Author Topic: Considerations made by Non-Sedevacantists (Read 2915 times)

St Ignatius · « **on:** October 23, 2017, 01:44:13 PM »

[size=+3]A Heretical Pope?[/font][/size]

[size=+1]by Michael Davies[/i]
[/font][/size]

Claims have been made that one or more of the "conciliar popes", that is to say Pope John XXIII and his successors, were heretics and therefore forfeited the papacy. Those who include Pope John Paul II in this category claim that we have no pope and that therefore the Holy See is vacant, sedes vacante, which is why such people are referred to as "sedevacantists". They claim that this poses no theological problem as the Holy See is vacant during the interregnum between pontificates. Some of these interregna have been very long, the longest being a vacancy of two years nine months between the death of Clement IV in 1268 and the election of Gregory X in 1271. In such cases the visibility of the Church is not impaired in any way as the Holy See is administered by the Cardinal Camerlengo until a new pope is elected. The Camerlengo, or Chamberlain of the papal court, administers the properties and revenues of the Holy See, and during a vacancy those of the entire Church. Among his responsibilities during a vacancy are those of verifying the death of the Pope and organizing and directing the conclave.

Thus, even when the Chair of Peter is not occupied, the visible, hierarchical nature of the Church is maintained.(1) Thus the situation during such an interregnum cannot be compared to the situation that the Church would be in if Pope John Paul II is not the legitimately reigning pontiff as there would be no visible source of authority capable of convoking a conclave to elect a new pope.

The theological weakness of sedevacantism is an inadequate concept of the nature of the Church. Without realizing it, they believe in a Church which can fail -- and such a Church is not the Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. The Church that He founded cannot fail, for it is indefectible (i.e. it cannot fail). It will continue to exist until the Second Coming as a visible, hierarchically governed body, teaching the truth and sanctifying its members with indubitably valid sacraments. To state that we have no pope is to claim that the Church is no longer visible and hierarchically governed, which, in effect, means that it has ceased to exist. Catholic theologians accept that a pope could lose his office through heresy, but it would have to be such notorious heresy that no doubt concerning the matter could exist in the minds of the faithful, and a statement that the Pope had deposed himself would need to come from a high level in the Church, most probably a general Council. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre warned in 1979:

"The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a pope puts the Church into an inextricable situation. Who will tell us who the future pope is to be? How, as there are no cardinals, is he to be chosen? The spirit is a schismatical one. . . And so, far from refusing to pray for the Pope, we redouble our prayers and supplications that the Holy Ghost will grant him the light and strength in his affirmations and defense of the Faith."

Docuмentation

The question of whether the Holy See is vacant must be considered from three aspects, that is whether a pope could become an heretic and forfeit his office; what constitutes heresy; and whether any of the conciliar popes can be considered to be heretics within the context of this definition.

1. Can a pope forfeit his office through heresy?

The problem which would face the Church if a legitimately reigning pope became an heretic has been discussed in numerous standard works of reference. The solution is provided in the 1913 edition of The Catholic Encyclopedia: "The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church."(2) Many theologians have discussed the possibility of a pope falling into heresy, and the consensus of their opinion concurs with that of The Catholic Encyclopedia. The Pope must evidently be a Catholic, and if he ceased to be a Catholic he could hardly remain the Vicar of Christ, the head of the Mystical Body. St. Robert Bellarmine taught: "The manifestly heretical pope ceases per se to be pope and head as he ceases per se to be a Christian and member of the Church, and therefore he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the early Fathers."(3) Saint Robert was, of course, discussing a theoretical possibility, and believed that a pope could not become an heretic and thus could not be deposed, but he also acknowledged that the more common opinion was that the pope could become an heretic, and he was thus willing to discuss what would need to be done if, per impossible, this should happen: "This opinion (that the Pope could not become an heretic) is probable and easily defended . . . Nonetheless, in view of the fact that this is not certain, and that the common opinion is the opposite one, it is useful to examine the solution to this question, within the hypothesis that the Pope can be an heretic."(4)

