Author Topic: Archbishop Thuc - Consecrations (Read 28637 times)

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #210 on:** March 12, 2012, 08:44:17 AM »

Two gems from the article I'd like to point out, the first regarding the FSSP:

Quote

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.

s2srea · « **Reply #211 on:** March 12, 2012, 09:34:55 AM »

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:

Quote

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.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #212 on:** March 12, 2012, 11:43:47 AM »

Quote from: s2srea

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:

Quote
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.

s2srea · « **Reply #213 on:** March 12, 2012, 01:30:59 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

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.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #214 on:** March 12, 2012, 02:34:15 PM »

Quote from: s2srea

Quote from: Lover of Truth
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?

s2srea · « **Reply #215 on:** March 12, 2012, 02:37:47 PM »

No problem. It is what you quoted me on 3 posts ago:

Quote from: s2srea

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:

Quote
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.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #216 on:** March 12, 2012, 02:44:08 PM »

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.

s2srea · « **Reply #217 on:** March 12, 2012, 02:55:47 PM »

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.

katholikos · « **Reply #218 on:** March 12, 2012, 06:51:57 PM »

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:

Quote

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

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_040_LubacRatz.htm

http://www.novusordowatch.org/benedict/originalsin.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.

Sede Catholic · « **Reply #219 on:** March 12, 2012, 06:58:49 PM »

Quote from: katholikos

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:

Quote
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

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_040_LubacRatz.htm

http://www.novusordowatch.org/benedict/originalsin.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...

Sede Catholic · « **Reply #220 on:** March 12, 2012, 07:00:25 PM »

Quote from: katholikos

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:

Quote
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

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_040_LubacRatz.htm

http://www.novusordowatch.org/benedict/originalsin.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...

Sede Catholic · « **Reply #221 on:** March 12, 2012, 07:09:59 PM »

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.

katholikos · « **Reply #222 on:** March 12, 2012, 07:49:31 PM »

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:

Quote from: s2srea

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:

Quote from: s2srea

Quote from: katholikos
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:

Quote from: s2srea

...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!

s2srea · « **Reply #223 on:** March 12, 2012, 09:52:43 PM »

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.

Quote from: katholikos

Quote from: s2srea
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?

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

Absurd. Simply absurd.

Yes, that's what I'm trying to argue. Do you see how I feel the same way now?

Quote

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.

Quote

Now, you say that I am contradicting myself in my argument:

Quote from: s2srea

Quote from: katholikos
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:

Quote from: Matthew

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.

Quote

Quote from: s2srea

...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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.,

Quote

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.

Quote

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!

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #224 on:** March 13, 2012, 01:34:39 PM »

Quote from: Sede Catholic

Quote from: katholikos
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:

Quote
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

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_040_LubacRatz.htm

http://www.novusordowatch.org/benedict/originalsin.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.