Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Texana on December 24, 2023, 09:02:35 PM
-
A Christmas gift from His Excellency in his sermon for the Fourth Sunday of Advent! Please pay special attention to his comments about the papacy starting at 29:20.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hjcrqlOnAo
"Sermons and Conferences of Bishop Williamson" channel
-
So Bergoglio, who is "so unfit to be pope and maybe not even pope depending on how one judges the manner in which he was elected", might not be pope because of the way he was elected. Got it.
Should we concern ourselves with his apostasy as that too is a small problem?
-
This isn’t that huge of a revelation. Bishop Fellay said almost exactly that 10 years ago in a newsletter and was later accused of being a sedevacantist by Fr. Pfeiffer. Bishop Fellay was even a bit more precise. But recalling from memory he said one day it may be determined that Francis never was pope at all. And several more things.
Remember that when Bishop Williamson met with Fr. Gruner in Canada seven years ago or so, he also gave credence to the “Benedict is the true pope” group. There are other videos as well where Bishop Williamson casts doubts on the papacy of Francis long ago. I compiled one somewhere on one of my accounts for youtube years ago. Bishop Williamson has also publicly revealed that he regards the Thuc consecrations as valid.
All these facts slam in the face of the resistance folks who like to promote a position that you are not even allowed to think in your mind privately any doubt regarding the papacy of Francis. I believe Sean Johnson was one of those crowd who used the universal acceptance argument and held it to be objectively sinful to doubt the papacy of Francis (or schismatic). And there are plenty more layfolks in R and R camps who hold wild ideas about the papacy. Brazilian resistance laity have asserted with me that if the Dalai Lama were to be elected from a conclave, I would have to accept him as my pope (something I find which favors the religious indifferentism of masonry).
So no I do not see this as a Christmas miracle. Bishop Williamson has held this view publicly for nearly a decade and is a lot softer on sedevacantists than the laity who claim to follow him.
-
And here I was thinking that this thread might actually contain something interesting.
-
I didn’t watch it, but has he made any statement regarding Bergoglio’s homo doctrine?
-
And here I was thinking that this thread might actually contain something interesting.
I thought it was going to be that public announcement we've all been waiting for.....
-
What kind of clickbait is this? You're trolling the sedevacantists, Texana. You might be excited about this or that line from his sermon, but those who know the bishop better know that it's nothing new. See CentroAmerica's response.
-
This isn’t that huge of a revelation. Bishop Fellay said almost exactly that 10 years ago in a newsletter and was later accused of being a sedevacantist by Fr. Pfeiffer. Bishop Fellay was even a bit more precise. But recalling from memory he said one day it may be determined that Francis never was pope at all. And several more things.
Remember that when Bishop Williamson met with Fr. Gruner in Canada seven years ago or so, he also gave credence to the “Benedict is the true pope” group. There are other videos as well where Bishop Williamson casts doubts on the papacy of Francis long ago. I compiled one somewhere on one of my accounts for youtube years ago. Bishop Williamson has also publicly revealed that he regards the Thuc consecrations as valid.
All these facts slam in the face of the resistance folks who like to promote a position that you are not even allowed to think in your mind privately any doubt regarding the papacy of Francis. I believe Sean Johnson was one of those crowd who used the universal acceptance argument and held it to be objectively sinful to doubt the papacy of Francis (or schismatic). And there are plenty more layfolks in R and R camps who hold wild ideas about the papacy. Brazilian resistance laity have asserted with me that if the Dalai Lama were to be elected from a conclave, I would have to accept him as my pope (something I find which favors the religious indifferentism of masonry).
So no I do not see this as a Christmas miracle. Bishop Williamson has held this view publicly for nearly a decade and is a lot softer on sedevacantists than the laity who claim to follow him.
Yeah... here is my response.
Also, my position on the Pope question is +ABL's position. And yes, that's a lot "softer" on Sedevacantism and similar positions than the position held by some radical "Sedeplenists" who permit no doubts.
There are things we know with certainty, and things we don't. We have to be very precise and very accurate when it comes to what we accept and reject. Anything that is a possibility, even a remote possibility, we must leave the door open. That's how you avoid making huge retractions, recantings, posting in your sigline, "I repent of anything I've ever said against the Catholic Faith", etc.