The great Jesuit theologian, Francisco de Suarez (1548-1617) was also sure that God’s "sweet providence" would never allow the one who could not teach error to fall into error, and that this was guaranteed by the promise Ego autem rogavi pro te . . . (Luke 22: 32). But, like Bellarmine, Suarez was willing to consider the possibility of an heretical pope as an hypothesis, particularly in view of the fact, he claimed, that several "general councils had admitted the hypothesis in question".(5) Saint Alphonsus Liguori (1696-1787) did not believe that God would ever permit a Roman Pontiff to become a public or an occult heretic, even as a private person: "We ought rightly to presume as Cardinal Bellarmine declares, that God will never let it happen that a Roman Pontiff, even as a private person, becomes a public heretic or an occult heretic."(6)

If, per impossible, a pope became a formal heretic through pertinaciously denying a de fidedoctrine, how would the faithful know that he had forfeited his office as he had ceased to be a Catholic? It must be remembered that no one in the Church, including a General Council, has the authority to judge the Popes. Reputable authorities teach that if a pope did pertinaciously deny a truth which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith, after this had been brought to his attention by responsible members of the hierarchy (just as St. Paul reproved St. Peter to his face), a General Council could announce to the Church that the Pope, as a notorious heretic, had ceased to be a Catholic and hence had ceased to be Pope. It is important to note that the Council would neither be judging nor deposing the Pope, since it would not possess the authority for such an act. It would simply be making a declaratory sentence, i.e. declaring to the Church what had already become manifest from the Pope’s own actions. This is the view taken in the classic manual on Canon Law by Father F.X. Wernz, Rector of the Gregorian University and Jesuit General from 1906 to 1914. This work was revised by Father P. Vidal and was last republished in 1952. It states clearly that an heretical Pope is not deposed in virtue of the sentence of the Council, but "the General Council declares the fact of the crime by which the heretical pope has separated himself from the Church and deprived himself of his dignity."(7) Other authorities believe that such a declaration could come from the College of Cardinals or from a representative group of bishop, while others maintain that such a declaration would not be necessary. What all those who accept the hypothesis of an heretical pope are agreed upon is that for such a pope to forfeit the papacy his heresy would have to be "manifest", as Saint Robert Bellarmine expressed it, that is notorious and public (notorium et palam divulgata).(8) A notorious offence can be defined as one for which the evidence is so certain that it can in no way be either hidden or excused.(9) A pope who, while not being guilty of formal heresy in the strict sense, has allowed heresy to undermine the Church through compromise, weakness, ambiguous or even gravely imprudent teaching remains Pope, but can be judged by his successors, and condemned as was the case with Honorius I.

2. What is heresy?

There has never been a case of a pope who was undoubtedly a formal heretic, and it is unlikely in the extreme that there ever will be one. This will become evident if some consideration is given to examining precisely what constitutes formal heresy. The Code of Canon Law defines an heretic as one who after baptism, while remaining nominally a Catholic, pertinaciously doubts or denies one of the truths which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith.(10) It teaches us that by divine and Catholic faith must be believed all that is contained in the written word of God or in tradition, that is, the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church and proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church or by its Ordinary Universal Magisterium.(11) No teaching is to be considered as dogmatically defined unless this is evidently proved.(12)

A doctrine is de fide divina et catholica only when it has been infallibly declared by the Church to be revealed by God. Hence this term does not apply to doctrines which one knows to have been revealed by God, but which have not been declared by the Church to have been so revealed (de fide divina); nor to those which the Church has infallibly declared, but which she does not present formally as having been revealed (de fide ecclesiastica); nor to those which the Church teaches without exercising her infallible authority upon them. If a doctrine is not de fide divina et catholica, a person is not an heretic for denying or doubting it, though such a denial or doubt may be grave sin.(13)

[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]

3. The Conciliar Popes
[/font][/size]

It should now be apparent that there is no case whatsoever for claiming that any of the conciliar popes have lost their office as a result of heresy. Anyone wishing to dispute this assertion would need to state the doctrines de fide divina et catholica which any of these popes are alleged to have rejected pertinaciously. There is not one instance which comes remotely within this category. The nearest one can come to a formal contradiction between preconciliar and post-conciliar teaching is the subject of religious liberty. It has yet to be shown how they can be reconciled.(14) It is possible that the Magisterium will eventually have to present either a correction or at least a clarification of the teaching of Vatican II on this subject. Neither the pre-conciliar teaching nor that of the Council on religious liberty comes within the category of de fide divina et catholica, and so the question of formal heresy does not arise.

