responsibility of the average laity; and this is where I think many SVists fail.
I think that's a bit unfair now. If we sedevacantists don't go deeply into theology, then we're wrong because we don't understand enough theology; and if we do go deeply into theology, then we're wrong because the truth can't require that much theology to understand. I guess we just can't win. I'm not saying you take both of these positions, but I've heard it argued before that sedevacantists just don't understand enough theology, that we're mental midgets, and what not.
That said, I have to emphasize that I don't think anything I've said was "deep" theology. It was just a bit more than the basics. "Deep theology" would be like reading the theological works of Fr. Eduardo Hugon, Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Cardinal Billot, Bp. Guerard des Lauriers, etc.
The reason I went beyond the basics in theology is because sedevacantism was being challenged in that direction. It can't be that we can't use theological explanations for a theological position, without becoming irrelevant. Something just doesn't compute here.
We have been witnessing what is undoubtedly the greatest theological mystery since the founding of the Church: the apparent near-disappearance of the Roman Catholic Church and Roman Catholic Faith since the death of Pope Pius XII. The eclipse of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. The mystical Passion, "dying" and "entombing" of the Bride of Christ, waiting to rise again gloriously just as Her Founder. The putting up of a false "bride" in the place of the True Bride, while fooling almost the entire world. The near-universal falling into heresy or apostasy of "Roman Catholics," the virtual disappearance of the Holy Mass, convents, monasteries, vocations, etc. What 1900 years of the forces of hell could not accomplish, Vatican II did in just a few decades....
Are you really going to say that this greatest of theological mysteries must be adequately explained by only using the Baltimore Catechism, else there is something wrong?
Absurd. Simply absurd.
But yes, we can reduce it to more simple theology - we just can't necessarily defend it against all attacks using only the basics. But here it is in a nutshell, as part of Catholicism 101:
The Church cannot change the Faith. The Catholic Church cannot give evil. The Catholic Church cannot be "resisted" by loyal members. It is necessary to profess the Roman Catholic Faith to be a member of the Catholic Church. One who is not a member of the Church cannot hold office in the Church. The Catholic Church is indefectible and guaranteed to always be teaching the truth and thus is forever the Ark of Salvation, outside of which one will perish in the flood. A Roman Catholic is bound to submit to the Church and the Pope; he must adhere to all the Church teaches, whether infallibly or non-infallibly, under pain of (usually mortal) sin. And finally: The human mind cannot consent to contradictions because contradictions are false; because they are mutually exclusive, they cannot both be true.
That should do. All this was simple.
Now, you say that I am contradicting myself in my argument:
I do not bind anyone to anything on the grounds that "I" have determined or recognized it. (And I don't know anyone else who does so either.)
But this doesn't mean everyone has the right to [hold] any position he likes. What can and does bind everyone is the conclusions of human reason from the facts as discerned from reality and the principles of Catholic teaching as learned from our theology books and catechisms. Our conscience binds us, and we have the duty to inform it accordingly. Thus, when a sedevacantist argues that you MUST recognize the false church in Rome to be exactly that, then this is not because "we" have determined it so, but because the facts applied to Catholic principles necessitate this conclusion. It is your own intellect that requires you to draw this conclusion, and that is what makes it binding. We are merely pointing out what is going on.
So you do not bind anyone "on the grounds that [you] have determined or recognized" sedevecantism to be correct; but you go on to essentially say, without using the same words, that SVists are justified in arguing that people are bound to accept the SV conclusion because "the facts", which are arguments above and beyond which the average laity is required to be able to discern, and "facts" as you have determined them but not because you have determined them, are the truth. Then you go on to say, very nonchalantly, that you are merely pointing out what's going on, when everything else you've stated is contrary.
So what's wrong with this? The human mind can know things; we can know facts. Now, if someone disagrees regarding a particular fact, that's fine. And we can debate facts; I have no problem with that. But in the SSPX, for example, most people there already agree with sedevacantists as to the facts (for example, the fact that Benedict XVI is not a Catholic, that "Archbishop" Zollitsch is a heretic, that the "New Mass" is not Catholic, etc.).
Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly enough, and if so, I apologize. Let me try again: No one has to accept sedevacantism because I or someone else who has no authority has said it is true. Rather, people have to accept sedevacantism because it is the only conclusion that can be reconciled with Catholic teaching and the facts about the situation since 1958.
There is no contradiction. What I am doing is helping people see that it is the only possible conclusion. This is important because this "recognize but resist" nonsense is dangerous to one's salvation because it is totally at odds with Catholic teaching.
Now, what you said next absolutely stunned me. But I'm glad you said it because it gives me the opportunity to make another important point. You said:
...its just moot for me as a Catholic living my faith, and is moot because it determines nothing of my salvation, as long as I adhere to Tradition, and live a Holy life according to Catholicism.
I am floored! It is "moot"? My friend, by saying this, you have unwittingly confirmed exactly what I've been saying on here: You recognize-and-resisters IGNORE the "Pope." You IGNORE the New Church. In a way (please allow me to be blunt, not to offend but to be impactful), you couldn't care less if Benedict XVI is the Pope or what the Novus Ordo magisterium teaches.
And you know why? BECAUSE YOU DO NOT SUBMIT TO THEM ANYWAY!
But may I please remind you that submission to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation:
"...it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman pontiff" (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 1302)
And I am sure you're aware of what the First Vatican Council teaches about submission to the Pope and about the nature of papal primacy over the entire Church, that it's a true primacy of jurisdiction (government) and not merely a primacy of honor (a la the SSPX - put up a nice "papal" portrait in the sacristy and that's about it).
What a horrible and impossible thing for a Roman Catholic even to contemplate: "I don't know and don't care if the Pope is a heretic, if the magisterium teaches error, if the liturgical laws are designed to make me lose the Faith. I ignore them all anyway." !!
No, this is not Catholicism.
So, s2srea, you are in a pickle. If you acknowledge someone as the Roman Pontiff but do not submit to him, then you are, subjectively, a schismatic, and if you deny that submission is due the Roman Pontiff, then you are also a heretic. And in neither case would you be able to "adhere to Tradition" (because that's part of Tradition), nor would you be able to "live a holy life according to Catholicism" because there is no holiness apart from the Faith, and St. Pius X himself said: "there can be no holiness where there is disagreement with the pope” (St. Pius X, to the priests of the Apostolic Union, 18th November 1912, AAS 1912, p. 695).
May God bless you always!
-
Thanks Katholikos for the response. I've tried to do my best below, but admit I had to rush towards the end. At a certain point, we will not agree on this, but I've tried to clarify my position, and respond to yours.
To katholikos, et all-
I read through your response to Nishant, and was left still less than convinced. You see, I think a major issue with SVism is the depth of theology it dives into; or perhaps the issues is not with SVism, but most SVists failing to understand a few key points.
This type of theological conversation is not really proper, much less required, for Joe Catholic. To discuss Cannon law, Church history, and advanced theological teachings, which were never really meant for anyone, not even yourselves, but for theologians of the Church, never has been, is not now, and never will be the responsibility of the average laity; and this is where I think many SVists fail.
I think that's a bit unfair now. If we sedevacantists don't go deeply into theology, then we're wrong because we don't understand enough theology; and if we do go deeply into theology, then we're wrong because the truth can't require that much theology to understand. I guess we just can't win. I'm not saying you take both of these positions, but I've heard it argued before that sedevacantists just don't understand enough theology, that we're mental midgets, and what not.
So, Katholikos- everything you've just said had nothing to do with what I'd posted, right? So nothing I've mentioned is "unfair" yet, right? Will you take back the 'that's a bit unfair now' part? Or are you leaving it in for effect?
That said, I have to emphasize that I don't think anything I've said was "deep" theology. It was just a bit more than the basics. "Deep theology" would be like reading the theological works of Fr. Eduardo Hugon, Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Cardinal Billot, Bp. Guerard des Lauriers, etc.
And here I can agree with you. Nothing you've said has really been that 'deep' in terms of theology. However, would you agree that in order to ascertain the answer to the sedevecantist question, that one should be able to, and actually need to, dive deep into theology. Put another way, would it truly be safe for someone to take such a stance as being pro-SV, without ruling out its theological implications in its entirety, given that it has no dogmatic, doctrinal or canonical basis? This doesn't even mention the amount of prayer and meditation one should perform prior to accepting it as their position; and this prayerful discernment is almost never mentioned by any (spare a few) sedevecantists.
The reason I went beyond the basics in theology is because sedevacantism was being challenged in that direction. It can't be that we can't use theological explanations for a theological position, without becoming irrelevant. Something just doesn't compute here.
Agreed. And this (almost) answers in the affirmative to my above paragraph: you must be able to defend this position on a deep theological level; and this is what the entirety of my argument lies upn.
We have been witnessing....
I was about to skip this paragraph in its entirety, not because I disagreed, but because I thought it was irrelevant to this specific discussion. But after rereading it, I will use the first sentence.
