Author Topic: Archbishop Thuc - Consecrations (Read 29068 times)

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #165 on:** February 22, 2012, 03:11:34 PM »

Quote from: katholikos

Quote from: Pepsuber

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:

Quote

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.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #166 on:** February 22, 2012, 04:09:53 PM »

Quote

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.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #167 on:** February 22, 2012, 11:58:36 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote
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.

SJB · « **Reply #168 on:** February 23, 2012, 07:43:29 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote
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?

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #169 on:** February 23, 2012, 08:22:44 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote
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.

Nishant · « **Reply #170 on:** February 24, 2012, 03:40:53 AM »

Quote from: SJB

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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,

Quote

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.

SJB · « **Reply #171 on:** February 24, 2012, 09:11:02 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

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.

Quote from: Douay-Rheims Bible

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.

katholikos · « **Reply #172 on:** February 24, 2012, 09:34:36 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

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.

katholikos · « **Reply #173 on:** February 24, 2012, 09:37:41 AM »

Quote from: Nishant2011

True enough, but since you quote the Catholic Encyclopedia to make the point, the same volume also contains articles that say specifically,

Quote
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.

katholikos · « **Reply #174 on:** February 24, 2012, 09:57:45 AM »

Quote from: Nishant2011

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:

Quote

"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)

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.

Sigismund · « **Reply #175 on:** February 24, 2012, 01:55:00 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote
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!

Sigismund · « **Reply #176 on:** February 24, 2012, 01:57:52 PM »

Quote from: katholikos

Quote from: Lover of Truth

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.

SJB · « **Reply #177 on:** February 24, 2012, 09:22:17 PM »

Quote from: katholikos

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?

katholikos · « **Reply #178 on:** February 25, 2012, 01:18:56 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: katholikos
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.

katholikos · « **Reply #179 on:** February 25, 2012, 02:19:28 PM »

Quote from: Nishant2011

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).

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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:

Quote

"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:

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.