Endnotes

1. Catholic Encyclopedia (New York, 1917), vol. III, p. 217.
2. CE, vol. VII, p. 261.
3. Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice (Milan, 1857), vol. II, chap. 30, p. 420.
4. Ibid., p. 418.
5. F. Suarez, De legibus (Paris, 1856), vol. IV, chap. 7, no. 10, p. 361.
6. Dogmatic Works of St. Alphonsus Maria de Ligouri (Turin, 1848), vol. VIII, p. 720.
7. Wernz-Vidal, Jus Canonicuм (Rome, 1942), vol II, p. 518.
8. Ibid., p. 433.
9. Op. cit., note 92, Wernz-Vidal, (Rome, 1937), vol VII, pp. 46-47.
10. Code of Canon Law: Old Code, Canon 1325; New Code, Canon 751.
11. Denzinger, 1792; CCL: Old Code, Canon 1323; New Code, Canon 750.
12. CCL, Old Code, 1323, §3; New Code, 749, §3.
13. T. Bouscaren & A. Ellis, Canon Law, A Text & Commentary (Milwaukee, 1958), p. 724.
14. M. Davies, The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty (The Neumann Press, Minnesota, 1992).

http://olrl.org/misc/sedevacant_md.shtml

St Ignatius · « **Reply #1 on:** October 23, 2017, 02:59:47 PM »

Quote from: Freedom on October 23, 2017, 02:10:47 PM

Although, it could be implicit, but you did not comment, as to whether you agree with this article that you posted. Do you agree?

I'm quickly approaching the threshold of 50yrs in this short and quick life, I was born and Baptized in the Traditional Catholic Faith and never had to endure the unfortunate experience of the NO.

I buried my father and grandfather who lived and died in the Faith of their forefathers for many centuries. They both died in the post-V II era with the Traditional Sacraments and with a proper Catholic burial. They died in peace with rosary in hand praying as per Our Lady's request, to pray for the Pope, instead of being absorbed in turmoil of whether the Pope is or not.

My witnessing of their holy departures from this life, was a testament to me. I hope and pray that I'll receive the Grace for a Holy death as my father and grandfather appeared to have.

By the Grace of God, I still possess the Faith of these two great men who were instrumental in my formation during these unprecedented times.

So, to answer your question, yes I agree with all that is of the Faith of all time, which was passed onto me by my fathers…

Stubborn · « **Reply #2 on:** October 23, 2017, 03:09:54 PM »

Quote from: St Ignatius on October 23, 2017, 02:59:47 PM

I'm quickly approaching the threshold of 50yrs in this short and quick life, I was born and Baptized in the Traditional Catholic Faith and never had to endure the unfortunate experience of the NO.

I buried my father and grandfather who lived and died in the Faith of their forefathers for many centuries. They both died in the post-V II era with the Traditional Sacraments and with a proper Catholic burial. They died in peace with rosary in hand praying as per Our Lady's request, to pray for the Pope, instead of being absorbed in turmoil of whether the Pope is or not.

My witnessing of their holy departures from this life, was a testament to me. I hope and pray that I'll receive the Grace for a Holy death as my father and grandfather appeared to have.

By the Grace of God, I still possess the Faith of these two great men who were instrumental in my formation during these unprecedented times.

So, to answer your question, yes I agree with all that is of the Faith of all time, which was passed onto me by my fathers…

Well said!

Stubborn · « **Reply #3 on:** October 23, 2017, 04:59:46 PM »

You do not take any circuмstances of those days in account. What were you doing in 1984? Do you remember anything about the crisis back then? The chaos, the confusion? I assure you that he, dealing with it first hand, as the only 5 Star General battling for the faith of the world virtually non-stop for 15 years, likely can be quoted saying other things not so becoming.

Consider that just a year or so earlier, he expelled "The Nine" for, among other things, their sedevacantism. The good archbishop lived another 7 years after your quote and he lived to explicitly denounce sedevacantism.

If you look, you will find he had plenty of opportunities to go sede, but each time he denounced it.

