Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Jehanne on October 03, 2013, 12:51:43 PM
-
I think that I am really to "jump." Question is, "Where?" Some points which I have learned:
1) The Catholic faith is immutable. The Catholic faith is simply the One and Triune God's revelation to His Creation, we descendants of Adam & Eve, through His One and Only Son Jesus Christ, which He confided to His Church, the Roman Catholic Church. This revelation from the omnipotent God, a Perfect Being, is, like Him, absolutely perfect and immutable. It is only our understanding of it which can deepen over time but only without contradiction.
2) Truth cannot contradict Truth. What the Catholic Church believes, professes, and teaches in one generation cannot contradict that which is taught in a later or earlier generation. Only in the realm of theological opinion is there, perhaps, room for growth and understanding. That which the Church has proclaimed as being infallible cannot, at later date, become "uninfallible". That would be like saying that 2+2 can, at a later date, equal some value other than 4!
3) A Catholics severs himself from the Church through the sin of heresy. It is absurd to say that a Pope could govern the Church from whom he has severed himself due to heresy. If he can lose his soul to eternal Hell, it stands to reason that he could lose his office as well.
4) Popes have fallen into heresy before. We have the case of Pope Honorius I, who was posthumously declared to have been a heretic by the Third Council of Constantinople. The neo-cons can't have their "Papal cake and eat it, too!" Either Pope Honorius taught heresy or the Third Council of Constantinople embraced heresy in declaring him to be a heretic.
5) Sedevacantism is not the same as conclavism. That the Chair is vacant is the omnipotent Triune God's problem, not ours. We need to save our own souls by continuing in the One True Faith.
6) Heresy is like cancer. It often starts out small and sometimes goes unrecognized, but gradually, it spreads before, ultimately, overtaking the entire individual. "By their fruits you will know them."
Conclusion: "Pope" Francis is a public heretic, therefore, he is no longer Catholic and is, therefore, no longer Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore, the Chair is vacant:
But Bergoglio's thinking is not just unCatholic; it is anti-Catholic. In the same La Repubblica interview, he proclaims: "Proselytism is solemn nonsense; it makes no sense." "Proselytism" is the anti-Catholic's word for "conversion." Even Protestants understand that, to be a Christian, one has to accept Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. But Bergoglio will have none of this. To him, converting people to Catholicism, let alone Christianity, is "nonsense" -- read that again: "nonsense." And this man purports to be a pope? That's getting harder and hard to believe, isn't it?!
http://traditio.com/comment/com1310.htm
"Yes."
-
So you are a sedevacantist now? :geezer:
-
Honestly, as a long time "sede" it doesn't change much. I think the most notable change is that the state of the Church makes sense. You no longer find yourself torn between trying to reconcile yourself with fidelity to a heretic, to obey him, to follow the rites he promogulates and say they are good. So many issues and reasons, but after I understood and took the sede position, I never found myself struggling to reconcile this stuff. Not much changed other than me finally having peace. It didn't change where I went to mass or anything else noticeable unless I was around Novusordoites.
A big issue for me would be the canonizations, if you hold they are infallible, as they are, especially with JP2 up to be "sainted" it just seems obvious. If Bergoglio is pope then Karol Wojtyla is in heaven.
-
It's not really "jumping". It's remaining firm in the Faith.
And taking lots of heat for not attending Fr. ApostacizedLongAgo's incense "baptism" of newborns. Once the scales fall away, things that used to seem okay suddenly look like Dante's Inferno in 3D.
-
So you are a sedevacantist now? :geezer:
Yes. I think that "Pope" Francis is a public heretic, and therefore, no longer a Catholic, and therefore, no longer Pope. The Chair of Peter is, IMO, empty. Given the sensus fidelium of the sede movement, it seems to me reasonable to conclude that Pope Pius XII was the last true Roman Pontiff.
-
So you are a sedevacantist now? :geezer:
Yes. I think that "Pope" Francis is a public heretic, and therefore, no longer a Catholic, and therefore, no longer Pope. The Chair of Peter is, IMO, empty. Given the sensus fidelium of the sede movement, it seems to me reasonable to conclude that Pope Pius XII was the last true Roman Pontiff.
What is it that makes you think that he is worse than Pope Paul VI and the rest of the conciliar popes?
BTW, Happy Birthday to you!
-
So you are a sedevacantist now? :geezer:
Yes. I think that "Pope" Francis is a public heretic, and therefore, no longer a Catholic, and therefore, no longer Pope. The Chair of Peter is, IMO, empty. Given the sensus fidelium of the sede movement, it seems to me reasonable to conclude that Pope Pius XII was the last true Roman Pontiff.
What is it that makes you think that he is worse than Pope Paul VI and the rest of the conciliar popes?
BTW, Happy Birthday to you!