We have been witnessing what is undoubtedly the greatest theological mystery since the founding of the Church: the apparent near-disappearance of the Roman Catholic Church and Roman Catholic Faith since the death of Pope Pius XII.
I just wanted to point it out. You said it, friend. It is the greatest theological mystery, yet we are all bound to accept it (as you'd originally argued, and argue below)? Hmm. I would go out on a limb and argue that almost sounds like a dogma... I don't believe you've shown yourself to be a dogmatic sedevecantist, but I believe this helps illustrate my point.
Are you really going to say that this greatest of theological mysteries must be adequately explained by only using the Baltimore Catechism, else there is something wrong?
Not at all! And that's my point! A catholic is not bound to discuss or have opinions on anything over the level of his Catechism. Anything more than that, and he is free.
Absurd. Simply absurd.
Yes, that's what I'm trying to argue. Do you see how I feel the same way now?
But yes, we can reduce it to more simple theology - we just can't necessarily defend it against all attacks using only the basics. But here it is in a nutshell, as part of Catholicism 101:
The Church cannot change the Faith. The Catholic Church cannot give evil. The Catholic Church cannot be "resisted" by loyal members. It is necessary to profess the Roman Catholic Faith to be a member of the Catholic Church. One who is not a member of the Church cannot hold office in the Church. The Catholic Church is indefectible and guaranteed to always be teaching the truth and thus is forever the Ark of Salvation, outside of which one will perish in the flood. A Roman Catholic is bound to submit to the Church and the Pope; he must adhere to all the Church teaches, whether infallibly or non-infallibly, under pain of (usually mortal) sin. And finally: The human mind cannot consent to contradictions because contradictions are false; because they are mutually exclusive, they cannot both be true.
That should do. All this was simple.
Please don't take this as a sign of weakness, but I will not respond to the above, only because it is an argument on SV itself, and I am not here to argue that. I will however say that one could (and as you know have) argue against the above, using sound Catholic teaching.
Now, you say that I am contradicting myself in my argument:
I do not bind anyone to anything on the grounds that "I" have determined or recognized it. (And I don't know anyone else who does so either.)
But this doesn't mean everyone has the right to [hold] any position he likes. What can and does bind everyone is the conclusions of human reason from the facts as discerned from reality and the principles of Catholic teaching as learned from our theology books and catechisms. Our conscience binds us, and we have the duty to inform it accordingly. Thus, when a sedevacantist argues that you MUST recognize the false church in Rome to be exactly that, then this is not because "we" have determined it so, but because the facts applied to Catholic principles necessitate this conclusion. It is your own intellect that requires you to draw this conclusion, and that is what makes it binding. We are merely pointing out what is going on.
So you do not bind anyone "on the grounds that [you] have determined or recognized" sedevecantism to be correct; but you go on to essentially say, without using the same words, that SVists are justified in arguing that people are bound to accept the SV conclusion because "the facts", which are arguments above and beyond which the average laity is required to be able to discern, and "facts" as you have determined them but not because you have determined them, are the truth. Then you go on to say, very nonchalantly, that you are merely pointing out what's going on, when everything else you've stated is contrary.
So what's wrong with this? The human mind can know things; we can know facts. Now, if someone disagrees regarding a particular fact, that's fine. And we can debate facts; I have no problem with that. But in the SSPX, for example, most people there already agree with sedevacantists as to the facts (for example, the fact that Benedict XVI is not a Catholic, that "Archbishop" Zollitsch is a heretic, that the "New Mass" is not Catholic, etc.).
And this is where you fail again; essentially equating coming to an affirmative to the SV question is similar to reasoning that there is a God (you said, "The human mind can know things") isn't really comforting. Yes we can know things as human beings. But as Catholics, we have never been, nor will we ever be, required to make a determination on the status of the pope or the papacy.
Let me quote the forum owner who explains it much more clearly:
As I've said before, if this particular truth is "knowable", then why can't the brightest theological minds come to an agreement on the issue? If this or that docuмent rendered the Sedevacantist issue "CASE CLOSED", why do so many people dispute it? While 99% of people are out of the game for various reasons, that still leaves a lot of people! Why don't most of them -- even half of them -- agree on the same "truth" about the Papacy?
When 100 people have 7 different theories on the Papacy, how can ANY of them accuse the others of bad will, just for holding to an opposing theory?
My theory: The answer is not to be found, or is unknowable without divine revelation. That's part of the grave nature of the current Crisis. We have to fall back on what we know, and "play it safe" until God sorts this mess out.
As a corollary, I'm saying that there isn't enough empirical data to prove anything about the situation with the popes today. And that the papacy is matter for THEOLOGY, not PHILOSOPHY. That is, it involves revelation and supernatural matters, and isn't something purely in the natural realm that can be deduced with human reason and logic.
Human minds can know truth, and can handle philosophy. But Theology requires much input from God's revelation. We can't "get it right" purely on our own about matters pertaining to God without His help.
What I'm trying to say is, even if there WERE sufficient information out there, what's the chance that Joe Scholar who THINKS he discovered "the truth" to be objectively correct? Was he virtuous enough to consider the opposing positions? And is he virtuous enough to not use his apparent knowledge to get rich, smash his enemies, promote himself, etc. Maybe the person doing those things DIDN'T find the actual truth; maybe they just have enough grains of truth to convince people to send in their money :) (Dimond brothers, anyone?)
I just think it doesn't matter. Something that most Catholics can't figure out CANNOT be of vital importance to salvation. We insult God to say otherwise. How can we accuse God of making something vital to salvation such an enigma? Either the Pope question is simple (which obviously isn't true) or we can GET BY at least without knowing the truth on this matter. I'm going with the latter.[/color]
This actually explains a lot about sedevacantists, if you stop and think about it.
...its just moot for me as a Catholic living my faith, and is moot because it determines nothing of my salvation, as long as I adhere to Tradition, and live a Holy life according to Catholicism.
I am floored! It is "moot"? My friend, by saying this, you have unwittingly confirmed exactly what I've been saying on here: You recognize-and-resisters IGNORE the "Pope." You IGNORE the New Church. In a way (please allow me to be blunt, not to offend but to be impactful), you couldn't care less if Benedict XVI is the Pope or what the Novus Ordo magisterium teaches.
I tell you what- insofar as it affects my salvation, no I couldn't care less if BVXI was pope or not, or what the NO teaches, because they are both not acting Catholic. And until they are and teach withing the teachings of the Catholic Church, I will stick to Tradition and save my soul through receiving the Sacraments and living a holy life as best I can. Untill then, it matters not whether they are pope or not, because I still have the Catholic Church to follow, can still save my soul, and am not wasting my time debating something which is outside my reach. Something that is too far deep theologically for me to understand, and which is not required for me to understand.
And you know why? BECAUSE YOU DO NOT SUBMIT TO THEM ANYWAY!
But may I please remind you that submission to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation:
"...it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman pontiff" (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 1302)
Again, I will not argue on the points of SVism itself, but I will say that I do and am subject to the Roman pontiff insofar as he is within the genuine teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. But again, this isn't a argument about SVism.
And I am sure you're aware of what the First Vatican Council teaches about submission to the Pope and about the nature of papal primacy over the entire Church, that it's a true primacy of jurisdiction (government) and not merely a primacy of honor (a la the SSPX - put up a nice "papal" portrait in the sacristy and that's about it).
What a horrible and impossible thing for a Roman Catholic even to contemplate: "I don't know and don't care if the Pope is a heretic, if the magisterium teaches error, if the liturgical laws are designed to make me lose the Faith. I ignore them all anyway." !!
No, this is not Catholicism.
I said earlier that I didn't care about the status of the pope, 'insofar as it affects my salvation', and I meant it. But this doesn't mean that I don't care outright. I'm trying to tell you, and have been trying to tell you, that I, personally, can not know. And many others are the same. And at the end of the day, this does not affect my salvation. I will still save my soul, as long as I follow Christ, his Blessed Mother, the Teachings and Commandments of the Church, etc.,
So, s2srea, you are in a pickle. If you acknowledge someone as the Roman Pontiff but do not submit to him, then you are, subjectively, a schismatic, and if you deny that submission is due the Roman Pontiff, then you are also a heretic.
No my friend, I am in no pickle. Or rather, the only pickle I'm in is saving my soul on this Earth for the time I'm on it. I still have the same ability to gain Heaven as you, or lose it, as anyone else does, without needing to come to a conclusion on this opinion. Which is just that my friend: an opinion. There's the 'pickle' I'm trying to point out to you.
And in neither case would you be able to "adhere to Tradition" (because that's part of Tradition), nor would you be able to "live a holy life according to Catholicism" because there is no holiness apart from the Faith, and St. Pius X himself said: "there can be no holiness where there is disagreement with the pope” (St. Pius X, to the priests of the Apostolic Union, 18th November 1912, AAS 1912, p. 695).
May God bless you always!
And you!