In 1989:
(Emphasis in the original/Bold is mine)

This famous Una cuм of the sedevacantists... ridiculous! ridiculous .... it’s ridiculous, it's ridiculous. In fact it is not at all the meaning of the prayer "- Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, retreat at St-Michel en Brenne, April 1st, 1989

… And then, he (Dom Guillou) goes through all the prayers of the Canon, all the prayers of the Roman Canon. He goes through them one after the other and then he shows the difference, he gives translations, very good ones. He gives, for example, precisely this famous.. you know, this famous una cuм.., una cuм of the sedevacantists. And you, do you say una cuм? (laughter of the nuns of St-Michelen Brenne). You say una cuм in the Canon of the Mass! Then we cannot pray with you; then you're not Catholic; you're not this; you're not that; you're not.. Ridiculous! ridiculous! because they claim that when we say una cuм summo Pontifice, the Pope, isn’t it, with the Pope, so therefore you embrace everything the Pope says. It’s ridiculous! It’s ridiculous! In fact, this is not the meaning of the prayer.

Te igitur clementissime Pater. This is the first prayer of the Canon. So here is how Dom Guillou translates it, a very accurate translation, indeed. "We therefore pray Thee with profound humility, most merciful Father, and we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Lord, to accept and to bless these gifts, these presents, these sacrifices, pure and without blemish, which we offer Thee firstly for Thy Holy Catholic Church. May it please Thee to give Her peace, to keep Her, to maintain Her in unity, and to govern Her throughout the earth, and with Her, Thy servant our Holy Father the Pope."

It is not said in this prayer that we embrace all ideas that the Pope may have or all the things he may do. With Her, your servant our Holy Father the Pope, our Bishop and all those who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith! So to the extent where, perhaps, unfortunately, the Popes would no longer have ..., nor the bishops…, would be deficient in the Orthodox, Catholic and Apostolic Faith, well, we are not in union with them, we are not with them, of course. We pray for the Pope and all those who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith!

Then he (Dom Guillou) had a note about that to clarify a little: "In the official translation, based on a critical review of Dom Batte, the UNA cuм or "in union with" of the sedevacantists of any shade is no longer equivalent but to the conjunction "and " reinforced either by the need to restate the sentence, or to match the solemn style of the Roman canon. Anyway, every Catholic is always in union with the Pope in the precise area where the divine assistance is exercised, infallibility confirmed by the fact that as soon as there is a deviation from the dogmatic tradition, the papal discourse contradicts itself.

Let us collect the chaff, knowing that for the rest, it is more necessary than ever to ask God, with the very ancient Major Litanies, that be "kept in the holy religion" the "holy orders" and "Apostolic Lord" himself (that is to say the Pope): UT DOMINUM APOSTOLIcuм AND OMNES ECCLESIASTICOS ORDINES IN SANCTA RELIGIONE CONSERVARE DIGNERIS, TE ROGAMUS, AUDI NOS."

It is a request of the litanies of the Saints, right? WE ASK TO KEEP THE POPE IN THE TRUE RELIGION. We ask that in the Litanies of the Saints! This proves that sometimes it can happen that unfortunately, well, maybe sometimes it happens that... well there have been hesitations, there are false steps, there are errors that are possible. We have too easily believed since Vatican I, that every word that comes from the mouth of the Pope is infallible. That was never said in Vatican I! The Council never said such a thing. Very specific conditions are required for the infallibility; very, very strict conditions. The best proof is that throughout the Council, Pope Paul VI himself said "There is nothing in this Council which is under the sign of infallibility". So, it is clear, he says it himself! He said it explicitly.

Then we must not keep this idea which is FALSE! which a number of Catholics, poorly instructed, poorly taught, believe! So obviously, we no longer understand anything, we are completely desperate, we do not know what to expect! We must keep the Catholic faith as the Church teaches it.
…
Archbishop Lefebvre, retreat at St-Michel en Brenne, April 1st, 1989

Maria Regina · « **Reply #4 on:** October 23, 2017, 05:08:34 PM »

Quote

This famous Una cuм of the sedevacantists... ridiculous! ridiculous .... it’s ridiculous, it's ridiculous. In fact it is not at all the meaning of the prayer "- Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, retreat at St-Michel en Brenne, April 1st, 1989

