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

Author Topic: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II  (Read 14811 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stubborn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12437
  • Reputation: +4908/-806
  • Gender: Male
Garbage.  Excommunication puts one outside the body of the Church, per St. Robert Bellarmine and pretty much everyone else.  Being barred from the Sacraments IS in fact to be outside the Church.  You make stuff up as it suits your half-deranged fantasy (and heretical ecclesiology).  Try to read St. Robert Bellarmine and some other Catholic theologians from time to time instead of just making this stuff up out of thin air.
Sede garbage.

Look it up in the Summa before flapping your lips.
The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

Offline Stubborn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12437
  • Reputation: +4908/-806
  • Gender: Male
Yeah, I've said this before and I say it again.  Stubborn's beliefs bear no resemblance to Roman Catholicism.  Again, to salvage and rescue Jorge Bergoglio, they're willing to butcher and effectively throw out all of Traditional Catholic ecclesiology.
Ahh, the anemic spirit of a sede.

"To salvage and rescue Jorge Bergoglio" is imprinted on your brain. Very Catholic. You need to purge the NO of your youth professor.
The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse


Offline Stubborn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12437
  • Reputation: +4908/-806
  • Gender: Male


I see this is going nowhere.

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet." [Matthew 10:14]

Ah, but you see Lad, it is us who don't have the truth here
No, you have the truth, but you reject it in order to "To salvage and rescue" a vacant chair.

Here is more truth I like from:

Commentary of the New [1917] Canon Law .....

1168. The faithful are in conscience obliged to profess their faith publicly whenever their silence, subterfuge, or manner of acting, imports an implicit denial of their faith, a contempt of religion, or an insult to God, or scandal to the neighbor.

A baptized Christian, who calls himself a Christian, yet obstinately denies or calls into doubt any of the truths to be
believed by Divine and Catholic faith, is a heretic;

If he abandons the Christian faith altogether he is called an apostate;

If, finally, he refuses to be subject to the Supreme Pontiff, or to have communication with the members of the Church subject to the Roman Pontiff, he is a schismatic.

The Catholics shall not enter into any dispute or conferences with non-Catholics, especially public ones, without permission of the Holy See, or, in urgent case, of the Ordinary. (Canon 1325.)
The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8621
  • Reputation: +5211/-1632
  • Gender: Male
This is why the straight-sedevacantism of DL (and others) is theoretically nice-sounding but practically a dead-end.  It offers no hope for the Church to resurrect Herself, using normal canonical means.  It requires a miraculous event, which can't even be practically explained.

The quasi-sedevacantist theory (where the loss of temporal office does not occur when the infiltration is so bad that the canonical investigation of heresy is impossible) is the key to the Church fixing Herself.  Call it sede-privationism, Fr Chazal's "spiritual impoundism", or a "more strict R&R than the new-sspx's indult version".  Here's how it could work:

1.  A valid priest with questionable episcopal orders, who is part of the mainstream "new-rome", but who recognizes the the errors of V2 is elected (let's say +Vigano).
2.  This would be a valid, temporal election, as the conclave laws are both human and divine.  The human/temporal laws would be fulfilled.
3.  +Vigano openly abjures his prior heresies and declares a return to orthodoxy, condeming V2.
4.  +Vigano askes to be conditionally consecrated under the old rite.
5.  +Vigano is spiritually and temporally a valid pope.
6.  The "clean up" process begins, with mass excommunications for all those who refuse the "oath against modernism".  Some modernists would openly rebel while others would stay quiet and keep their "neo con" game going.
7.  Step 2, find and exterminate the infiltrators who take "the oath".  (I have no idea how this would happen but it's possible).

Straight-sedevantism offers no hope.  The above is a realistic possibility, even in our dark times.

Offline DigitalLogos

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7432
  • Reputation: +4223/-742
  • Gender: Male
  • Slave to the Sacred Heart
    • Twitter
Ok, then using your stupidly short-sighted definition, then Pius XII lost his office for a number of reasons:

You call it "stupid", but then you yourself never provide definitions either. You keep asking for them and playing the semantics game. Sounds like an emotional reaction rather than a rational one.

1.  condoning NFP<---fallible statement made in a speech rather than a universal address, not heresy, but error.
2.  evolution<---the universal teaching in Humani Generis is not pro-evolution; statements made outside of his universal capacity, such as the address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences where he refers to "billions of years", are, again, not heresy, but error.
3.  1955 liberalization of the missal<---well within his power to do, he did not touch the Canon. This is the same fallacious argument some use against St. Pius X for his changes.
4.  Appointing a known mason (Bugnini) to change the liturgy.<---again, error. Poor judgment in his appointments does not constitue heresy. We all know Pius XII was a weak Pope. But still the Pope.
5.  Etc, etc

None of these things were a "good willed error".  He's out.  That means the dogma of the Assumption was never defined.  It needs to be again.