-
I just noticed that a web link I had referenced wasn't coded properly and so led to a non-existent web page. Let me fix this error right here. The page I was referencing was Chris Ferrara's article "Ratzinger Consecrates Neo-Modernist Bishop" (Feb. 2005). In this piece, Ferrara chastises "Cardinal" Ratzinger for continually doing grave damage to the Faith and the Church.
In fact, Ferrara does not mince words. Listen to this:
Yes, “our only friend in the Vatican” has struck again. More and more it becomes apparent that this man is perhaps the most industrious ecclesial termite of the post-conciliar epoch, tearing down even as he makes busy with the appearance of building up. The longer Ratzinger “guards” Catholic doctrine, the more porous the barriers that protect it become.
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-ratzinger%20consecrates.htm (http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-ratzinger%20consecrates.htm)
Only a few weeks later, Mr. Ferrara cried tears of joy at the election of this "ecclesiastical termite" to the "papacy," on April 19 of the same year. And - voila! The man he so sarcastically referred to above as "our only friend in the Vatican" suddenly became -- Ferrara's only friend in the Vatican! Overnight!
Amazing what a few weeks can do to you if you're in the Novus Ordo... I can only hope Ratzinger's successor will be "Cardinal" Walter Kasper....
More interesting stuff on the REAL Ratzinger (both pre- and post-April 2005):
http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_001_CondemnationRatzinger.htm (http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_001_CondemnationRatzinger.htm)
http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_040_LubacRatz.htm (http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_040_LubacRatz.htm)
http://www.novusordowatch.org/benedict/originalsin.htm (http://www.novusordowatch.org/benedict/originalsin.htm)
http://www.novusordowatch.org/no_friend_of_fatima.htm (http://www.novusordowatch.org/no_friend_of_fatima.htm)
We always ought to engage in an analysis of the facts, rather than providing spin. And sedevacantism is the reasonable conclusion from examining the facts.
:applause:
You have made another insightful post, Katholikos.
I am glad that you read http://www.traditioninaction.org
They are not Sedes, but they are very, very, good on many other issues.
Also, I have reason to believe that Atila Sinke Guimaraes is more in line with Sede thinking than he shows...
You may think I am making it up but I believe the people of the above site actually believe the following:
God might be a sedevacantist but the lay people cannot make that determination. They see the problems with the heretical heads as well as and sometimes even better than the SVs do but they, for whatever reason(s) cannot publically state the obvious.
-
You see, I think a major issue with SVism is the depth of theology it dives into; or perhaps the issues is not with SVism, but most SVists failing to understand a few key points.
This type of theological conversation is not really proper, much less required, for Joe Catholic. To discuss Cannon law, Church history, and advanced theological teachings, which were never really meant for anyone, not even yourselves, but for theologians of the Church, never has been, is not now, and never will be the responsibility of the average laity; and this is where I think many SVists fail.
Yep.
Sedevacantists criticize the right things, but where's their authority? Why haven't they elected a pope?
-
Yep.
Sedevacantists criticize the right things, but where's their authority? Why haven't they elected a pope?
Well Busillis, I don't think a SV needs to elect a pope after coming to their conclusion. He only recognizes things as he see them, but needing to elect a pope is not part of the opinion or a requirement of submitting to it. Also, and I hope I'm not mistaken, the authority for SV is the same as that of those who reject the Modernists- it comes from supplied jurisdiction.
-
Why haven't they elected a pope?
Laypeople cannot elect a Pope.
-
This type of theological conversation is not really proper, much less required, for Joe Catholic. To discuss Cannon law, Church history, and advanced theological teachings, which were never really meant for anyone, not even yourselves, but for theologians of the Church, never has been, is not now, and never will be the responsibility of the average laity; and this is where I think many SVists fail.
Funny thing, s2srea, the SSPX has quite publicly stated that the SV position is "too simple"! This actually proves how moderate and true the SV position is because it gets blamed sometimes for being too simplel and sometimes for being too complicated! Think about it...the school boy learns simply about the trinity or transubstantiation, yet theologians can go into those quite deeply.
The Arian heresy was one subtle philosophical error (pretty much the difference between one letter in a word!), yet the simple Catholic was praised for realizing that it was against the Faith while he disassociated himself from all the Arians.
Let's cut out the accusations of ease or difficulty and simply talk about whether something is "true" or not. How about that?
Let me quote a very learned sedevacantist here:
Let me put it this way. At present, there are basically two types of "Catholics": those who are happy with the "changes" and those who are not. Of the latter group, some if not most have joined some sort of resistance "movement" at least in their minds. The first group is not Catholic, and I have no concern with them, though I hope and pray for their conversion to the Truth as I do for all unbelievers. They are not members of the Church, and they are not interested in what I or "traditionalists" have to say. It would take a far greater than I to convert them. My "mission" is to those who are unhappy with the "changes" but have not found the way out from conciliar heresy and schism. I am convinced that on a better understanding of Catholic teaching, given to us by Our Divine Redeemer for our comfort as well as for our salvation (and every single syllable of it was bought and paid for by His Most Precious Blood), they will see the need, regardless of the "Pope" question, of totally rejecting the "changes." They will understand the falsity of the position of so many compromisers who, while not accepting the heresies of Vatican II openly, are in the position of the Semi-Arians of the 4th century, of the Jansenists, of other groups who have diluted the pure truth of Christ to gain a following, or out of human respect, or because they have been partly deceived by heretics.
Therefore, as I have said, my "mission" (I can't and don't wish to speak for others) is not per se to prove that the conciliar Popes are invalid, but to convey the absolute necessity of believing the doctrine of the unity of the Church, as well as the sacrosanct character of all Tradition, both doctrinal, liturgical, and disciplinary. The invalidity of the "popes" is a conclusion depending on the heretical nature of their teachings. Those who adhere to their teachings obviously will never agree to this. There is no point discussing this with them at all, when there is no antecedent agreement on matters of Faith. For those who do see the heresy, to a greater or lesser extent, the "pope question" may be necessary, and is likely to be helpful, as clearing out an obstacle to the full truth, particularly the obstacle of confusing a heretical sect with the True Church. If this is confused, the mind is deprived of clear ideas about doctrine. The necessary result is that all the doctrines rejected in the Novus Ordo "church" are reduced, in the minds of otherwise would-be orthodox people, to matters of opinion. This is actually the position of certain well known "traditional" priests (in communion with the Novus Ordo hierarchy). Their whole position is founded on accepting, a priori, conciliar "popes" as legitimate and the Vatican Council as a legitimate council. Their great danger is precisely the appearance, and their claim, of 100% orthodoxy, enabling them to keep people in the conciliar slaughterhouse.
There are so many important Catholic principles which have been lost sight of today. One could clean the Augean stables before succeeding in restoring these to men's minds. But one of the most important, and neglected even by traditional priests, is that of St. Augustine: In necessary things unity, in doubtful things liberty, in all things charity. (Frequently fractured by heretics to "in unessential things" as though any matter of doctrine could be unessential). There need be no division between Catholics over controverted matters when they are DIFFICULT, OBSCURE, not clear from past teaching or requiring proof of facts not evident to us, and of course, not yet decided by Catholic authority (Pope or general council). Such, it seems to me, is the question of the legitimacy of the "popes" since 1958. Such is NOT the clear teaching of the Church (whether or not solemnly defined) which has been overthrown in countless ways by and since the Council. In these things, there can be no disagreement. Those who are with us on this are with the Church; those who are not, are not Catholics. If some of the matters are difficult, many, if not most, are not.
Now Rawhide/Bazz/Nonno/Cupertino, where do you disagree?
-
Let me quote a very learned sedevacantist here:
Let me put it this way. At present, there are basically two types of "Catholics": those who are happy with the "changes" and those who are not. Of the latter group, some if not most have joined some sort of resistance "movement" at least in their minds. The first group is not Catholic, and I have no concern with them, though I hope and pray for their conversion to the Truth as I do for all unbelievers. They are not members of the Church, and they are not interested in what I or "traditionalists" have to say. It would take a far greater than I to convert them. My "mission" is to those who are unhappy with the "changes" but have not found the way out from conciliar heresy and schism. I am convinced that on a better understanding of Catholic teaching, given to us by Our Divine Redeemer for our comfort as well as for our salvation (and every single syllable of it was bought and paid for by His Most Precious Blood), they will see the need, regardless of the "Pope" question, of totally rejecting the "changes." They will understand the falsity of the position of so many compromisers who, while not accepting the heresies of Vatican II openly, are in the position of the Semi-Arians of the 4th century, of the Jansenists, of other groups who have diluted the pure truth of Christ to gain a following, or out of human respect, or because they have been partly deceived by heretics.