I was never impressed by this statement and others of Archbishop Lefebvre. Although I was happy that Lefebvre broke with Rome, I never understood his undying devotion to Rome and all their heresy, and then his comment that he did not really separate from Rome even though Rome recognized his schism as schism.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #5 on:** October 23, 2017, 09:13:31 PM »

I don't see how positing a pope and hierarchy in error resolves the visibility problem. In fact it is very common even among conservative novus ordo folks to hear popes and bishops referred to as "non-Catholic". The visibility of the Church is actually much easier to ascertain among sede vacantists than among r&r. The hierarchy consists only of those clerics who publicly profess the Catholic faith. Whereas the r&r have to believe that even public heretics are still Catholic. In which case it is not clear why Anglicans, Old Catholics, orthodox schismatics etc are excluded. And if they are not excluded why insist on traditional doctrine anyway?

It also strikes me as absurd to insist on recognizing this pope with the hope that he will one day condemn modern errors. He already did. He condemned you!!! You don't get to decide who is a member in good standing of his organization. He does. As the head of the organization, he has the right to take you over his knee and spank you. Of course if you are a sede you realize he isn't head of the Catholic Church.

St Ignatius · « **Reply #6 on:** October 23, 2017, 10:04:50 PM »

Freedom,

You know darn good and well that you have deliberately misconstrued the OP. I don't think you're that stupid. You are way off topic, as usual. You think that you'll get me to crawl into your wormhole by trying to confuse me by pouring wells of ink of your ramblings...

I might be a little moist behind the ears, but they ain't wet...

Stubborn · « **Reply #7 on:** October 24, 2017, 03:31:40 AM »

Quote from: tornpage on October 23, 2017, 05:53:56 PM

So he thought the "una cuм" of the Sedevacantists was "ridiculous." Many Sedevacantists disagree with a dogmatic position on the "una cuм," like John Lane, and would agree with Archbishop.

So he didn't think every word coming out of the pope's mouth was infallible. I don't know a single Sede who thinks that.

Is this the best you have? Irrelevance?

The point of fact is that for sedes to reference the good archbishop supporting the possibility of sedevacantism is at least as ridiculous as claiming there is biblical proof of sedevacantism.

Quote

Oh . . . I forget one.

I forget.

Want to know the color of my underwear?

Your maturity level bespeaks of one who was not around in 1984, maybe not around in 2004, and who has zero clue what it was like keeping the faith living through the revolution, much less personally battling all of Rome and most of the world as the good archbishop did - while doing everything else for us he was doing.

Recusant Sede · « **Reply #8 on:** October 24, 2017, 04:15:06 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on October 23, 2017, 04:59:46 PM

You do not take any circuмstances of those days in account. What were you doing in 1984? Do you remember anything about the crisis back then? The chaos, the confusion? I assure you that he, dealing with it first hand, as the only 5 Star General battling for the faith of the world virtually non-stop for 15 years, likely can be quoted saying other things not so becoming.

Consider that just a year or so earlier, he expelled "The Nine" for, among other things, their sedevacantism. The good archbishop lived another 7 years after your quote and he lived to explicitly denounce sedevacantism.

Stubborn, you are wrong again. Father Joseph Collins (a friend of mine) in fact did NOT hold the sedevacantist position when he was expelled from the society. Sedevacantism was NOT one of the reasons they were expelled from the SSPX.

If you look, you will find he had plenty of opportunities to go sede, but each time he denounced it.

In 1989:
(Emphasis in the original/Bold is mine)

This famous Una cuм of the sedevacantists... ridiculous! ridiculous .... it’s ridiculous, it's ridiculous. In fact it is not at all the meaning of the prayer "- Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, retreat at St-Michel en Brenne, April 1st, 1989

… And then, he (Dom Guillou) goes through all the prayers of the Canon, all the prayers of the Roman Canon. He goes through them one after the other and then he shows the difference, he gives translations, very good ones. He gives, for example, precisely this famous.. you know, this famous una cuм.., una cuм of the sedevacantists. And you, do you say una cuм? (laughter of the nuns of St-Michelen Brenne). You say una cuм in the Canon of the Mass! Then we cannot pray with you; then you're not Catholic; you're not this; you're not that; you're not.. Ridiculous! ridiculous! because they claim that when we say una cuм summo Pontifice, the Pope, isn’t it, with the Pope, so therefore you embrace everything the Pope says. It’s ridiculous! It’s ridiculous! In fact, this is not the meaning of the prayer.