I am all for apologizing when I'm wrong, and I have enough humility (scraped from the sides of the peanut butter jar) to do so, but I prefer to not be wrong in the first place. And if I merely didn't possess all the facts, that's not the same as PUSHING something that was wrong. When something is doubtful or "in play", one should admit that. For starters, you don't uncharitably smash the other side just for being on the other side.
That's how you live with no regrets. See, I won't be making any major apologies in the future. That's because I have nothing to apologize for. That doesn't mean I know everything. It means I'm of good will. There's a difference.
-
Can someone explain to me why Bergoglio is pope?
-
Can someone explain to me why Bergoglio is pope?
This is the best question I've heard in a long time. Someone please respond.
-
Can someone explain to me why Bergoglio is pope?
Because Cardinal McCarrick and the St. Gallen Mafia selected him to be pope?
-
Can someone explain to me why Bergoglio is pope?
Because God allowed it? Because the world deserves such a pope? All authority comes from above. Pope Francis doesn't have to abuse his authority. Surely someone who holds that position in the church has at least initially, if not continually received inspiration from God to do good, yet that man rejects it. Surely Francis has some inkling that what he is doing is controversial and against Church teaching. He could choose to do good, or at least no more evil. Is there any comparison to the captivity of the Hebrews regarding Pharao, or a Babylonian king? What's that scripture quote: I will strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered?
Is it sufficient in our case to accept that we don't know regarding whether Francis is pope or not? As long as we try to do our part to remedy the situation according to out state in life?
I heard Cardinal Ratzinger said Vatican II is a contra syllabus of errors. If he said that, surely him making such a comment and what he did later could be formulated into proof of Formal Heresy.
There are things we know with certainty, and things we don't. We have to be very precise and very accurate when it comes to what we accept and reject. Anything that is a possibility, even a remote possibility, we must leave the door open. That's how you avoid making huge retractions, recantings, posting in your sigline, "I repent of anything I've ever said against the Catholic Faith", etc.
I am all for apologizing when I'm wrong, and I have enough humility (scraped from the sides of the peanut butter jar) to do so, but I prefer to not be wrong in the first place. And if I merely didn't possess all the facts, that's not the same as PUSHING something that was wrong. When something is doubtful or "in play", one should admit that. For starters, you don't uncharitably smash the other side just for being on the other side.
That's how you live with no regrets. See, I won't be making any major apologies in the future. That's because I have nothing to apologize for. That doesn't mean I know everything. It means I'm of good will. There's a difference.
Does this also apply to the shape of the earth?
-
Because God allowed it? Because the world deserves such a pope? All authority comes from above. Pope Francis doesn't have to abuse his authority. Surely someone who holds that position in the church has at least initially, if not continually received inspiration from God to do good, yet that man rejects it. Surely Francis has some inkling that what he is doing is controversial and against Church teaching. He could choose to do good, or at least no more evil. Is there any comparison to the captivity of the Hebrews regarding Pharao, or a Babylonian king? What's that scripture quote: I will strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered?
Is it sufficient in our case to accept that we don't know regarding whether Francis is pope or not? As long as we try to do our part to remedy the situation according to out state in life?
I heard Cardinal Ratzinger said Vatican II is a contra syllabus of errors. If he said that, surely him making such a comment and what he did later could be formulated into proof of Formal Heresy.
Does this also apply to the shape of the earth?
Let me clarify...anyone please state the reasons that you believe Bergoglio is pope. Convince me, if you will.
-
".....depending on how one judges the manner in which he was elected."
Bishop Williamson is hinting, whether knowingly or not, at the root of the problem here, and that is that Jorge Bergoglio was "elected" by the cardinals while there was a pope, Joseph Ratzinger, still occupying the Throne of Peter. However, if it can be demonstrated with sufficient evidence that Jorge Bergoglio was a public manifest formal heretic BEFORE his "election", then that would be the a priori cause (reference cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio) of his not being pope.
-
".....depending on how one judges the manner in which he was elected."
Bishop Williamson is hinting, whether knowingly or not, at the root of the problem here, and that is that Jorge Bergoglio was "elected" by the cardinals while there was a pope, Joseph Ratzinger, still occupying the Throne of Peter. However, if it can be demonstrated with sufficient evidence that Jorge Bergoglio was a public manifest formal heretic BEFORE his "election", then that would be the a priori cause (reference cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio) of his not being pope.
