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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 8

Author Topic: Bp. Williamson's Christmas Miracle?  (Read 7401 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Plenus Venter

Re: Bp. Williamson's Christmas Miracle?
« Reply #15 on: December 25, 2023, 07:57:27 PM »
Quote from: TheRealMcCoy on December 25, 2023, 08:31:43 AM
Can someone explain to me why Bergoglio is pope?
Yes, it's pretty straight forward, RM.
He was elected by the Cardinals at the last conclave, and has been held to be Pope by the Catholic world ever since and has not been convicted of heresy by the Church nor declared not to be Pope.
Therefore, we presume that he is Pope, in spite of his non-Catholic behaviour, in spite of all the doubts.
This presumption in favour of validity which Bishop Williamson obviously adheres to, is exactly the same position as Archbishop Lefebvre, and is in no way an endorsement of the sedevacantist position, quite the contrary.
Logged

Offline Centroamerica

Re: Bp. Williamson's Christmas Miracle?
« Reply #16 on: December 25, 2023, 08:10:55 PM »
Quote from: Plenus Venter on December 25, 2023, 07:57:27 PM
This presumption in favour of validity which Bishop Williamson obviously adheres to, is exactly the same position as Archbishop Lefebvre, and is in no way an endorsement of the sedevacantist position, quite the contrary.
Bishop Williamson may presume that Bergoglio is the legitimate successor of St. Peter and spiritual leader of the world’s Catholics, but he surely doubts this as being fact. He has made that clear many times over. 

The real question is why would anyone want to, as a lay Catholic, fight aggressively to support the idea that Bergoglio is your spiritual leader and the successor of St. Peter. I would never waste my time arguing such a point. I mean, look at Canon 188 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law and its foot notes referencing cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio. Why would you ever waste your time defending Bergoglio after reading that unless you yourself were not a Mason or some other anti-Catholic. Well, you could always spend time explaining how anti-sedevacantist Archbishop Lefebvre was. I guess. I don’t necessarily buy it though. 
Logged

Offline Plenus Venter

Re: Bp. Williamson's Christmas Miracle?
« Reply #17 on: December 25, 2023, 09:20:13 PM »
Quote from: Centroamerica on December 25, 2023, 08:10:55 PM
Bishop Williamson may presume that Bergoglio is the legitimate successor of St. Peter and spiritual leader of the world’s Catholics, but he surely doubts this as being fact. He has made that clear many times over.

The real question is why would anyone want to, as a lay Catholic, fight aggressively to support the idea that Bergoglio is your spiritual leader and the successor of St. Peter. I would never waste my time arguing such a point. I mean, look at Canon 188 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law and its foot notes referencing cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio. Why would you ever waste your time defending Bergoglio after reading that unless you yourself were not a Mason or some other anti-Catholic. Well, you could always spend time explaining how anti-sedevacantist Archbishop Lefebvre was. I guess. I don’t necessarily buy it though.
No, that is not the real question at all.

The real question is why anyone would so elevate their own private opinion as to declare the First See definitely vacant, now or before, in opposition to the guide that was given us in Archbishop Lefebvre, causing unnecessary division in the Traditional Catholic world.

The words of Fr Chazal (below) are worth repeating again and again. It is important, we can see clearly enough just in our own little Cathinfo world  how much it has been a source of division and even, God forbid, rancour:

"The practical behaviour of Catholics does not depend in any way on an opinion. What you say as a private person is not a dogma... and before Vatican II no dogma on this intricate, controversial and until then academic question had ever been formulated. On the contrary, with the exception of the time of Gratian, the constant unanimity was that there is no unanimity on this question."

Or as so sensibly articulated by Pere Jean (OFM Cap, Morgon) in 2016:

“It is understandable that some Traditional Catholics... be deeply troubled by the scandals of Pope Francis, who seems to have surpassed his predecessors'. The sedevacantist solution may appear to them as the simplest, most logical, and best. In fact, the fundamental problem remains the same since the '70s, and the prudent attitude of Abp Lefebvre, in considering the risk of excessive and rash judgement, with the attendant danger of schism, should not be abandoned. In 2001, the “Small Catechism on Sedevacantism” published by Le Sel de la Terre concluded: “This is a position that has not been proven at the speculative level, and it is imprudent to hold it at a practical level, an imprudence that can bear very serious consequences.” (No. 36, p. 117) This conclusion holds as much for Pope Francis as for Pope John-Paul II who had kissed the Quran".



Logged

Offline Centroamerica

Re: Bp. Williamson's Christmas Miracle?
« Reply #18 on: December 26, 2023, 05:42:47 AM »
Plenus Vehemeter,

This is where things get dicey and I am inclined to side with the dogmatic sedevacantist to some extent. Allow me to explain.

You begin by stating that no Catholic should cause division by elevating their opinion that the See of Peter is vacant. To support this you cite the opinion of two priests without ordinary jurisdiction.