Therefore, as I have said, my "mission" (I can't and don't wish to speak for others) is not per se to prove that the conciliar Popes are invalid, but to convey the absolute necessity of believing the doctrine of the unity of the Church, as well as the sacrosanct character of all Tradition, both doctrinal, liturgical, and disciplinary. The invalidity of the "popes" is a conclusion depending on the heretical nature of their teachings. Those who adhere to their teachings obviously will never agree to this. There is no point discussing this with them at all, when there is no antecedent agreement on matters of Faith. For those who do see the heresy, to a greater or lesser extent, the "pope question" may be necessary, and is likely to be helpful, as clearing out an obstacle to the full truth, particularly the obstacle of confusing a heretical sect with the True Church. If this is confused, the mind is deprived of clear ideas about doctrine. The necessary result is that all the doctrines rejected in the Novus Ordo "church" are reduced, in the minds of otherwise would-be orthodox people, to matters of opinion. This is actually the position of certain well known "traditional" priests (in communion with the Novus Ordo hierarchy). Their whole position is founded on accepting, a priori, conciliar "popes" as legitimate and the Vatican Council as a legitimate council. Their great danger is precisely the appearance, and their claim, of 100% orthodoxy, enabling them to keep people in the conciliar slaughterhouse.
There are so many important Catholic principles which have been lost sight of today. One could clean the Augean stables before succeeding in restoring these to men's minds. But one of the most important, and neglected even by traditional priests, is that of St. Augustine: In necessary things unity, in doubtful things liberty, in all things charity. (Frequently fractured by heretics to "in unessential things" as though any matter of doctrine could be unessential). There need be no division between Catholics over controverted matters when they are DIFFICULT, OBSCURE, not clear from past teaching or requiring proof of facts not evident to us, and of course, not yet decided by Catholic authority (Pope or general council). Such, it seems to me, is the question of the legitimacy of the "popes" since 1958. Such is NOT the clear teaching of the Church (whether or not solemnly defined) which has been overthrown in countless ways by and since the Council. In these things, there can be no disagreement. Those who are with us on this are with the Church; those who are not, are not Catholics. If some of the matters are difficult, many, if not most, are not.
Now Rawhide/Bazz/Nonno/Cupertino, where do you disagree?
Who is the author of that piece?
-
So, Katholikos- everything you've just said had nothing to do with what I'd posted, right? So nothing I've mentioned is "unfair" yet, right? Will you take back the 'that's a bit unfair now' part? Or are you leaving it in for effect?
If I understand you right, you took issue with my defense of sedevacantism on the grounds that it was too theological. For a position that is theological in nature, necessarily so, yes, I think that's a bit unfair, especially since I'd be opening up myself to the charge of not using enough theology if I don't use much of it. But that's just my opinion. If you think I have unjustly "accused" you of being unfair, I am happy to retract that. I suppose it's a matter of opinion/perspective. (But you did tell me, in a post on page 23, that the issue of sedevacantism was "more complex" than I was making it out to be in a particular post - didn't you?)
And here I can agree with you. Nothing you've said has really been that 'deep' in terms of theology. However, would you agree that in order to ascertain the answer to the sedevecantist question, that one should be able to, and actually need to, dive deep into theology.
No, I don't think it's necessary. It probably depends on the person. Some people "get it" right away, just from the basics, whereas others aren't satisfied by that and want more.
Put another way, would it truly be safe for someone to take such a stance as being pro-SV, without ruling out its theological implications in its entirety, given that it has no dogmatic, doctrinal or canonical basis?
"Given that", huh? :) Of course sedevacantism has a dogmatic, doctrinal, and canonical basis.
This doesn't even mention the amount of prayer and meditation one should perform prior to accepting it as their position; and this prayerful discernment is almost never mentioned by any (spare a few) sedevecantists.
It's a given that anything having to do with one's soul, one's salvation, one's Faith, ought to be accompanied by lots of prayer. That goes for ANY position - that of remaining in the Novus Ordo, that of taking the "papal/magisterial babysitter" position of the SSPX, and that of sedevacantism. Before you call a liturgical rite universally promulgated and approved by the (person you recognize to be the) Pope EVIL, yeah, you should do a bit of praying. This argument cuts in all directions.
I just wanted to point it out. You said it, friend. It is the greatest theological mystery, yet we are all bound to accept it (as you'd originally argued, and argue below)? Hmm. I would go out on a limb and argue that almost sounds like a dogma... I don't believe you've shown yourself to be a dogmatic sedevecantist, but I believe this helps illustrate my point.
You've lost me. What I'm saying is that no matter which way you slice it, the situation we are faced with (and regardless of what position you take) is the greatest mystery since the founding of the Church. What we have been witnessing since 1958 has never happened before.
Not at all! And that's my point! A catholic is not bound to discuss or have opinions on anything over the level of his Catechism. Anything more than that, and he is free.
That's all well and good, but what I'm saying is that YOUR position CONTRADICTS the catechism.
And this is where you fail again; essentially equating coming to an affirmative to the SV question is similar to reasoning that there is a God (you said, "The human mind can know things") isn't really comforting. Yes we can know things as human beings. But as Catholics, we have never been, nor will we ever be, required to make a determination on the status of the pope or the papacy.
Let me explain: Coming to affirm sedevacantism is the ONLY WAY that you can escape the dilemma of either schism or heresy. If you do not want to make a determination on the "Pope," fine, but then follow him (Benedict), because your catechism compels you to. Ah! But if you do that, then what do you believe? Do you believe the old or the new Faith? You cannot believe both. (Challenge me on this if you like.)
OK, so you decide to stick with the Old Faith. Now you have a problem: You cannot submit to the "Pope" the way the Old Faith tells you to. In other words, both options run into a contradiction, into a dead end: You will either refuse to submit to the Pope (schism), or you will submit to him and thus compel yourself to believe the New Faith (heresy).
Therefore, sedevacantism is the only possible conclusion. It avoids both schism and heresy. That's it in a nutshell. And this is all knowable.
As I've said before, if this particular truth is "knowable", then why can't the brightest theological minds come to an agreement on the issue? If this or that docuмent rendered the Sedevacantist issue "CASE CLOSED", why do so many people dispute it? While 99% of people are out of the game for various reasons, that still leaves a lot of people! Why don't most of them -- even half of them -- agree on the same "truth" about the Papacy?
Who are these brightest theological minds? Can we get some examples? Sedevacantism isn't that tough to figure out. But for many people it's unsettling, understandably. There are many obstacles in people's lives, some more and some less burdensome. Some are faced with no Mass to go to; some will have family problems; some depend on a "marriage annulment" from the Novus Ordo to be able to keep their lives in order; some don't have sufficient resources to research the matter; some will lose their job; some will lose recognition; some will fall into depression, etc.
I am not saying that everyone who hasn't embraced sedevacantism has an ulterior motive. Not at all. But we would be fools to tell ourselves that some of the above motives don't come into play for a lot of people.
Some people just haven't come across the right sources yet (that's how it was for me - I wasn't aware of all Church teachings when I was in the SSPX, but once I was exposed to more Church teachings, I realized the SSPX was wrong and sedevacantism was true). And for some still, sedevacantism maybe has never been sufficiently explained to them. And yes, grace plays a big role too, probably the biggest one. Think of all the monasteries and convents no longer in existence. All those pious clergy who used to be there - are no longer praying. The Holy Mass is barely offered anywhere anymore, and so much less grace is available today from those sources.
But this whole argument being made here isn't a very good one. One might as well apply it to all traditionalists and ask, "How come 99.999% of all 'Catholics' aren't Traditionalists?"
When 100 people have 7 different theories on the Papacy, how can ANY of them accuse the others of bad will, just for holding to an opposing theory?
It's not right to accuse people of bad will rashly. Unfortunately, some have a terrible habit of doing that. I am not one of them.
But to get back to the issue: If someone wants to defend the SSPX-type position in light of the evidence, by all means, let me hear it.
My theory: The answer is not to be found, or is unknowable without divine revelation. That's part of the grave nature of the current Crisis. We have to fall back on what we know, and "play it safe" until God sorts this mess out.
And how do we "play it safe"? By becoming schismatics or by becoming heretics? (see the two non-sedevacantist options I described above)
As a corollary, I'm saying that there isn't enough empirical data to prove anything about the situation with the popes today. And that the papacy is matter for THEOLOGY, not PHILOSOPHY. That is, it involves revelation and supernatural matters, and isn't something purely in the natural realm that can be deduced with human reason and logic.
Wait a minute... you're saying that we need new Revelation from God to be able to figure out what we ought to do or believe? I won't jump the gun here, but I think that's probably a heretical idea. In any case, Sacred Theology uses human reason and logic quite a bit in its method. While it would require theology to sort things out totally (i.e., which precise theory is correct? sede vacante, sede impedita, material/formal theory, etc.), it does not require a theologian to conclude that Benedict XVI is not the Pope or that one cannot follow the New Religion. Heck, you would probably agree to the latter part of my statement.
Human minds can know truth, and can handle philosophy. But Theology requires much input from God's revelation. We can't "get it right" purely on our own about matters pertaining to God without His help.
There's no new theology required. No new revelation, no new principles.
What I'm trying to say is, even if there WERE sufficient information out there, what's the chance that Joe Scholar who THINKS he discovered "the truth" to be objectively correct?
It's very easy to figure out that Ratzinger is not the Pope: You cannot submit to him without losing the Faith. That's the end of it, right there. And you basically agree with that.