It still boggles my mind how Ratzinger defenders don’t realize he was just as heretical as Bergoglio. ::)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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".
-
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.
-
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".
-
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.
The presumption in favour of validity holds when there is no reasonable evidence to the contrary. However, there is enough evidence in the case of Jorge Bergoglio to establish at least a well-founded positive and probable doubt, and this on more than one front (e.g., public manifest formal heresy, invalid election). As such, St. Robert Bellarmine's teaching comes to mind, that is, "papa dubius, papa nullus (https://archive.org/details/TheChurchOfChristAnApologeticAndDogmaticTreatiseBerryRev.E.Sylvester5729.o/page/n210/mode/1up?view=theater)".
(https://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/Screenshots/10_Doubtful_Pope.png)
(https://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/Screenshots/10_Title.png)
(https://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/Screenshots/10_Title.png)Based on what Bishop Williamson said in the above sermon, he should be concluding that Jorge Bergoglio is a doubtful pope and that therefore we do not owe him obedience.
-
the guide that was given us in Archbishop Lefebvre
Someone should do a compilation of titles and adjectives given to Abp. Lefebvre by his followers, we might arrive at a veritable litany fitting for a saintly pope.
Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I am of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Cor 1:12-13)
Lefebvre isn't the guide of faith and principle of unity given to you by God, that would be the Pope. YOU chose Lefebvre, YOU decided he was a saint, YOU decided to trust him with your soul. One could choose Abp. Thuc to be his light and saviour just as well as you chose Abp. Lefebvre and you would both be wrong in putting your trust in man.
The number one reason people don't have the true faith today is because they put their entire trust in man, not God.
-
St. Robert Bellarmine's teaching comes to mind, that is, "papa dubius, papa nullus (https://archive.org/details/TheChurchOfChristAnApologeticAndDogmaticTreatiseBerryRev.E.Sylvester5729.o/page/n210/mode/1up?view=theater)".
What I'm hearing is that the Quran-kisser's and Mass-wrecker's papacies aren't even doubtful.
-
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.
It is because many in the so-called Resistance are under the false impression that Archbishop Lefebvre taught some universal principle that a putative pope is always to be accepted as a true pope. However, the Archbishop taught no such thing. Rather, he taught that whether a putative pope is truly pope is based on the evidence. See here (https://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/Talks_Given_Archbishop_Marcel_Lefebvre_March_30_April_18_1986_The_Angelus_July_1986.pdf).
-
Of course, your third option is to murder your ego and investigate for yourself without the pride of being right.
Sound advice, CA. I'm glad we agree on something. :-)
-
What I'm hearing is that the Quran-kisser's and Mass-wrecker's papacies aren't even doubtful.
That would be what you are hearing from the sedevacantists, Marulus, who know for certain that he is not Pope and make a definitive judgement which obliges the Catholic conscience.
What did St Robert Bellarmine mean by this phrase about a doubtful Pope? What was he referring to? How has the Church applied it? Is it a dogmatic Catholic teaching?
Archbishop Lefebvre admitted a doubt. He said he could not have metaphysical certainty. He said 'I don't know'. He went on to say (all in 1983 in response to the departure of the nine) that 'it is a very great presumption' to presume that he remains Pope. That was in English, which he struggled with, but his meaning was that it is a very good presumption.
That is what separates the sedevacantist from ABL and R&R. The sedevacantist knows, whereas R&R refrains from a definitive judgement because it is an entirely new situation in the Church and it is not certain that we can make such a judgement.
-
Someone should do a compilation of titles and adjectives given to Abp. Lefebvre by his followers, we might arrive at a veritable litany fitting for a saintly pope.
I challenge you to do this, Marulus.
Let us know your objections. So far we have 'the guide that God gave us'. You reject this?
Even the nine who left ABL admitted his sanctity: Bishop Sanborn, Fr Cekada, Fr Jenkins. Do you wish to correct them?
Undoubtedly he will have a special place in Heaven beside Pope St Pius X whom he took as his patron.
But for you he was a failure because he didn't declare a non-pope... what to say?
-
Lefebvre isn't the guide of faith and principle of unity given to you by God, that would be the Pope. YOU chose Lefebvre,
No, God chose him, I didn't even exist.
In every great crisis God has raised up a saint to guide Catholics who want to remain faithful.