Te igitur clementissime Pater. This is the first prayer of the Canon. So here is how Dom Guillou translates it, a very accurate translation, indeed. "We therefore pray Thee with profound humility, most merciful Father, and we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Lord, to accept and to bless these gifts, these presents, these sacrifices, pure and without blemish, which we offer Thee firstly for Thy Holy Catholic Church. May it please Thee to give Her peace, to keep Her, to maintain Her in unity, and to govern Her throughout the earth, and with Her, Thy servant our Holy Father the Pope."

It is not said in this prayer that we embrace all ideas that the Pope may have or all the things he may do. With Her, your servant our Holy Father the Pope, our Bishop and all those who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith! So to the extent where, perhaps, unfortunately, the Popes would no longer have ..., nor the bishops…, would be deficient in the Orthodox, Catholic and Apostolic Faith, well, we are not in union with them, we are not with them, of course. We pray for the Pope and all those who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith!

Then he (Dom Guillou) had a note about that to clarify a little: "In the official translation, based on a critical review of Dom Batte, the UNA cuм or "in union with" of the sedevacantists of any shade is no longer equivalent but to the conjunction "and " reinforced either by the need to restate the sentence, or to match the solemn style of the Roman canon. Anyway, every Catholic is always in union with the Pope in the precise area where the divine assistance is exercised, infallibility confirmed by the fact that as soon as there is a deviation from the dogmatic tradition, the papal discourse contradicts itself.

Let us collect the chaff, knowing that for the rest, it is more necessary than ever to ask God, with the very ancient Major Litanies, that be "kept in the holy religion" the "holy orders" and "Apostolic Lord" himself (that is to say the Pope): UT DOMINUM APOSTOLIcuм AND OMNES ECCLESIASTICOS ORDINES IN SANCTA RELIGIONE CONSERVARE DIGNERIS, TE ROGAMUS, AUDI NOS."

It is a request of the litanies of the Saints, right? WE ASK TO KEEP THE POPE IN THE TRUE RELIGION. We ask that in the Litanies of the Saints! This proves that sometimes it can happen that unfortunately, well, maybe sometimes it happens that... well there have been hesitations, there are false steps, there are errors that are possible. We have too easily believed since Vatican I, that every word that comes from the mouth of the Pope is infallible. That was never said in Vatican I! The Council never said such a thing. Very specific conditions are required for the infallibility; very, very strict conditions. The best proof is that throughout the Council, Pope Paul VI himself said "There is nothing in this Council which is under the sign of infallibility". So, it is clear, he says it himself! He said it explicitly.

Then we must not keep this idea which is FALSE! which a number of Catholics, poorly instructed, poorly taught, believe! So obviously, we no longer understand anything, we are completely desperate, we do not know what to expect! We must keep the Catholic faith as the Church teaches it.
…
Archbishop Lefebvre, retreat at St-Michel en Brenne, April 1st, 1989

Stubborn · « **Reply #9 on:** October 24, 2017, 04:44:06 AM »

Stubborn, you are wrong again. Father Joseph Collins (a friend of mine) in fact did NOT hold the sedevacantist position when he was expelled from the society. Sedevacantism was NOT one of the reasons they were expelled from the SSPX.

No, I am not wrong. I was there, though had to leave the SSPX just prior to then because of the sedevacantism which was taking over those priests at the time, I served mass and my family was personal friends of some of The Nine. Back then, most everyone knew their sedevacantism was most assuredly one of the main reasons they were expelled, which was verified after they left, and sedevacantism was not tolerated among his seminarians - or *they'd* get expelled from the seminary. It was a well known fact that the good archbishop would not tolerate sedevacantism under his watch.

Considering those times, there is no doubt that the good archbishop would consider using his quotes to in any way support sedevacantism a very low blow. It is quite apparent that those who were not involved with the crisis in the Church in those days cannot even begin to imagine what it was like and what he was put through.