Because he called as "nonsense" the Great Commission, words which flowed from the lips of our Lord Himself to "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:15-16) The neo-cons can parse "proselytize" under they are "blue in the face". But, yes, we are called to proselytize:
1
: to induce someone to convert to one's faith
2
: to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proselytize
Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a manifest, public heretic who has severed himself from the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, which is the Holy Roman Catholic & Apostolic Church, outside of which no one at all will be saved. This is the "fruits" of Vatican II, an apostate council (small 'c') not of the Catholic Church.
-
I gave you a plus one for your thread title "Crossing a Sedehold of Hope" :laugh1:
Also I am pretty much at the same point as you. Francis is a public heretic, he cannot be the Vicar of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Luke
-
Because he called as "nonsense" the Great Commission, words which flowed from the lips of our Lord Himself to "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:15-16) The neo-cons can parse "proselytize" under they are "blue in the face". But, yes, we are called to proselytize:
1
: to induce someone to convert to one's faith
2
: to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proselytize
Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a manifest, public heretic who has severed himself from the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, which is the Holy Roman Catholic & Apostolic Church, outside of which no one at all will be saved. This is the "fruits" of Vatican II, an apostate council (small 'c') not of the Catholic Church.
This is nothing different than what the rest of heretical conciliar popes have taught - their actions have all called the Great Commission, "nonsense".
Is it because now that this one actually spoke the words that infuriated you into your decision? - and what will you be doing differently now?
-
Because he called as "nonsense" the Great Commission, words which flowed from the lips of our Lord Himself to "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:15-16) The neo-cons can parse "proselytize" under they are "blue in the face". But, yes, we are called to proselytize:
1
: to induce someone to convert to one's faith
2
: to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proselytize
Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a manifest, public heretic who has severed himself from the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, which is the Holy Roman Catholic & Apostolic Church, outside of which no one at all will be saved. This is the "fruits" of Vatican II, an apostate council (small 'c') not of the Catholic Church.
This is nothing different than what the rest of heretical conciliar popes have taught - their actions have all called the Great Commission, "nonsense".
Is it because now that this one actually spoke the words that infuriated you into your decision? - and what will you be doing differently now?
This is true. False Ecuмenism = Proselytization is nonsense. Francis just makes it clearer in his words. Of course, for some, those words are still not clear enough.
-
This is nothing different than what the rest of heretical conciliar popes have taught - their actions have all called the Great Commission, "nonsense".
Is it because now that this one actually spoke the words that infuriated you into your decision? - and what will you be doing differently now?
I admit that the neo-cons had me deceived for awhile, quite awhile in fact with their endless "spin control." As I said, heresy is a cancer, which starts off small but then spreads. Here's some more that we can expect from "Francis the Fake":
1) The Assumption of Mary was allegorical. It was not an historical event and Pope Pius XII never intended it as such, but Mary's ascent into Heaven was "in the minds" of those who knew and loved her. Ditto for the Resurrection of our Lord.
2) Jesus is my pastor and teacher. He was just a man who was, perhaps, "close to God." In this sense, he was God, but so are we. The Incarnation is present in all of us.
3) Hell does not exist. It was just a literary figure used by the Church to teach us about evil but a God of infinite mercy would never send any creature to such a place.
4) Moral truths develop just as scientific truths do. There is no morality beyond the good of the human individual. It is to the human individual alone who must decide what his/her own moral truths are, as long as that person does not trespass on the rights of others to do the same.
I could go on but I'll stop here. As I said, heresy is like cancer; expect more from the mouth of this heretic. Soon, the neo-cons will be like rats who are scurrying off a sinking ship.
-
This is an excerpt from Benedict XVI's encyclical "Caritas in Veritate" which will show that this idea of Francis I's is not new to him but is a reigning theme of the modernists. There is wiggle room in Benedict XVI's wording as you will read. The problem with all modernists is that they have an evolutionary mindset and also mix error in with truth.
"c) Charity, furthermore, cannot be used as a means of engaging in what is nowadays considered proselytism. Love is free; it is not practised as a way of achieving other ends.[30] But this does not mean that charitable activity must somehow leave God and Christ aside. For it is always concerned with the whole man. Often the deepest cause of suffering is the very absence of God. Those who practise charity in the Church's name will never seek to impose the Church's faith upon others. They realize that a pure and generous love is the best witness to the God in whom we believe and by whom we are driven to love. A Christian knows when it is time to speak of God and when it is better to say nothing and to let love alone speak. He knows that God is love (cf. 1 Jn 4:8) and that God's presence is felt at the very time when the only thing we do is to love. He knows—to return to the questions raised earlier—that disdain for love is disdain for God and man alike; it is an attempt to do without God. Consequently, the best defence of God and man consists precisely in love. It is the responsibility of the Church's charitable organizations to reinforce this awareness in their members, so that by their activity—as well as their words, their silence, their example—they may be credible witnesses to Christ."