I just think it doesn't matter. Something that most Catholics can't figure out CANNOT be of vital importance to salvation. We insult God to say otherwise. How can we accuse God of making something vital to salvation such an enigma? Either the Pope question is simple (which obviously isn't true) or we can GET BY at least without knowing the truth on this matter. I'm going with the latter.[/color]
OK then.... so that means that we can be Novus Ordo? That we can fully embrace the entire Novus Ordo magisterium, liturgy, canon law, canonizations, etc., and our faith will not be in danger? If so, then, what the heck are we doing trying to be traditional? Lenten fast? Heck! There's an easier way to Heaven now....
I tell you what- insofar as it affects my salvation, no I couldn't care less if BVXI was pope or not, or what the NO teaches, because they are both not acting Catholic. And until they are and teach withing the teachings of the Catholic Church, I will stick to Tradition and save my soul through receiving the Sacraments and living a holy life as best I can. Untill then, it matters not whether they are pope or not, because I still have the Catholic Church to follow, can still save my soul, and am not wasting my time debating something which is outside my reach. Something that is too far deep theologically for me to understand, and which is not required for me to understand.
Thanks for being straightforward about it. So, the institution you believe to be the Roman Catholic Church, the only Ark of Salvation, is "not acting Catholic." May I suggest that that's perhaps because it isn't Catholic? (Ditto for Benedict.) Funny how you feel competent to recognize what is and isn't Catholic (even though the "Church" tells you otherwise!), but when it comes to drawing the logical conclusion, you decide it's above your head and could not possibly be "required" of you.
If you "have the Catholic Church to follow," why don't you then? Or, do you concede that this modernist monster headquartered in Rome isn't the Catholic Church, after all?
And what's this business about "Tradition" you allegedly adhere to? Where did it come from if not from the Catholic Church? (The one you think is still in Rome) And who gets to decide what is and isn't traditional? Where do you draw the line, and what if someone disagrees?
And where in any theological manual or magisterial statement does it say that Catholics are only bound to submit to "Tradition" (defined by themselves) and can ignore the Pope/Church at all other times?
Again, I will not argue on the points of SVism itself, but I will say that I do and am subject to the Roman pontiff insofar as he is within the genuine teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
See, this is exactly what I mean: You guys have to change the Faith in order to uphold your "resist" position. The clause "insofar as he is within the genuine teachings of the Roman Catholic Church" you will find in no council docuмent or theological manual or catechism, at least not in the way you mean it. In fact, Vatican I made clear that we can safely submit to the Pope and the Church, knowing that they cannot mislead us. Vatican I taught: "The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the apostolic see the catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the apostolic see preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion" (http://www.dailycatholic.org/history/20ecuмe3.htm).
Please explain how you reconcile this with your "recognize and resist" position.
I said earlier that I didn't care about the status of the pope, 'insofar as it affects my salvation', and I meant it. But this doesn't mean that I don't care outright. I'm trying to tell you, and have been trying to tell you, that I, personally, can not know. And many others are the same. And at the end of the day, this does not affect my salvation. I will still save my soul, as long as I follow Christ, his Blessed Mother, the Teachings and Commandments of the Church, etc.,
Please do not think me to be doubting or attacking either your sincerity or your devotion and piety. By no means. I can totally sympathize and commiserate with you. I know you want to do what is right and what God asks of you. I am just telling you that this position you have taken is not compatible with that very Faith you profess to hold.
How will you save your soul by following the teachings and commandments of the Church when you disregard those teachings and commandments after 1958 (or 1965, whenever the case may be for you)? As long as you believe this institution to be the Catholic Church, you have no grounds for refusing it. You must conclude that it cannot be the Catholic Church.
Honestly, if all the people in the SSPX and the indult had concluded sedevacantism 40 years ago, I doubt that the New Church would still exist, at least not the way it does now.
The SSPX position, no matter how devout and sincere the individual people may be, has done grave damage to the Catholic Faith. The SSPX has led people to believe that the Catholic Church can teach error, impose impious rites and laws, can issue false "canonizations," can legislate error, and that a bishop from Switzerland (and thereby anyone, really, with a copy of Denzinger) can sit in judgment of the Holy See, filtering and contradicting what is issued by Rome. Unbelievable!
May God bless!
-
This type of theological conversation is not really proper, much less required, for Joe Catholic. To discuss Cannon law, Church history, and advanced theological teachings, which were never really meant for anyone, not even yourselves, but for theologians of the Church, never has been, is not now, and never will be the responsibility of the average laity; and this is where I think many SVists fail.
Funny thing, s2srea, the SSPX has quite publicly stated that the SV position is "too simple"! This actually proves how moderate and true the SV position is because it gets blamed sometimes for being too simplel and sometimes for being too complicated! Think about it...the school boy learns simply about the trinity or transubstantiation, yet theologians can go into those quite deeply.
The Arian heresy was one subtle philosophical error (pretty much the difference between one letter in a word!), yet the simple Catholic was praised for realizing that it was against the Faith while he disassociated himself from all the Arians.
Let's cut out the accusations of ease or difficulty and simply talk about whether something is "true" or not. How about that?
Kudos! Well said!
-
katholikos-
Thank you for the sincere response. I will try to figure out if I will respond fully, partially, or at all. Again, at a certain point, we can go on forever. And, again, my argument is not about SVism itself, but I think the complexity of the issue, as shown by our lengthy discussion and imagining just how long our disagreement could go on for (forever?), proves the point I wish to make. I'm sure we'll have a good time engaging on similar and other issues if I don't respond to this.
In Christ and Mary,
Richard
-
katholikos-
Thank you for the sincere response. I will try to figure out if I will respond fully, partially, or at all. Again, at a certain point, we can go on forever. And, again, my argument is not about SVism itself, but I think the complexity of the issue, as shown by our lengthy discussion and imagining just how long our disagreement could go on for (forever?), proves the point I wish to make. I'm sure we'll have a good time engaging on similar and other issues if I don't respond to this.
In Christ and Mary,
Richard
Dear Richard,
That is totally fine. It's Lent, anyway, and we all know what that means. God bless.
-
Therefore, sedevacantism is the only possible conclusion. It avoids both schism and heresy. That's it in a nutshell. And this is all knowable.
Except it's not the only possible conclusion. Others reach different conclusions. I don't believe they're correct, but I can see how they reach their conclusions, which, btw, are the same ones previously held by some sedevacantists. What's disturbing to me about your conclusions is your apparent accusations of schism and heresy.
-
Last year, Fr. Gabriel Lavery, CMRI, gave an excellent talk called "The Ordinary Magisterium and Devotion to the Pope," in which he masterfully refutes the "recognize-and-resist" position. Everyone will benefit greatly from this talk, regardless of what position one takes.
This talk has been put online and can be downloaded or streamed online:
http://traditionalcatholicsermons.org/MiscArchives/FrLav_TheOrdinaryMagisteriumAndDevotionToThePope_FatimaConference_2011.mp3 (http://traditionalcatholicsermons.org/MiscArchives/FrLav_TheOrdinaryMagisteriumAndDevotionToThePope_FatimaConference_2011.mp3)
Please do. You will be amazed!
-
Therefore, sedevacantism is the only possible conclusion. It avoids both schism and heresy. That's it in a nutshell. And this is all knowable.
Except it's not the only possible conclusion. Others reach different conclusions. I don't believe they're correct, but I can see how they reach their conclusions, which, btw, are the same ones previously held by some sedevacantists. What's disturbing to me about your conclusions is your apparent accusations of schism and heresy.
What other conclusions, then, are possible without falling into schism or heresy? Just because others reach different conclusions doesn't mean those conclusions are sound. I, too, once believed in the SSPX position. But I came to know that it was not a possible position.
As far as those "accusations of schism and heresy," please understand that I am not accusing any individuals of the sin of schism or heresy. I am not speaking subjectively but objectively. A position which rejects Catholic dogma is heretical, and a position which refuses submission to the man recognized to be the Roman Pontiff, is schismatic. That's the teaching of the Church.
I totally understand how horrible all of this is for people to go through. It's no different for me. My life could be a lot easier if I were not a sedevacantist. It took me years to figure out which position is possible and which isn't. So, I totally sympathize. But at the end of the day, this doesn't change the facts.
-
I, too, once believed in the SSPX position.
Were you a heretic or schismatic back then? If so, what did you believe contrary to the Faith?
-
I, too, once believed in the SSPX position.
Were you a heretic or schismatic back then?
Subjectively, probably not - because I was in ignorance of / in good faith on a lot of things that I came to know and understand later. Objectively, yes.
If so, what did you believe contrary to the Faith?
I denied/doubted the Catholic dogma of the primacy of the Pope, that the Pope enjoys a primacy of jurisdiction, and that a Catholic must submit to the Pope in terms of his teachings, laws, liturgical rites, etc. I also denied/doubted the assent which a Catholic must give to papal and other magisterial teachings.
