Quote from: Caminus

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Caminus

It's the only logical thing to do.

Nonsense.

Why?  

Because recognizing that an alleged Pope is a notorious heretic does not impose any obligation except to admit that the Pope has lost his office.  A body with the proper authority to elect a Pope will eventually be constituted.  Until then the individual sede, whether lay, priest or bishop, has no obligation to do what he has no clear means of doing.

Wait a minute. Where does it say we have the authority to declare he has lost office? And where does it say are we obligated to go further than declare he is a heretic and actually have any more authority than that? Having the ability to recognize heresy and authority to determine the official status of the Pontiff are two different things Tele.

It's not logical, it's just nonsense to say that sede groups are obligated to elect a new Pope when there is no clear authority existing to do so.  It makes far more sense to say that the SSPX is obligated to submit to Benedict XVI (if Benedict XVI is the Pope).  

They 'should' submit to him in all things that are Catholic and reject anything that is not.

It is possible for a lawful election to take place in our times.  If this were to happen, Catholics would need to organize the last lawfully appointed bishops to hold a Council.  Also, all lawfully appointed Roman Clergy would also need to be invited to the Council.  If this Council were to be held, and a declaration of Sede Vacante were made, and if a new Pope were elected, this would be a lawful election.  

We may speculate that some may not accept such an election, but that is irrelevant, the election would be legal and binding.  If only the SSPX would embrace this as well, and help to organize the bishops and the Roman Clergy, the formation of the Council could happen far more quickly.

I do not know if CMRI is working on this, but if any Catholic has it in their power to advance a lawful Council of bishops and members of the Roman Clergy, they should use their station in life to help to assist this cause.  

The hour is late, the Church has been without a pope for about 50 years.  The conciliar church has left us a barren wasteland of Catholics losing their Faith and morals.  The remaining Catholics themselves are divided amongst themselves.  The time has come for Catholics to fight for the Church we love, pray for a Pope, and pray for those few left on Earth who hold the lawful power to hold a Council and elect a Pope.

That makes no sense. The CMRI has no right to elect a Pope. None of them are even Cardinals. As far as it happening in emergency cases, it would have to be if there were no Cardinals left. Yet we have numerous Cardinals, some who have anonymously said the Novus Ordo will be gone after a while.

And the Church hasn't been without a Pope for 50 years. The only one of the five Vatican II Popes I consider to be an anti-pope thus far is Paul VI. I will never consider JPI (Jon Paul the First) to be an anti-pope as I think he was still a Traditional for the most part and was killed when he intended to correct something.

Quote from: Ambrose

It is possible for a lawful election to take place in our times.  If this were to happen, Catholics would need to organize the last lawfully appointed bishops to hold a Council.  Also, all lawfully appointed Roman Clergy would also need to be invited to the Council.  If this Council were to be held, and a declaration of Sede Vacante were made, and if a new Pope were elected, this would be a lawful election.  

We may speculate that some may not accept such an election, but that is irrelevant, the election would be legal and binding.  If only the SSPX would embrace this as well, and help to organize the bishops and the Roman Clergy, the formation of the Council could happen far more quickly.

I do not know if CMRI is working on this, but if any Catholic has it in their power to advance a lawful Council of bishops and members of the Roman Clergy, they should use their station in life to help to assist this cause.  

The hour is late, the Church has been without a pope for about 50 years.  The conciliar church has left us a barren wasteland of Catholics losing their Faith and morals.  The remaining Catholics themselves are divided amongst themselves.  The time has come for Catholics to fight for the Church we love, pray for a Pope, and pray for those few left on Earth who hold the lawful power to hold a Council and elect a Pope.

That makes no sense. The CMRI has no right to elect a Pope. None of them are even Cardinals. As far as it happening in emergency cases, it would have to be if there were no Cardinals left. Yet we have numerous Cardinals, some who have anonymously said the Novus Ordo will be gone after a while.

And the Church hasn't been without a Pope for 50 years. The only one of the five Vatican II Popes I consider to be an anti-pope thus far is Paul VI. I will never consider JPI (Jon Paul the First) to be an anti-pope as I think he was still a Traditional for the most part and was killed when he intended to correct something.

CMRI is NOT electing a pope, in fact I had an opportunity to talk to our Pastor today after Mass, he said, the only way CMRI could ever be involved in such an election if all the Traditional Catholic Bishops all over the world agreed to this.  So the answer is NO!   NOT HAPPENING!

Ambrose --->

Just to make this clear:  Any election by anyone other than lawful electors would be null, void and schismatic.  

God bless.

An excellent example of the above would be Vatican II election of their ilk.  

Quote from: Ambrose

Just to make this clear:  Any election by anyone other than lawful electors would be null, void and schismatic.  

God bless.

To be a lawful elector dont you have to profess the Catholic faith? So wouldn't that leave Mahony, Daneels, Ratzinger, other modernists etc. as unlawful electors. Not trying to start a war but ya know...

When you have some time, you should read the links I posted earlier.  A heretic is not a Catholic, so yes, they would not be a lawful elector.

The links I gave, have excellent references stating how a Pope can be elected in the absence of the Cardinals.  The duty falls to the bishops and the Roman Clergy.  By this, only those bishops lawfully sent by the Pope, and those members of the clergy of the diocese of Rome lawfully sent have this power.  It goes without saying that if any of these bishops or priests have lost the Faith, they are outside the Church, and would not be able to lawfully attend the Council or vote in a papal election.

God bless.