Also, Pope Pius IX was a liberal in his first few years, before he woke up, so everything he did in 25+ years (including Vatican I and the dogma of the Immaculate Conception) is null.
You're conflating the issue here to one of impeccability. The sedevacantist argument was never that Popes and prelates cannot make error, but that Popes cannot teach error in their universal capacity. Yet, we have examples of this in the encyclicals of John XXIII, the pronouncements of Vatican 2 ratified by Paul VI, and the legion of errors taught in universal capacity by subsequent Antipopes which prove these men are not Popes.

As for before they became Antipopes, we have examples of manifest heresy in their teachings, as I've been saying, which, by the principle cited of St. Robert Bellarmine, are to be taken as malicious heresy until proven otherwise. Yet, no evidence to the contrary has been shown. Rather, you keep arguing semantics.
"Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." [Matt. 6:34]

"In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin." [Ecclus. 7:40]

"A holy man continueth in wisdom as the sun: but a fool is changed as the moon." [Ecclus. 27:12]


Offline Pax Vobis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8621
  • Reputation: +5211/-1632
  • Gender: Male

Quote
You're conflating the issue here to one of impeccability. The sedevacantist argument was never that Popes and prelates cannot make error, but that Popes cannot teach error in their universal capacity.
1.  There is not "one argument" of sede-ism.  Some would totally disagree with you.  The whole argument that "the Holy Ghost guides the pope" implies errors aren't possible.

2.  Define "teach error in a universal capacity".  What parameters must be fulfilled to reach this level of teaching?
 
Quote
As for before they became Antipopes, we have examples of manifest heresy in their teachings, as I've been saying, which, by the principle cited of St. Robert Bellarmine, are to be taken as malicious heresy until proven otherwise. Yet, no evidence to the contrary has been shown. Rather, you keep arguing semantics.
I'm not arguing against the spiritual penalities or loss of spiritual authority/office.  I'm strictly arguing about the temporal office.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33839
  • Reputation: +19895/-4226
  • Gender: Male
Holy Ghost guides the Papacy and the Church overall, substantially, and from the "big picture" perspective.  This does not preclude various detail that would later be subject to reform.  There's a difference between mistakes about details here or there and substantial corruption of doctrine and public worship, where they become downright harmful to souls, the former being possible, the latter impossible.

Unfortunately, some of the dogmatic SVs err on this point and over-extend infallibility in the strict sense to every detail (and some have even gone as far as to claim that anything that bears an imprimatur is effectively infallible and requires internal assent).  On the other side, you have the R&R like this crew who think it's entirely possible for the Church to become substantially corrupt in her teaching and her public worship.  Both of these extremes are incorrect, and they keep pushing each other to the further opposite extreme, as often happens when the balance is lost.

Msgr. Fenton describes the proper balance between the two (see in particular the last paragraph, which I highlight in bold):
Quote
Despite the comparative inadequacy of the treatment they give to the papal encyclicals, however, all the theological works dealing with this subject make it perfectly clear that all Catholics are bound seriously in conscience to accept the teaching contained in these docuмents with a true internal religious assent. It is the common teaching of the theologians who have written on this subject that the internal assent due to a great number of the doctrines proposed in the papal encyclicals is something distinct from and inferior to both the act of divine Catholic faith and the act most frequently designated as fides ecclesiastica. Most theologians hold that, while there is nothing to prevent an infallible definition of truth contained in or connected with the deposit of revelation in papal encyclicals, and while de facto it is quite probable that at least some infallible pronouncements have been made in this way, the Holy Father has not chosen to use the complete plenitude of his apostolic doctrinal authority in presenting most of the truths contained in his encyclical letters. Nevertheless they all insist that even in this portion of his ordinary magisterium the Holy Father has the right to demand, and actually has demanded, a definite and unswerving internal assent to his teaching from all Catholics.
...
It might be definitely understood, however, that the Catholic’s duty to accept the teachings conveyed in the encyclicals even when the Holy Father does not propose such teachings as a part of his infallible magisterium is not based merely upon the dicta of the theologians. The authority which imposes this obligation is that of the Roman Pontiff himself. To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
...
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8621
  • Reputation: +5211/-1632
  • Gender: Male
Hey, Lad, while I see +Fenton's point (to a degree) he has as much authority as Fr Wathen or Fr Hesse (a canon lawyer), whom you brush aside as not part of the magisterium.  If you're going to be consistent, then don't hold up +Fenton as some inerrant authority.  His opinion is not gospel.