-
The SSPX position, no matter how devout and sincere the individual people may be, has done grave damage to the Catholic Faith. The SSPX has led people to believe that the Catholic Church can teach error, impose impious rites and laws, can issue false "canonizations," can legislate error, and that a bishop from Switzerland (and thereby anyone, really, with a copy of Denzinger) can sit in judgment of the Holy See, filtering and contradicting what is issued by Rome. Unbelievable!
I agree. Whereas in days of yore one could read St. Thomas Aquinas casually mention the corollary:
"the Church does nothing in vain" (3rd par. Q. 71. A.3)
"it would be blasphemy to say that the Church does anything in vain" (Supp. Q. 25. A.1)
I say these were corollary because St. Thomas wasn't trying to prove these. He was using these as truths to help prove something else, because these were basics. He expected his reader to read and say, "of course!".
Among those today who follow the recognize & resist position (primarily the SSPX), it is no longer a basic statement. It becomes a mystery, something needing proving and debating. Specifically, the words "Church does" they minimize to only "the pope defines something ex cathedra". They would take umbrage now at the word "does", as if now it is difficult to recognize when the Church actually does something!
Does the Church create an ordinary rite? Yes. The SSPX have admitted that the Latin rite is the extraordinary form of the Mass. Yet, the SSPX say the ordinary rite is dangerous and poisonous. Mind you, St. Thomas says it's blasphemy to even claim the Church did it uselessly, never mind harmfully! Because the Church can only do things useful, and good. Example:
Pope Pius VI - CONDEMNED: ''the Church, governed by the Holy Spirit, could impose a disciplinary law that would be not only useless and more burdensome for the faithful than Christian liberty allows, but also dangerous and harmful” (Auctorem Fidei, 1794)
The SSPX is actually founded upon resistance to the ordinary rite and resistance to the new code of canon law.
No true position can contain such an intrinsic contradiction. The sedevacantist position does not have any contradictions. But it is a terrible thing for the mind of an SSPXer to even start to dabble in the thought that all of his/her Society clergy could be so wrong....though, ironically, so easy for them to judge that "the Vicar of Christ" himself is terribly wrong!
Maybe the people served by the SSPX clergy are less likely to "dabble in the thought their clergy might be wrong" because they are well served by their clergy? Even then, Bp. Sanborn has said 90% of the people can't follow the arguments ... so why expect it?
Anyway, even if the entire traditional world became sedevacantists, how would that right things? If you know ... please share it.
-
katholikos-
Thank you for the sincere response. I will try to figure out if I will respond fully, partially, or at all. Again, at a certain point, we can go on forever. And, again, my argument is not about SVism itself, but I think the complexity of the issue, as shown by our lengthy discussion and imagining just how long our disagreement could go on for (forever?), proves the point I wish to make. I'm sure we'll have a good time engaging on similar and other issues if I don't respond to this.
In Christ and Mary,
Richard
When I first started talking with you s2srea I was wondering why all your posts had a thumbs down. You seem of good will to me based on our conversations. It can be difficult to find someone who will discuss things level-headedly sometimes.
Best Wishes,
John
-
Thanks LoT. I get the feeling that the down thumbing is from a newer member (who has 10 days less 1 as a member on this forum), who seems to be overzealous in his stance on the SV position(nothing wrong with that), and is of the mentality that whoever does not agree or is not on board with the stance, shouldn't be given credibility. Its okay though, he will mature. Also I may be wrong.
katholikos, you and others also are able to discuss this issue well, and that is always good too.
-
Thanks LoT. I get the feeling that the down thumbing is from a newer member (who has 10 days less 1 as a member on this forum), who seems to be overzealous in his stance on the SV position(nothing wrong with that), and is of the mentality that whoever does not agree or is not on board with the stance, shouldn't be given credibility. Its okay though, he will mature. Also I may be wrong.
katholikos, you and others also are able to discuss this issue well, and that is always good too.
I am very sorry if a fellow SV is doing this. Katholikos is amazing. I would like to speak with you if you get a chance Katholikos.
-
Even then, Bp. Sanborn has said 90% of the people can't follow the arguments ... so why expect it?
What is the alternative? Not to solve it? But the question must be solved at least in the practical order: You must make a decision as to what to believe and where/whether to go to church. If you take the resistance position, what sort of catechism do you teach your children? Do you just blacken out those passages that talk about submission to the Pope? Or those that talk about the authority of the magisterium and the glory of the Church? Does the Faith, then, change?
Anyway, even if the entire traditional world became sedevacantists, how would that right things? If you know ... please share it.
For one thing, it would rob the Novus Ordo Church of a huge amount of credibility. The main reason the Novus Ordo can do so much damage is because people acknowledge it to be the Catholic Church. Imagine what would happen if people started laughing at the claim! Imagine what would have happened if the local ordinaries in the late 60s had told Paul VI that his claim to the papacy is laughable, and he should try to deceive and impose his monster mass on someone else! Oh well. If Paul VI had only been laughed out of St. Peter's basilica... how different it would all be today!
If the SSPX were sedevacantist, the New Church would seriously risk being exposed for the charlatan institution it is. More and more people could be converted to the True Faith (I am thinking in particular of those steeped in the errors of modernism and those non-Catholics who never dreamed of becoming Catholic because they could tell the Novus Ordo Church is just the Anglican religion from a few decades ago). Which ultimately means that more and more grace would flow and God would certainly bless us in ways we cannot imagine right now. He would surely hasten the restoration of Holy Mother Church!
Let this be our prayer!
-
If the SSPX were sedevacantist, the New Church would seriously risk being exposed for the charlatan institution it is. More and more people could be converted to the True Faith
I'm not so sure. Sedevacantists are labeled as crazy by the NO church (as are all Trads for that matter). So I'm not sure the number of Trads would increase if the SSPX went sede. It would be much better than the state the Society is in now though (refering to Bishop Fellay's attempt at reconciliation).
-
It would be contingent on the Mass Media. They are the ones that suppress or give focus to a cause. Right now they are the ones really responsible for making the SSPX be the ones to "represent" traditional Catholicism, while they purposely keep the sedevacantist cause out of the public mind. We know WHY they do that! It is really testimony that the Freemasons know what cause REALLY exposes the global anti-christian agenda!
The Mass Media didn't really say a word about the SSPX either, until Bishop Williamson's remarks on the h0Ɩ0h0αx. And Fellay's attempts at a "reconciliation" with Rome is giving them attention from the media, because selling out to Rome would be the media's dream come true!
-
Yep.
Sedevacantists criticize the right things, but where's their authority? Why haven't they elected a pope?
Well Busillis, I don't think a SV needs to elect a pope after coming to their conclusion. He only recognizes things as he see them, but needing to elect a pope is not part of the opinion or a requirement of submitting to it. Also, and I hope I'm not mistaken, the authority for SV is the same as that of those who reject the Modernists- it comes from supplied jurisdiction.
Why haven't they elected a pope?
Laypeople cannot elect a Pope.
You see, I think a major issue with SVism is the depth of theology it dives into; or perhaps the issues is not with SVism, but most SVists failing to understand a few key points.
This type of theological conversation is not really proper, much less required, for Joe Catholic. To discuss Cannon law, Church history, and advanced theological teachings, which were never really meant for anyone, not even yourselves, but for theologians of the Church, never has been, is not now, and never will be the responsibility of the average laity; and this is where I think many SVists fail.
Yep.
Sedevacantists criticize the right things, but where's their authority? Why haven't they elected a pope?
Busillis, sedevacantists are not such a group as to refer to "them" as doing something all together at once. Yet, some will criticize that fact and say they have no "unity". It's just like my previous post about accusations of being too simple or being too complicated! The true Church down through the ages has always shown a non-substantial disagreement among Her theologians whenever there was a crisis. Paradoxically, this is always the Mystical Body sorting out the truth leading finally to a conclusion. Things don't just instantly happen like your microwave oven today!
Where is the "authority", you ask? Read the second to the last chapter of "Liberalism is a Sin" and you will find out that reason, enlightened by faith is a true authority. The sedevacantists have that.
Why haven't they elected a pope? Some have tried to, which is expected in any terrible crisis. More than most are totally against such a thing because they know that only the people of the Roman province have the right to elect their Bishop. Yes, laymen are allowed to participate, but it always involves Roman clergy.
Thanks for the replies. I suppose my misgivings about sedevacantism partially arise from the feeling that it's too morbid. I'm already at the fringes of society in the way I think, but embracing the sedevacantist view would alienate me even further.
-
If the SSPX were sedevacantist, the New Church would seriously risk being exposed for the charlatan institution it is. More and more people could be converted to the True Faith
I'm not so sure. Sedevacantists are labeled as crazy by the NO church (as are all Trads for that matter). So I'm not sure the number of Trads would increase if the SSPX went sede. It would be much better than the state the Society is in now though (refering to Bishop Fellay's attempt at reconciliation).