In the greatest crisis of all, according to you, He left us orphans.
God chose ABL for his mission in the Church and Catholics the world over recognised in him a true and faithful shepherd, one preeminently suited to guiding us along the sure path of the Popes and the Church. But you know the Popes and the Church better than he.
-
The presumption in favour of validity holds when there is no reasonable evidence to the contrary. However, there is enough evidence in the case of Jorge Bergoglio to establish at least a well-founded positive and probable doubt, and this on more than one front (e.g., public manifest formal heresy, invalid election). As such, St. Robert Bellarmine's teaching comes to mind, that is, "papa dubius, papa nullus (https://archive.org/details/TheChurchOfChristAnApologeticAndDogmaticTreatiseBerryRev.E.Sylvester5729.o/page/n210/mode/1up?view=theater)"...
(https://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/Screenshots/10_Title.png)Based on what Bishop Williamson said in the above sermon, he should be concluding that Jorge Bergoglio is a doubtful pope and that therefore we do not owe him obedience.
What evidence?
No Cardinal-elector was heard to voice a concern.
No rival claim to the papacy has been heard.
Francis was universally accepted by the Church from day one as the Pope.
There has been no imperfect Council called to convict him and declare him a heretic, as St Robert Bellarmine requires (a theological opinion at that).
But certain people have come up with theories, all based on uncertainties, that give us the right to take down the head of the Church?
Absolute nonsense Catholic Knight.
-
I’m going to say something really controversial in Tradition right now but I don’t think Archbishop Lefebvre will ever be canonized as some great saint by the Church. I believe he led a heroic life and did great things. I believe that his books should be sold in churches around the world. I believe many good things about Archbishop Lefebvre. But Plenus Vehementer has raised him to a shining star guiding the path. I think we need many archbishops like him. But not one in particular that is elevated to a status of being the greatest archbishop ever and that his position in 1990 is wheee we should stand locked in time forever. Over thirty years ago into this crisis. If we stay locked in the mindset of 30 years ago we indefinitely further this crisis as if we await a miracle from God. I disagree with this approach.
Also, there is the signature of Archbishop Lefebvre on all the Vatican 2 docuмents and his claim that he didn’t sign those docuмents. I’m willing to accept that he signed to acknowledge his presence there and nothing more as a sort of roll call. But there was a ton of controversy regarding the signature on all Vatican 2 docuмents and the claim that there was not. It’s not guaranteed that Archbishop Lefebvre will ever be canonized. He did many great things for Tradition. That is undoubtedly true. If we repeat forever that “now is not the time” to say that we do not believe the pope is valid. Then we accept any nonsense from the non-Catholic sect in Rome. Including women priests and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ marriages. If you do not think that that is right on the horizon then you haven’t been paying attention.
-
I will just say that I had expected Plenus Behementer to state that Bergoglio was not a heretic because no one had tried him as such and so he was integrally Catholic, though by play of words and not using that terminology. He did not. In fact, he only responded by attempting to throw my option of murdering the ego right back at me. I am open to the idea that Francis is a legitimate pope. I have had small doubts about whether he is valid. But nothing convinces me more than for example hearing him say in perfect clear as day Spanish that “today he is going to say maybe a heresy”. Or reading his docuмents and observing his acts. Catholics of old would have had his remains thrown into the Tiber with Pachamama by now. The majority of Tradition consoles itself with the words of an Archbishop that passed more than thirty years ago and did not think the time was right to say the pope is invalid because he is a non-Catholic.
-
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.
Okay CA, let's have a look at the three options you have benevolently granted me.
Let's work backwards.
Option 3. Murder my ego and investigate without pride of being right.
It immediately sounds to me like you are of the opinion that only those who hold the sedevacantist position are possessed of the requisite learning and humility. I readily grant that I am lacking in both, defects which I labour to overcome, but this is not about me. It is precisely because of my lack of competence that I look to the good shepherds, like Archbishop Lefebvre, that God has given us to guide us in this crisis. No, I am not a theologian, I am not my own guide. One would have to be wilfully blind to deny the role ABL has played in this crisis since before the Council. One would have to be ignorant to deny his learning and competence. And one would have to be malicious to deny that he was a good shepherd. So I listen to him most attentively, and when I hear something to the contrary, I weigh it against his words and position, in view of Catholic teaching, and follow my Catholic sense. That is all we can do while the supreme authority is struck by modernism. We can only judge by the infallible magisterium and Tradition, taking into account opinions of theologians without dogmatising them, instructed by the shepherds that God has given us who have remained faithful.