Offline Stubborn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12437
  • Reputation: +4908/-806
  • Gender: Male
Hey, Lad, while I see +Fenton's point (to a degree) he has as much authority as Fr Wathen or Fr Hesse (a canon lawyer), whom you brush aside as not part of the magisterium.  If you're going to be consistent, then don't hold up +Fenton as some inerrant authority.  His opinion is not gospel.

The Point - May 1953


"...Of these doctrinal dictators, the three outstanding are Father Francis J. Connell, C. Ss. R., Monsignor Joseph C. Fenton, and Monsignor Matthew Smith. These three priests have emerged from nowhere to set themselves up as the official and unquestioned American theologians. Not even the Pope is able to speak to American Catholics without their mediation. His pronouncements require their interpretations, which infallibly follow, in order to make them clear and to show what he was really trying to say.

The opinions and interpretations of Fathers Connell, Fenton, and Smith are disseminated by means of one journal, one university, and many newspapers. These are, respectively, The American Ecclesiastical Review, of which Fenton is the editor and Connell the associate editor; the Catholic University of America, at which Fenton was, and Connell is, Dean of the School of Theology; and the newspapers that print articles issued by the National Catholic Welfare Conference, of which Connell is the star performer, together with the Denver Register, of which Smith is the editor and featured columnist.

Properly speaking, Monsignor Smith is not a professional theologian at all, but only a journalist with a flair for theological dabbling. Connell and Fenton are really the original thinkers, issuing their proclamations from the nation’s capital. Smith is merely their parrot, the voice out of the West. His job is to see to it, by means of his newspaper, that American Catholics are informed of the opinions Connell and Fenton have decided they ought to have. However, he does his job so faithfully and so well — besides which he often adds bright touches and anecdotes of his own — that he deserves to rank with the other two.

Father Connell specializes in giving the “Catholic position” on the latest newspaper headlines. There is not a single curiosity or scandal that he fails to notice and to comment on for the edification of American Catholics. Typical of his unholy interests and faithless comments is the article he wrote last year during the “flying saucer” ruckus. Asking himself the question, how could men on other planets be redeemed, he casually elaborated a scheme of multiple Incarnations and reincarnations of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity, a scheme which turns Our Lady from Virgo Singularis into just one of the mothers of one of the Divine Persons who became man.

Monsignor Fenton likes to make it appear that he is terribly strong and intransigent on the matter of dogma, and that he is persecuted on account of this by those with more liberal ideas. However, as is plainly evident to any long-term reader of Fenton’s Ecclesiastical Review, there is no lasting difference between him and the liberals; he merely says what they say two years later.

In his interpretations of the doctrine “no salvation outside the Church,” his prize interpretations, Fenton lays down conditions for non-Catholic salvation that are so rigid and far-fetched that practically no one can meet them. (This is to show his “terrible strength.”) However, it does not bother him that those who want to go all out for getting non-Catholics into Heaven, do so using his reasons and his authority. All the liberals need is one little loophole, which Fenton gives. Through that loophole, the liberals are able, in their need, to squeeze every Protestant and Jєω in America.

The Faith is meant to be something clear and simple, which the Holy Father can teach us in innocent terms, and every man can and must know for his salvation and his happiness. But as long as Fathers Fenton, Connell and Smith are running the show, the Faith is going to be presented as something obscure and esoteric — something that can be known by no one but these priests, and those to whom it shall please them to reveal it.

BY FATHER FEENEY"
The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

Offline augustineeens

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 137
  • Reputation: +62/-91
  • Gender: Male
  • Aufente gentem perfidam credentium de finibus
"Excommunicated from the Church?" Where did you get this phrase? Makes it sound like they are banished or expelled from the Church.

Excommunication, depending on the censure, basically means one may not partake in the sacraments or activities (if a priest, he cannot celebrate Mass, preach or administer the sacraments etc., or laymen cannot be an usher, sing in the choir, etc.) because they have committed a mortal sin to which is attached the censure of excommunication.

Excommunication is a censure primarily intended to be medicinal, a stern warning prompting the sinner to repent. These sinners still have all the obligations of a Catholic but none of the privileges - until they repent. But it is a censure due to mortal sin, not a banishment of the sinner from the Church.

That is from the Code of Canon Law! Canon 2314: § 1. All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic: Incur by that fact excommunication.

This is completely in line with the traditional teaching and practice of the Church, not to mention what was explicitly taught in Satis Cognitum.
"Know you not that the friendship of this world is the enemy of God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of this world, becometh an enemy of God." (James 4:4)

Offline Stubborn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12437
  • Reputation: +4908/-806
  • Gender: Male
That is from the Code of Canon Law! Canon 2314: § 1. All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic: Incur by that fact excommunication.