Recusant Sede · « **Reply #10 on:** October 24, 2017, 05:23:41 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on October 24, 2017, 04:44:06 AM

Stubborn, you are wrong again. Father Joseph Collins (a friend of mine) in fact did NOT hold the sedevacantist position when he was expelled from the society. Sedevacantism was NOT one of the reasons they were expelled from the SSPX.

No, I am not wrong. I was there, though had to leave the SSPX just prior to then because of the sedevacantism which was taking over those priests at the time, I served mass and my family was personal friends of some of The Nine. Back then, most everyone knew their sedevacantism was most assuredly one of the main reasons they were expelled, which was verified after they left, and sedevacantism was not tolerated among his seminarians - or *they'd* get expelled from the seminary. It was a well known fact that the good archbishop would not tolerate sedevacantism under his watch.

Considering those times, there is no doubt that the good archbishop would consider using his quotes to in any way support sedevacantism a very low blow. It is quite apparent that those who were not involved with the crisis in the Church in those days cannot even begin to imagine what it was like and what he was put through.

Seriously sir, you have a big problem admitting when you are wrong. I bet people close to you call you stubborn and hence you erroneously carry it as a badge of honor (thus your screen name) when in fact, your stubbornness is not commendable. It is a well known FACT that Bishop Kelly (then Father Kelly) did NOT promote sedevacantism and was quite reticent on the subject. It is also a known FACT that there are sedevacantist priests still in the SSPX TODAY! Let that sink in for a bit! What horror! But don't let FACTS get in the way of your stubbornness.

Recusant Sede · « **Reply #11 on:** October 24, 2017, 05:38:42 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on October 24, 2017, 04:44:06 AM

Stubborn, you are wrong again. Father Joseph Collins (a friend of mine) in fact did NOT hold the sedevacantist position when he was expelled from the society. Sedevacantism was NOT one of the reasons they were expelled from the SSPX.

No, I am not wrong. I was there, though had to leave the SSPX just prior to then because of the sedevacantism which was taking over those priests at the time, I served mass and my family was personal friends of some of The Nine. Back then, most everyone knew their sedevacantism was most assuredly one of the main reasons they were expelled, which was verified after they left, and sedevacantism was not tolerated among his seminarians - or *they'd* get expelled from the seminary. It was a well known fact that the good archbishop would not tolerate sedevacantism under his watch.

Considering those times, there is no doubt that the good archbishop would consider using his quotes to in any way support sedevacantism a very low blow. It is quite apparent that those who were not involved with the crisis in the Church in those days cannot even begin to imagine what it was like and what he was put through.

One more thing, and I’m laughing to myself about this, around 20 years ago I too erroneously thought that the nine were kicked out of the society for holding the Sedevacantist position. I was corrected by, believe it or not, a non sedevacantist!!! I didn’t believe him at first, but I did research the subject and the next time I saw him I apologized to him and admitted I was wrong. He wasn’t a dogmatic nonsede, like you, he was open to reason and truth and I believe he holds the sedevacantist position today, although I’m not positive as I’ve not spoken to him in a while.

Stubborn · « **Reply #12 on:** October 24, 2017, 05:41:15 AM »

Quote from: Recusant Sede on October 24, 2017, 05:23:41 AM

Seriously sir, you have a big problem admitting when you are wrong. I bet people close to you call you stubborn and hence you erroneously carry it as a badge of honor (thus your screen name) when in fact, your stubbornness is not commendable. It is a well known FACT that Bishop Kelly (then Father Kelly) did NOT promote sedevacantism and was quite reticent on the subject. It is also a known FACT that there are sedevacantist priests still in the SSPX TODAY! Let that sink in for a bit! What horror! But don't let FACTS get in the way of your stubbornness.

Blindness knows no bounds - and since there are sedes in the SSPX, why use quotes from +ABL at all? Why not just quote from the current SSPX?

Fr's, Sanborn and Kelly definitely pushed sedevacantism from the pulpit before they were expelled, Fr Dolan did too, but as I remember it, not as much. Fr. Sanborn, who was the nine's ring leader - although Fr Kelly tried to muscle in, he couldn't. Old time SSPXers, especially old time SSPX priests will attest to this fact.

Then after all nine were expelled, what did they do? They (all?) openly professed sedevacantism, which serves to verify THAT was one of the main reasons they were expelled. Maybe you'd have a leg to stand on if it weren't for that FACT.