Option 2. Claim that Francis has not publicly defected from the Faith, according to Canon 188.
Have you read the serious arguments against such an opinion?
Can you apprise me of the opinions of Canon Lawyers as to what this Canon means by defection from the Faith?
Can you cite examples of how the Church has applied this law in practice?
When I consider all these matters, I conclude that it is, at the very least, not certain that Pope Francis has defected from the Faith in such a way as to incur the censure foreseen by this law. Therefore, I do not feel empowered to declare that he is not Pope. I see no reason to depart from the wisdom and prudence of Archbishop Lefebvre who had seen Popes protestantise the liturgy, preach against the Catholic Church as the unique Ark of Salvation, kiss the Koran, be marked with the sign of the adorers of a pagan God, bring leaders of demonic religions into the house of God to pray together with Catholics... On what grounds do you maintain that this 'heroic deceased Archbishop' (your words) would now judge differently?
Option 3. Reject openly the claims of both of the sources you have cited and adopt the very novel opinion that a pope can be a heretic.
A novel opinion to imagine that a pope can be a heretic? You surely cannot be unaware that St Robert Bellarmine, who piously believed the opinion of Albert Pighius that the Pope could never become a heretic, because it seemed to him to be in accord with the 'sweet disposition of Divine Providence', nevertheless acknowledged that the common opinion of theologians was to the contrary, that is, that the Pope could become a heretic. Hence the famous 'five opinions' which give us St Robert Bellarmine's theological opinion as to how a heretic Pope should be dealt with. Other theologians held different opinions, including among them the possibility of a heretic Pope maintaining his jurisdiction. The Church has never censured any of these renowned theologians, and has never settled this matter, as explained in the quotes I provided which you apparently deem unworthy of consideration because they come from priests without ordinary jurisdiction.
Regarding the Catholic Encyclopaedia article that tells you a heretic cannot legitimately be elected Pope, can you tell me what it means by a heretic in this article? Is it referring to material heresy, or formal heresy, or one who belongs to an heretical sect? When you say 'legitimately', does you also mean 'validly'? Does it apply to one in good standing in the Church who has not been censured? Does it take into account the legislation of Pope Pius X/XII for the election of a Pope? Was Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio with absolute certainty barred from election according to infallible Church teaching? When I consider all these questions I conclude that, at the very least, it is not certain that this Pope Francis was precluded from being elected Pope. Therefore, I do not feel empowered to declare that he is not Pope. I again see no reason to depart from the wisdom and prudence of him whom I recognise as a good shepherd, Archbishop Lefebvre. To the contrary.
I can only suggest to you that you are not following the safer course, you are not following the Catholic Encyclopaedia, and you are not following Canon Law. At best, a doubtful interpretation of both which does not give you the right to depose a Pope. Have a little regard and respect for the 'heroic deceased Archbishop' I beg of you.
-
If we repeat forever that “now is not the time” to say that we do not believe the pope is valid. Then we accept any nonsense from the non-Catholic sect in Rome. Including women priests and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ marriages. If you do not think that that is right on the horizon then you haven’t been paying attention.
You are more scandalised by blessings of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions, than kissing the Koran or preaching salvation through other religions, or bringing devils into the house of God to pray with Catholics? Women priests, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ marriages, a projection into the future to depose a Pope today? You do not have your head screwed on, my friend, you run on emotion.
-
Catholics of old would have had his remains thrown into the Tiber with Pachamama by now. The majority of Tradition consoles itself with the words of an Archbishop that passed more than thirty years ago and did not think the time was right to say the pope is invalid because he is a non-Catholic.
But we do not live in the Catholic society of bygone days, we live in a Church and world infested with modernism, even more so than when the Archbishop was alive, and things must be judged in their context.
Where does all your protestation get you? How does it change what you do? Maybe it will only alienate and threaten the salvation of those good Catholics (the vast majority of Catholics) who are trapped in the Conciliar Church. Be careful.