It would be contingent on the Mass Media. They are the ones that suppress or give focus to a cause. Right now they are the ones really responsible for making the SSPX be the ones to "represent" traditional Catholicism, while they purposely keep the sedevacantist cause out of the public mind. We know WHY they do that! It is really testimony that the Freemasons know what cause REALLY exposes the global anti-christian agenda!
Katholikos is right about "risk" but not necessarily "serious risk", because the Mass Media has so much control. However, they don't have that much control of the Internet, and I think Katholikos may very well be exactly right because the Internet is unwieldy for the Freemasons of the Mass Media. They have created a monster they cannot control.
The Key issue in all of this is how best to preserve the Faith as handed down by Christ to the Apostles and guarded by the Holy Ghost since the First Pentecost Sunday.
I see a lot of back and forth about who is right and who is wrong about who is obedient and who isnt - about The Legitimacy of Vatican II Popes - or the question of how can there be a true Pope or then how can a sedevacantist group ever elect a true Pope to which the obvious simple answer is - with GOD all things are possible. My answer is simple - Who limits GOD? Do we not all claim to believe in GOD Almighty? So , does that sound altruistic or does that sound too simplistic? Am I bold enough to say for certain the "Thesis of Cassiciacuм" has more merit than the theological stance of sedevacantism or the ongoing argument regarding "Baptism of Desire" being invalid or am I to say the Dimonds are too rigid in their interpretation and insistance of its exclusion and everyone else is a "HERETIC" To me - the Traditional movement is its own worst enemy. Or as Dr Drolesky is fond of saying - Bishop Pivarunas is WRONG About this or that etc etc etc .
So in keeping with the subject matter of your post - the Masons can indeed and do indeed exploit these divisions to their advantage and rather than combat them by providing a united front - we instead spend our time divided and weak. Now , as for the Novus Ordo and their perception of the Traditional Movement - to me thats a non issue. I believe the lions share of the Conservative Novus Ordo hate the changes but feel they must obey. In a lot of ways that is commendable. So there is middle ground. We simple choose to ignore that middle ground. The left wing Novus Ordo is probably not Catholic anyway - so why worry about what they think.
What we lack as Catholics - is a common united front. Certainly in Tradition - from the time of Pope Pius the 12th back - we have the foundation for that United Front. Perhaps the answer lies in a new Marian Movement of Laity. If we form a Marian Society - free to all Traditional Catholics - regardless of whether or not they are SSPX or Sedevacantist or SSPV or Dimond or even Conservative Novus Ordo and we actually decide to practise what we all claim to believe in and dedicate the rest of our lives in solving the division through spiritual action - are we then to despair and say its impossible or are we going to take action and rid ourselves of the very thing used to exploit us - our self division.
A Common Ground can be found in the Blessed Virgin Mary. For make no mistake - there is division not merely because of human activity - but the war is being fought in the spiritual realm as well. If we hope to win - we need to fight in both simultaneously.
Pax
-
Thanks for the replies. I suppose my misgivings about sedevacantism partially arise from the feeling that it's too morbid. I'm already at the fringes of society in the way I think, but embracing the sedevacantist view would alienate me even further.
A real shame that you consider feelings to be such a misgiving as to trump truth. For truth we should give our very lives, never mind suffer the inconvenience of initial unpleasant feelings. The Holy Scriptures predicted the Antichrist would decieve most Catholics around the world. Those who resist the deception will undergo inconveniences and sufferings to save their souls.
I didn't say I was convinced of the truth of sedevacantism. If I was I would have that viewpoint, whether it displeased me or not. I'm just entertaining the idea that it is the correct way to view the situation in the Church, and if it is that would be depressing. I want to feel I have finally arrived at the truth of things, and to realize I still may have stages to go is painful, since I've already experienced many trials.
-
I didn't say I was convinced of the truth of sedevacantism. If I was I would have that viewpoint, whether it displeased me or not. I'm just entertaining the idea that it is the correct way to view the situation in the Church, and if it is that would be depressing. I want to feel I have finally arrived at the truth of things, and to realize I still may have stages to go is painful, since I've already experienced many trials.
Busillis, I encourage you to read the following transcribed talk by John Daly, given in 2002, entitled "The Impossible Crisis":
http://www.thefourmarks.com/Daly.htm#crisis (http://www.thefourmarks.com/Daly.htm#crisis)
I have yet to see a single Novus Ordo or SSPX apologist even attempt to refute this argument-at-large.
The nice part about this type of argument is that it does not require anyone to detect, suspect, or judge anyone else of being a heretic. Not that that would be unreasonable, but since a lot of people seem "uncomfortable" with that, this argument presented here totally avoids that whole problem, and establishes sedevacantism while refuting the "recognize but resist" position, the Novus Ordo position, and also, in the same breaths, the errors of Feeneyism.
Another easy-to-follow essay is "Resistance and Indefectibility" by Fr. Donald Sanborn (1991):
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=21&catname=10 (http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=21&catname=10)
Here, then-Fr. Sanborn analyzes the 3 main positions that have been advanced to deal with the situation since 1958: indult, SSPX, and sedevacantism. Fantastic read, good summary, level-headed analysis.
Also, a good "reality check" for the "resisters" (indult & SSPX) is presented in "Refinishing the Great Facade: The Vatican, the SSPX, and the 'Restoration of Tradition'":
http://www.novusordowatch.org/refinishing_the_great_facade.htm (http://www.novusordowatch.org/refinishing_the_great_facade.htm)
It is a great read, an informative essay about Vatican II, the New Church, the SSPX, Catholic principles, the bogus "Restoration of Tradition" advanced by The Remnant, manifest heresy, and the real Benedict.
At the end of the day, we must face reality as it is. We cannot begin with a desired conclusion and then try to find a way to "reason" ourselves to this conclusion. In all this turmoil, let us never despair but trust and hope in God, who foreknew and allowed this entire "situation" from all eternity, and certainly knows how and when to end it. Let us be grateful that we have been chosen to be a part of it, to be allowed to suffer through this, for His Holy Church and in penance for our manifold sins.
-
I didn't say I was convinced of the truth of sedevacantism. If I was I would have that viewpoint, whether it displeased me or not. I'm just entertaining the idea that it is the correct way to view the situation in the Church, and if it is that would be depressing. I want to feel I have finally arrived at the truth of things, and to realize I still may have stages to go is painful, since I've already experienced many trials.
Busillis, I encourage you to read the following transcribed talk by John Daly, given in 2002, entitled "The Impossible Crisis":
http://www.thefourmarks.com/Daly.htm#crisis (http://www.thefourmarks.com/Daly.htm#crisis)
I have yet to see a single Novus Ordo or SSPX apologist even attempt to refute this argument-at-large.
The nice part about this type of argument is that it does not require anyone to detect, suspect, or judge anyone else of being a heretic. Not that that would be unreasonable, but since a lot of people seem "uncomfortable" with that, this argument presented here totally avoids that whole problem, and establishes sedevacantism while refuting the "recognize but resist" position, the Novus Ordo position, and also, in the same breaths, the errors of Feeneyism.
Another easy-to-follow essay is "Resistance and Indefectibility" by Fr. Donald Sanborn (1991):
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=21&catname=10 (http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=21&catname=10)
Here, then-Fr. Sanborn analyzes the 3 main positions that have been advanced to deal with the situation since 1958: indult, SSPX, and sedevacantism. Fantastic read, good summary, level-headed analysis.
Also, a good "reality check" for the "resisters" (indult & SSPX) is presented in "Refinishing the Great Facade: The Vatican, the SSPX, and the 'Restoration of Tradition'":
http://www.novusordowatch.org/refinishing_the_great_facade.htm (http://www.novusordowatch.org/refinishing_the_great_facade.htm)
It is a great read, an informative essay about Vatican II, the New Church, the SSPX, Catholic principles, the bogus "Restoration of Tradition" advanced by The Remnant, manifest heresy, and the real Benedict.
At the end of the day, we must face reality as it is. We cannot begin with a desired conclusion and then try to find a way to "reason" ourselves to this conclusion. In all this turmoil, let us never despair but trust and hope in God, who foreknew and allowed this entire "situation" from all eternity, and certainly knows how and when to end it. Let us be grateful that we have been chosen to be a part of it, to be allowed to suffer through this, for His Holy Church and in penance for our manifold sins.
These links contain excellent proofs of the Sede fact, and show that it cannot be refuted.
-
Thanks katholikos! I'll take a look at the material.
-
If I may add my five cents (inflation!) here for a moment:
The question, "Who is more Catholic? The SSPXer or the conservative Novus Ordo?", is a most curious one, and difficult to answer properly. Let me illustrate:
(1) The conservative Novus Ordo adherent is right (and therefore more Catholic) in his acceptance of the principles regarding the Magisterium, the papacy, and the Church's teaching and ruling authority. He adheres to the same principles in this regard as the sedevacantist does. But because he is mistaken about the identity of the Pope and the Church, i.e., because he is wrong about who the Pope is and where the Church is, and instead accepts a heretic for the Pope and a heretical body for the Magisterium, he is therefore drawn into heresy and other error. Hence, though he is right about the authority of the Pope and Church, he is wrong about who these are, and thereby falls into grievous error and heresy. For him, it's (the false) Pope first, then the Faith.