This is completely in line with the traditional teaching and practice of the Church, not to mention what was explicitly taught in Satis Cognitum.

Quoting canon law? By this definition, you are excommunicated.

From Commentary of the New [1917] Canon Law .....

1168. The faithful are in conscience obliged to profess their faith publicly whenever their silence, subterfuge, or manner of acting, imports an implicit denial of their faith, a contempt of religion, or an insult to God, or scandal to the neighbor.

A baptized Christian, who calls himself a Christian, yet obstinately denies or calls into doubt any of the truths to be
believed by Divine and Catholic faith, is a heretic;

If he abandons the Christian faith altogether he is called an apostate;

If, finally, he refuses to be subject to the Supreme Pontiff, or to have communication with the members of the Church subject to the Roman Pontiff, he is a schismatic.

The Catholics shall not enter into any dispute or conferences with non-Catholics, especially public ones, without permission of the Holy See, or, in urgent case, of the Ordinary. (Canon 1325.)
The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse


Offline DigitalLogos

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7432
  • Reputation: +4223/-742
  • Gender: Male
  • Slave to the Sacred Heart
    • Twitter
Quoting canon law? By this definition, you are excommunicated.

From Commentary of the New [1917] Canon Law .....

1168. The faithful are in conscience obliged to profess their faith publicly whenever their silence, subterfuge, or manner of acting, imports an implicit denial of their faith, a contempt of religion, or an insult to God, or scandal to the neighbor.

A baptized Christian, who calls himself a Christian, yet obstinately denies or calls into doubt any of the truths to be
believed by Divine and Catholic faith, is a heretic;

If he abandons the Christian faith altogether he is called an apostate;

If, finally, he refuses to be subject to the Supreme Pontiff, or to have communication with the members of the Church subject to the Roman Pontiff, he is a schismatic.

The Catholics shall not enter into any dispute or conferences with non-Catholics, especially public ones, without permission of the Holy See, or, in urgent case, of the Ordinary. (Canon 1325.)
How exactly does that Canon have any force of law if the hierarchy has defected and the See is Vacant? Who is there to enforce it? I also don't see how augustineeens is a heretic here, he hasn't denied any dogmas, unlike you (unity of the Church, that heretics are outside of the Church)
"Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." [Matt. 6:34]

"In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin." [Ecclus. 7:40]

"A holy man continueth in wisdom as the sun: but a fool is changed as the moon." [Ecclus. 27:12]

Offline DecemRationis

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1364
  • Reputation: +469/-114
  • Gender: Male

The Point - May 1953


"..

Monsignor Fenton likes to make it appear that he is terribly strong and intransigent on the matter of dogma, and that he is persecuted on account of this by those with more liberal ideas. However, as is plainly evident to any long-term reader of Fenton’s Ecclesiastical Review, there is no lasting difference between him and the liberals; he merely says what they say two years later.



BY FATHER FEENEY"

That's very good, certainly worth remembering. Nice line. 
Non enim omnes qui ex Israel sunt, ii sunt Israelitae (Roman 9:6)

Offline Ladislaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33839
  • Reputation: +19895/-4226
  • Gender: Male
Hey, Lad, while I see +Fenton's point (to a degree) he has as much authority as Fr Wathen or Fr Hesse (a canon lawyer), whom you brush aside as not part of the magisterium.  If you're going to be consistent, then don't hold up +Fenton as some inerrant authority.  His opinion is not gospel.

Nobody's holding him up as "gospel".  On the other hand, you're dismissing him with an ad hominen.  He was cited to dispel the straw man created earlier that the Church being guided by the Holy Spirit means there can be no errors or mistakes in the Magisterium.

Where the line is crossed is by claiming that the papal Magisterium can become so corrupt as to be conducive to the ruination of souls.  That is the line that is drawn and that you guys cross into heresy-land.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33839
  • Reputation: +19895/-4226
  • Gender: Male
If, finally, he refuses to be subject to the Supreme Pontiff, or to have communication with the members of the Church subject to the Roman Pontiff, he is a schismatic.

:facepalm: nobody's refusing subjections to the Supreme Pontiff, only to an Antipope.  Of course, formally, you are the one in schism for claiming that it's permitted to refuse subjection to the Supreme Pontiff and to communicate with members of the Church (i.e. by refusing to attend the NOM).  So once again you condemn yourself from your own mouth.

Besides that, the SVs have quoted myriad times from Canonist who state that one is not a schismatic if one refuses subjection based on well-founded doubts regarding their legitimacy.