 

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: Ambrose

It is possible for a lawful election to take place in our times.  If this were to happen, Catholics would need to organize the last lawfully appointed bishops to hold a Council.  Also, all lawfully appointed Roman Clergy would also need to be invited to the Council.  If this Council were to be held, and a declaration of Sede Vacante were made, and if a new Pope were elected, this would be a lawful election.  

We may speculate that some may not accept such an election, but that is irrelevant, the election would be legal and binding.  If only the SSPX would embrace this as well, and help to organize the bishops and the Roman Clergy, the formation of the Council could happen far more quickly.

I do not know if CMRI is working on this, but if any Catholic has it in their power to advance a lawful Council of bishops and members of the Roman Clergy, they should use their station in life to help to assist this cause.  

The hour is late, the Church has been without a pope for about 50 years.  The conciliar church has left us a barren wasteland of Catholics losing their Faith and morals.  The remaining Catholics themselves are divided amongst themselves.  The time has come for Catholics to fight for the Church we love, pray for a Pope, and pray for those few left on Earth who hold the lawful power to hold a Council and elect a Pope.

That makes no sense. The CMRI has no right to elect a Pope. None of them are even Cardinals. As far as it happening in emergency cases, it would have to be if there were no Cardinals left. Yet we have numerous Cardinals, some who have anonymously said the Novus Ordo will be gone after a while.

And the Church hasn't been without a Pope for 50 years. The only one of the five Vatican II Popes I consider to be an anti-pope thus far is Paul VI. I will never consider JPI (Jon Paul the First) to be an anti-pope as I think he was still a Traditional for the most part and was killed when he intended to correct something.

You did not read my post carefully.  I never said CMRI should or could elect a pope.  If a legal election would take place, the traditional clergy would not take part in it.  They have no legal standing in the Church.   The lawful electors are those bishops appointed by a pope, and the clergy or Rome lawfully sent by the bishop of Rome, i.e. the pope.  

Just to make this clear:  Any election by anyone other than lawful electors would be null, void and schismatic.  

God bless.

Ok, sorry for the mis-understanding.

Darcy, what are you suggesting, that the traditional bishops should elect a real Pope?  Because I think they should as well.  What stops them appears to be the pragmatic concern that, if they did such a thing, they would instantly take on the character of eccentrics.  But they already have that character in the eyes of the world, and it shouldn't matter anyway.  

There is also the danger that they wouldn't be able to round up a sufficient number of bishops to elect a Pope. By "sufficient" I mean bishops who have gained enough respect so that the traditional community would give weight to their election.  This is true in that the SSPX bishops would obviously not take part in an election, since they erroneously believe we already have a Pope.  Therefore famous names like Bishop Williamson would not be involved.

As far as fighting vs. cultivating the interior life, you can and should can do both.  The further you go in the spiritual life, the more clarity of vision you'll have, and thus, the more effective you will be against error.  But "fighting" shouldn't come from a place of rage.  I doubt when St. Augustine sat down to write against Pelagius that he was fuming mad, or that he was debating for the sake of debate.  He simply expressed the errors of Pelagius to warn others against them.  The danger is when you get to a place where your religion becomes all about righteous indignation, where you think you are St. Michael slaying Lucifer.
You have to know your place.  It's God the Holy Ghost who does the work, we just kind of prepare the vineyards.

I think the problem with a lot of trads, including myself at times, is that we have a ramrod approach.  What I have come to realize is that just having a more intense tone or being more pushy is not going to intimidate people into understanding the truth.  They have to want it first.  Clearly, you can see by the comportment of Jesus how we are really meant to behave.  There's no reason to push, no reason to strain -- those who want the truth will hear it, those who don't won't.   Just the fact that Jesus spoke in parables that certain men were able to understand instantly, while they were closed to others, shows that.

I've been criticized for saying it takes grace to adopt the sede conclusion, I was called a gnostic, but would anyone say it's gnostic to suggest the Apostles had more grace than the Pharisees?  You either get it or you don't.  All we can do is, like the town crier, spread the truth far and wide.  But we can't force anyone to listen.  You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

The woman in question, who has certainly taken on a very intense posture, has some problems with her approach, I'll just say that again and leave it there since we semi-reconciled yesterday.  I didn't tell her not to use her talents, I just suggested she refine them.  

Quote from: Caminus

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Caminus

It's the only logical thing to do.

Nonsense.

Why?  

Because recognizing that an alleged Pope is a notorious heretic does not impose any obligation except to admit that the Pope has lost his office.  A body with the proper authority to elect a Pope will eventually be constituted.  Until then the individual sede, whether lay, priest or bishop, has no obligation to do what he has no clear means of doing.

It's not logical, it's just nonsense to say that sede groups are obligated to elect a new Pope when there is no clear authority existing to do so.  It makes far more sense to say that the SSPX is obligated to submit to Benedict XVI (if Benedict XVI is the Pope).  

It doesn't "imply" it?  Why not?  Are true Catholics impotent to maintain the integrity of their Church?  And from whence will this "body" possessing "proper authority" arise?  If it is not now in existence, how will it come about in the future?  On what grounds will you accept this unforeseen authority?  For Catholics to maintain a headless Church for fifty years while maintaining they are under no obligation to correct this matter or that they are powerless to do so until some undefined "authoritative body" rising from the ashes decides to take proper action.  Chimerical.  

So far as the "obligation" of the SSPX to accept error is concerned, look in the mirror.  Your logic applies to your own position with far more consistency viz. electing a new Pope or accepting in toto VII and the reforms.