(2) The SSPX adherent is right in his acceptance of the content of the Faith, in almost all parts. He adheres, basically, to the Faith taught before the death of Pope Pius XII, but because he, like the Novus Ordo, is mistaken about the identify of the Pope and the hierarchy, he realizes that there is a disconnect between the (in his mind) true Pope and hierarchy and the Faith of the Ages. He "solves" this problem by modifying some Church doctrines and dogmas (authority of the Magisterium, papal primacy/jurisdiction, etc.), which in practice really means that he simply IGNORES the "Pope" and the "Church" whenever he thinks it necessary to safeguard his faith. For him, it's the Faith first (sort of), then the (false) Pope.
Neither position is truly Catholic. The error in both is that the Pope is no longer connected to the True Faith - an impossibility. (Vatican I declared that the Holy See cannot fail, and that true doctrine is always celebrated there.) One decides to give up the Faith for the Pope, whereas the other decides to give up the Pope for the Faith.
Only the sedevacantist escapes the dilemma: By recognizing that there can be no Pope who does not have the Faith, nor the Faith without submission to the Pope, he must necessarily conclude that, in order to keep the Faith intact, the only possible solution is that the men who have claimed to be Catholic Popes since 1958, cannot have been true Popes, and the entire church they led, cannot be the Catholic Church.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the whole story in a nutshell.
This is a most excellent post.
-
If I understand you right, you took issue with my defense of sedevacantism on the grounds that it was too theological. For a position that is theological in nature, necessarily so, yes, I think that's a bit unfair, especially since I'd be opening up myself to the charge of not using enough theology if I don't use much of it. But that's just my opinion. If you think I have unjustly "accused" you of being unfair, I am happy to retract that. I suppose it's a matter of opinion/perspective. (But you did tell me, in a post on page 23, that the issue of sedevacantism was "more complex" than I was making it out to be in a particular post - didn't you?)
No, I don't think it's necessary. It probably depends on the person. Some people "get it" right away, just from the basics, whereas others aren't satisfied by that and want more.
"Given that", huh? :) Of course sedevacantism has a dogmatic, doctrinal, and canonical basis.
It's a given that anything having to do with one's soul, one's salvation, one's Faith, ought to be accompanied by lots of prayer. That goes for ANY position - that of remaining in the Novus Ordo, that of taking the "papal/magisterial babysitter" position of the SSPX, and that of sedevacantism. Before you call a liturgical rite universally promulgated and approved by the (person you recognize to be the) Pope EVIL, yeah, you should do a bit of praying. This argument cuts in all directions.
You've lost me. What I'm saying is that no matter which way you slice it, the situation we are faced with (and regardless of what position you take) is the greatest mystery since the founding of the Church. What we have been witnessing since 1958 has never happened before.
That's all well and good, but what I'm saying is that YOUR position CONTRADICTS the catechism.
Let me explain: Coming to affirm sedevacantism is the ONLY WAY that you can escape the dilemma of either schism or heresy. If you do not want to make a determination on the "Pope," fine, but then follow him (Benedict), because your catechism compels you to. Ah! But if you do that, then what do you believe? Do you believe the old or the new Faith? You cannot believe both. (Challenge me on this if you like.)
OK, so you decide to stick with the Old Faith. Now you have a problem: You cannot submit to the "Pope" the way the Old Faith tells you to. In other words, both options run into a contradiction, into a dead end: You will either refuse to submit to the Pope (schism), or you will submit to him and thus compel yourself to believe the New Faith (heresy).
Therefore, sedevacantism is the only possible conclusion. It avoids both schism and heresy. That's it in a nutshell. And this is all knowable.
Who are these brightest theological minds? Can we get some examples? Sedevacantism isn't that tough to figure out. But for many people it's unsettling, understandably. There are many obstacles in people's lives, some more and some less burdensome. Some are faced with no Mass to go to; some will have family problems; some depend on a "marriage annulment" from the Novus Ordo to be able to keep their lives in order; some don't have sufficient resources to research the matter; some will lose their job; some will lose recognition; some will fall into depression, etc.
I am not saying that everyone who hasn't embraced sedevacantism has an ulterior motive. Not at all. But we would be fools to tell ourselves that some of the above motives don't come into play for a lot of people.
Some people just haven't come across the right sources yet (that's how it was for me - I wasn't aware of all Church teachings when I was in the SSPX, but once I was exposed to more Church teachings, I realized the SSPX was wrong and sedevacantism was true). And for some still, sedevacantism maybe has never been sufficiently explained to them. And yes, grace plays a big role too, probably the biggest one. Think of all the monasteries and convents no longer in existence. All those pious clergy who used to be there - are no longer praying. The Holy Mass is barely offered anywhere anymore, and so much less grace is available today from those sources.
But this whole argument being made here isn't a very good one. One might as well apply it to all traditionalists and ask, "How come 99.999% of all 'Catholics' aren't Traditionalists?"
It's not right to accuse people of bad will rashly. Unfortunately, some have a terrible habit of doing that. I am not one of them.
But to get back to the issue: If someone wants to defend the SSPX-type position in light of the evidence, by all means, let me hear it.
And how do we "play it safe"? By becoming schismatics or by becoming heretics? (see the two non-sedevacantist options I described above)
Wait a minute... you're saying that we need new Revelation from God to be able to figure out what we ought to do or believe? I won't jump the gun here, but I think that's probably a heretical idea. In any case, Sacred Theology uses human reason and logic quite a bit in its method. While it would require theology to sort things out totally (i.e., which precise theory is correct? sede vacante, sede impedita, material/formal theory, etc.), it does not require a theologian to conclude that Benedict XVI is not the Pope or that one cannot follow the New Religion. Heck, you would probably agree to the latter part of my statement.
There's no new theology required. No new revelation, no new principles.
It's very easy to figure out that Ratzinger is not the Pope: You cannot submit to him without losing the Faith. That's the end of it, right there. And you basically agree with that.
OK then.... so that means that we can be Novus Ordo? That we can fully embrace the entire Novus Ordo magisterium, liturgy, canon law, canonizations, etc., and our faith will not be in danger? If so, then, what the heck are we doing trying to be traditional? Lenten fast? Heck! There's an easier way to Heaven now....
Thanks for being straightforward about it. So, the institution you believe to be the Roman Catholic Church, the only Ark of Salvation, is "not acting Catholic." May I suggest that that's perhaps because it isn't Catholic? (Ditto for Benedict.) Funny how you feel competent to recognize what is and isn't Catholic (even though the "Church" tells you otherwise!), but when it comes to drawing the logical conclusion, you decide it's above your head and could not possibly be "required" of you.
If you "have the Catholic Church to follow," why don't you then? Or, do you concede that this modernist monster headquartered in Rome isn't the Catholic Church, after all?
And what's this business about "Tradition" you allegedly adhere to? Where did it come from if not from the Catholic Church? (The one you think is still in Rome) And who gets to decide what is and isn't traditional? Where do you draw the line, and what if someone disagrees?
And where in any theological manual or magisterial statement does it say that Catholics are only bound to submit to "Tradition" (defined by themselves) and can ignore the Pope/Church at all other times?
See, this is exactly what I mean: You guys have to change the Faith in order to uphold your "resist" position. The clause "insofar as he is within the genuine teachings of the Roman Catholic Church" you will find in no council docuмent or theological manual or catechism, at least not in the way you mean it. In fact, Vatican I made clear that we can safely submit to the Pope and the Church, knowing that they cannot mislead us. Vatican I taught: "The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the apostolic see the catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the apostolic see preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion" (http://www.dailycatholic.org/history/20ecuмe3.htm).
Please explain how you reconcile this with your "recognize and resist" position.
Please do not think me to be doubting or attacking either your sincerity or your devotion and piety. By no means. I can totally sympathize and commiserate with you. I know you want to do what is right and what God asks of you. I am just telling you that this position you have taken is not compatible with that very Faith you profess to hold.
How will you save your soul by following the teachings and commandments of the Church when you disregard those teachings and commandments after 1958 (or 1965, whenever the case may be for you)? As long as you believe this institution to be the Catholic Church, you have no grounds for refusing it. You must conclude that it cannot be the Catholic Church.
Honestly, if all the people in the SSPX and the indult had concluded sedevacantism 40 years ago, I doubt that the New Church would still exist, at least not the way it does now.
The SSPX position, no matter how devout and sincere the individual people may be, has done grave damage to the Catholic Faith. The SSPX has led people to believe that the Catholic Church can teach error, impose impious rites and laws, can issue false "canonizations," can legislate error, and that a bishop from Switzerland (and thereby anyone, really, with a copy of Denzinger) can sit in judgment of the Holy See, filtering and contradicting what is issued by Rome. Unbelievable!
May God bless!
What a post. I hope all is well with you Katholikos wherever you are.