-
I’m going to say something really controversial in Tradition right now but I don’t think Archbishop Lefebvre will ever be canonized as some great saint by the Church. I believe he led a heroic life and did great things. I believe that his books should be sold in churches around the world. I believe many good things about Archbishop Lefebvre. But Plenus Vehementer has raised him to a shining star guiding the path. I think we need many archbishops like him. But not one in particular that is elevated to a status of being the greatest archbishop ever and that his position in 1990 is wheee we should stand locked in time forever. Over thirty years ago into this crisis. If we stay locked in the mindset of 30 years ago we indefinitely further this crisis as if we await a miracle from God. I disagree with this approach.
Heroic life, did great things (when all his confreres betrayed), doctrine that should be disseminated in churches throughout the world, we need archbishops like him...
BUT he will never be canonised... he was not a shining star guiding the path.
Are you for real man???
By their fruits you shall know them.
Do you mean he will not be canonised because he didn't depose the Pope, is that what you are saying?
You seem to believe that we can take practical action to end the crisis over and above what Archbishop Lefebvre recommended, by declaring the See of Rome vacant. Exactly how will that help end the crisis, CA? Do you propose that we become conclavist sedevacantists and elect a pope? Is that your idea?
Surely you can see with the state of the Church and world that only God can solve this crisis now, and he will do it through the Pope, through the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and only after a chastisement brings us all out of our dream world to bring us back to God.
-
You do not have your head screwed on, my friend, you run on emotion.
Apologies, CA, I should not have said that, I understand where you are coming from. It is indeed a great mystery, what is happening in the Church, and we are all doing our best to make sense of it. I do not follow Archbishop Lefebvre for any other reason than I recognise in him an heroic and faithful defender of the Faith, the highest authority that we had, but a real authority, a successor of the Apostles, and nothing anyone has ever said gives me reason to believe that we should depart from the sure way that he set us on.
-
Sedevacantism without "conclavism" is completely useless and superfluous.
It's like after a complete collapse scenario (no grid electricity, Internet, public utilities anywhere), a complete Mad Max scenario, having some survivors "pro Internet" and others being "anti Internet". Now if a group of survivors was trying to actively rebuild electronics and computers from the ground up, and actively working to rebuild the Internet, that would be something. But that would be the equivalent of "conclavist sedevacantism".
At least the conclavists are consistent, and giving some MEANING to their sedevacantism. They are trying to "do something about it". To bring the theory into the practical realm, so it has SOME relevance or reason to actually hold the position.
My position is that sedevacantism, unless you add conclavism, is no better and usually worse than "plain vanilla" Traditional Catholicism. It adds nothing, and solves nothing. All it adds is another point of division, another reason for parishioners to stay home on Sunday when there's not a "sede" group chapel within driving distance.
Yes, many sedes are more practical than that (they aren't "dogmatic" about it; they are willing to attend SSPX for example) but why start a movement like "sedevacantism" when a certain percent are going to be dogmatic about it (unnecessarily divisive and condemnatory) and/or end up Home Aloners?
Zero upsides, nothing but downsides!
Would you take a medicine that has no chance of helping you with anything, but has a 30% chance of killing you? Neither would I.
-
What evidence?
No Cardinal-elector was heard to voice a concern.
No rival claim to the papacy has been heard.
Francis was universally accepted by the Church from day one as the Pope.
There has been no imperfect Council called to convict him and declare him a heretic, as St Robert Bellarmine requires (a theological opinion at that).
But certain people have come up with theories, all based on uncertainties, that give us the right to take down the head of the Church?
Absolute nonsense Catholic Knight.
Are you actually asking me what evidence there exists to establish a well-founded positive and probable doubt about the "pontificate" of Jorge Bergoglio?
-
".....depending on how one judges the manner in which he was elected."
Bishop Williamson is hinting, whether knowingly or not, at the root of the problem here, and that is that Jorge Bergoglio was "elected" by the cardinals while there was a pope, Joseph Ratzinger, still occupying the Throne of Peter. However, if it can be demonstrated with sufficient evidence that Jorge Bergoglio was a public manifest formal heretic BEFORE his "election", then that would be the a priori cause (reference cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio) of his not being pope.
If it is true that Ratzinger was pope and allowed a usurper (Francis) to claim the papal throne, then, in a certain sense Ratzinger is worse than Francis. It is sort of like the father of a family who steps aside so the pimp can move in and "trick out" the wife and daughters. Prove me wrong.