However, when one looks closely at the matter, there is plenty of pre-Vatican 2 material written very clearly in black and white. For example, the Catholic Encyclopedia which states that about the election of the pope that a heretic, woman or insane person could not legitimately be elected pope. If you choose to follow your own OPINION and decide that a heretic can be legitimately elected pope then why not a woman or even the Dalai Lama? See where your opinion despite the Catholic encyclopedia statement leads you.

Then you have Canon 188 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law (which I doubt you have read but include here as a snapshot). Notice rightly that the original cites Ex cuм Apostolatus as support for what it emshrines in law. No simple matter. Canon 188 clearly states: one will lose office without the need of any declarations whatsoever if one publicly defects from the Catholic Faith.

At this point, your opinion that me believing Francis is no true pope is to be elevating my own opinion is now proven to be based on the opinion of two priests without ordinary jurisdiction and weighted with the opinion of a heroic deceased Archbishop who has not been alive for the the last 30 years of this Crisis and very well may have sided with my “opinion” (neither you nor I know).

The problem here as analyzed objectively is that we both posit two opinions. My opinion is that Francis is not pope and it is absurd to fight in honor of defending his papacy. Your opinion is that it is absurd to negate the papacy of Francis and elevate one’s own opinion. The difference is that my opinion is based on what the pre-Vatican 2 Church taught regarding heretics and defected Catholics and the papacy in black and white. Your opinion is supported by, well, other people’s opinions. So I choose to take the safer course, ignore the opinions you have quoted and side with the Catholic Encyclopedia and 1917 Code of Canon Law. (188)

The only out you have as I can see it is if you reject openly the claims of both the sources I cited and maintain the very novel opinion that a pope can be a Non-Catholic and a heretic. Or you could choose the second option of claiming that Francis has not publicly defected but does indeed hold the integral Catholic Faith. Of course, your third option is to murder your ego and investigate for yourself without the pride of being right.

3 options for you. I wonder which you will choose.
Logged

Offline 2Vermont

Re: Bp. Williamson's Christmas Miracle?
« Reply #19 on: December 26, 2023, 07:05:39 AM »
Quote from: Centroamerica on December 26, 2023, 05:42:47 AM
Plenus Vehemeter,

This is where things get dicey and I am inclined to side with the dogmatic sedevacantist to some extent. Allow me to explain.

You begin by stating that no Catholic should cause division by elevating their opinion that the See of Peter is vacant. To support this you cite the opinion of two priests without ordinary jurisdiction.

However, when one looks closely at the matter, there is plenty of pre-Vatican 2 material written very clearly in black and white. For example, the Catholic Encyclopedia which states that about the election of the pope that a heretic, woman or insane person could not legitimately be elected pope. If you choose to follow your own OPINION and decide that a heretic can be legitimately elected pope then why not a woman or even the Dalai Lama? See where your opinion despite the Catholic encyclopedia statement leads you.

Then you have Canon 188 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law (which I doubt you have read but include here as a snapshot). Notice rightly that the original cites Ex cuм Apostolatus as support for what it emshrines in law. No simple matter. Canon 188 clearly states: one will lose office without the need of any declarations whatsoever if one publicly defects from the Catholic Faith.

At this point, your opinion that me believing Francis is no true pope is to be elevating my own opinion is now proven to be based on the opinion of two priests without ordinary jurisdiction and weighted with the opinion of a heroic deceased Archbishop who has not been alive for the the last 30 years of this Crisis and very well may have sided with my “opinion” (neither you nor I know).

The problem here as analyzed objectively is that we both posit two opinions. My opinion is that Francis is not pope and it is absurd to fight in honor of defending his papacy. Your opinion is that it is absurd to negate the papacy of Francis and elevate one’s own opinion. The difference is that my opinion is based on what the pre-Vatican 2 Church taught regarding heretics and defected Catholics and the papacy in black and white. Your opinion is supported by, well, other people’s opinions. So I choose to take the safer course, ignore the opinions you have quoted and side with the Catholic Encyclopedia and 1917 Code of Canon Law. (188)

The only out you have as I can see it is if you reject openly the claims of both the sources I cited and maintain the very novel opinion that a pope can be a Non-Catholic and a heretic. Or you could choose the second option of claiming that Francis has not publicly defected but does indeed hold the integral Catholic Faith. Of course, your third option is to murder your ego and investigate for yourself without the pride of being right.

3 options for you. I wonder which you will choose.
Not to mention the repeated, false assertion of certain R&R folks that sedevacantists/sedevacantism cause/causes "disunity" and "division" among Catholics. 

The real cause of disunity comes from the men they continue to call true popes.  Rather than point their fingers where they should be pointed, they prefer to point them at sedes...even those they don't label as "dogmatic".


Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 8
« previous next »