Those are FACTS. But don't let FACTS get in the way of your blindness.

Stubborn · « **Reply #13 on:** October 24, 2017, 05:53:32 AM »

Quote from: Recusant Sede on October 24, 2017, 05:38:42 AM

One more thing, and I’m laughing to myself about this, around 20 years ago I too erroneously thought that the nine were kicked out of the society for holding the Sedevacantist position. I was corrected by, believe it or not, a non sedevacantist!!! I didn’t believe him at first, but I did research the subject and the next time I saw him I apologized to him and admitted I was wrong. He wasn’t a dogmatic nonsede, like you, he was open to reason and truth and I believe he holds the sedevacantist position today, although I’m not positive as I’ve not spoken to him in a while.

If we are going to be faithful and accept the dogma, then by default we are dogmatic non-sedes. By the same token, rejecting the dogma for whatever reason, decides the fact that sedevacantists are dogmatic sedes. You are either the pope's subject or you're not. We're either hot or cold - we all know what God does to the lukewarm.

Aside from being there, in conversations with numerous old time SSPX priests who were also there, each one of them, to a man, says the same thing I am saying. Sedevacantism was one of the main reasons they were expelled and +Sanborn was their leader.

As an aside, though having considered it and was confused about it in the past, I never was sede. It's only within the last year or two that the confusion vanished for me because I have to get to heaven. For me, I know that me getting to heaven is an absolute impossibility if I am not the pope's good subject, but God's first. Others think they have figured out a way to circuмvent the dogma, I pray for them.

My refuge is this dogma:
Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

"It is a defined dogma of the Catholic Church that no one can be saved who is not subject to that flesh and blood Vicar of Jesus, the Roman Pontiff. It is one of the requirements for salvation." - Fr. Feeney

Like Baptism and persevering in the faith, it is one of the requirements for salvation. Nothing anyone can say or do, no excuses, provisos or opinions will ever change that requirement.

Recusant Sede · « **Reply #14 on:** October 24, 2017, 05:56:14 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on October 24, 2017, 05:41:15 AM

Blindness knows no bounds - and since there are sedes in the SSPX, why use quotes from +ABL at all? Why not just quote from the current SSPX?

Obviously because they are suppressed. I know one myself and I won't divulge his name. Scary thought, eh?

Fr's, Sanborn and Kelly definitely pushed sedevacantism from the pulpit before they were expelled, Fr Dolan did too, but as I remember it, not as much. Fr. Sanborn, who was the nine's ring leader - although Fr Kelly tried to muscle in, he couldn't. Old time SSPXers, especially old time SSPX priests will attest to this fact.

Another error, Fr. Kelly tried to muscle in, but couldn’t?? Bp. Kelly heads the SSPV to this day! Sanborn was never the head.

Then after all nine were expelled, what did they do? They (all?) openly professed sedevacantism, which serves to verify THAT was one of the main reasons they were expelled. Maybe you'd have a leg to stand on if it weren't for that FACT.

No, the FACT is that Father Collins did not come to the sedevacantist position till around a year AFTER they were kicked out. How do you like them apples?

Those are FACTS. But don't let FACTS get in the way of your blindness.

Author Topic: Considerations made by Non-Sedevacantists (Read 2915 times)

St Ignatius

Considerations made by Non-Sedevacantists

St Ignatius

Re: Considerations made by Non-Sedevacantists

Stubborn

Re: Considerations made by Non-Sedevacantists

Stubborn

Re: Considerations made by Non-Sedevacantists

Maria Regina

Re: Considerations made by Non-Sedevacantists

Clemens Maria

Re: Considerations made by Non-Sedevacantists

St Ignatius

Re: Considerations made by Non-Sedevacantists

Stubborn

Re: Considerations made by Non-Sedevacantists

Recusant Sede

Re: Considerations made by Non-Sedevacantists

Stubborn

Re: Considerations made by Non-Sedevacantists

Recusant Sede

Re: Considerations made by Non-Sedevacantists

Recusant Sede

Re: Considerations made by Non-Sedevacantists

Stubborn

Re: Considerations made by Non-Sedevacantists

Stubborn

Re: Considerations made by Non-Sedevacantists

Recusant Sede

Re: Considerations made by Non-Sedevacantists