-
This is an excerpt from Benedict XVI's encyclical "Caritas in Veritate" which will show that this idea of Francis I's is not new to him but is a reigning theme of the modernists. There is wiggle room in Benedict XVI's wording as you will read. The problem with all modernists is that they have an evolutionary mindset and also mix error in with truth.
"c) Charity, furthermore, cannot be used as a means of engaging in what is nowadays considered proselytism. Love is free; it is not practised as a way of achieving other ends.[30] But this does not mean that charitable activity must somehow leave God and Christ aside. For it is always concerned with the whole man. Often the deepest cause of suffering is the very absence of God. Those who practise charity in the Church's name will never seek to impose the Church's faith upon others. They realize that a pure and generous love is the best witness to the God in whom we believe and by whom we are driven to love. A Christian knows when it is time to speak of God and when it is better to say nothing and to let love alone speak. He knows that God is love (cf. 1 Jn 4:8) and that God's presence is felt at the very time when the only thing we do is to love. He knows—to return to the questions raised earlier—that disdain for love is disdain for God and man alike; it is an attempt to do without God. Consequently, the best defence of God and man consists precisely in love. It is the responsibility of the Church's charitable organizations to reinforce this awareness in their members, so that by their activity—as well as their words, their silence, their example—they may be credible witnesses to Christ."
This one "flew under the radar for me"; never heard of it. The post-conciliar "Popes" write so much and yet say so little. The above in red (as well as that in bold) is just heresy, plain and simple. The Roman Catechism states the truth clearly:
But, as faith comes by hearing, it is clear how necessary at all times for the attainment of eternal salvation has been the labour and faithful ministry of an authorised teacher; for it is written, how shall they hear, without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they be sent?
Now the chief truths which Christians ought to hold are those which the holy Apostles, the leaders and teachers of the faith, inspired by the Holy Ghost' have divided into the twelve Articles of the Creed. For having received a command from the Lord to go forth into the whole world, as His ambassadors, and preach the Gospel to every creature, they thought it advisable to draw up a formula of Christian faith, that all might think and speak the same thing, and that among those whom they should have called to the unity of the faith no schisms would exist, but that they should be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment.
Most just is it also that He who was most iniquitously condemned by the judgment of men should Himself be afterwards seen by all men sitting in judgment on all. Hence when the Prince of the Apostles had expounded in the house of Cornelius the chief dogmas of Christianity, and had taught that Christ was suspended from a cross and put to death by the Jews and rose the third lay to life, he added: And he commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that this is he, who was appointed of God, to be the judge of the living and the dead.
The enumeration of this among the other Articles of the Creed is alone sufficient to satisfy us that it conveys a truth, which is not only in itself a divine mystery, but also a mystery very necessary to salvation. We have already said that, without a firm belief of all the Articles of the Creed, Christian piety is wholly unattainable. However, should that which ought to be clear in itself seem to require the support of some authority, the declaration of our Lord will suffice. A short time previous to His Ascension into heaven, when opening the understanding of His disciples that they might understand the Scriptures, He bore testimony to this Article of the Creed, in these words: It behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead the third day, and that penance and remission of sins should be preached, in his name, unto all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
I could go on but I'll stop for the sake of space. In conclusion, as the Tradition of the Catholic Church so clearly enunciates one cannot be a "credible witness" to Jesus Christ without preaching His Gospel. Pope Benedict XVI, in spite of his "conservatism", was a heretic, too. He, unlike Francis, just crouched his heresy in "church speak."
-
Oh Jehanne, according to bg2, you're just looking for an excuse to be a sede.
:rolleyes:
-
Well, sedevacantism is an error, but I suppose it is preferable to falling into indifferentism. Those two I think will be some effects of these unfortunate interviews the Pope never seems to tire of. Even the Conciliar catechism doesn't go so far as this new liberal orientation of the Roman authorities toward even outright godlessness, such as the interviewer was.
"848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338"
Anyway, I thought you were a self-acclaimed Feeneyite, Jehanne, who had said he would never become a sedevacantist?
I think the two articles of the SBC are surprisingly good, even though it did not raise what I would think is the principal challenge for the serious sedevacantist, the question of the perpetuation of the hierarchy without the person of the Pope, other than in passing.
http://catholicism.org/modern-popes.html
http://catholicism.org/sedevacantism-and-schism.html
-
Well, sedevacantism is an error,
I have yet to see this proven.
-
I have yet to see this proven.
It can be proven in many ways, two in particular, one shorter and one more lengthy. The first was discussed in the article, as according to the teaching of St. Alphonsus, Cardinal Billot and other most eminent authorities, the acceptance of a Papal election by the whole Church, in particular by the hierarchy, is an infallible sign and effect of a valid election, and therefore proves definitely that all the conditions required for validity, even in the internal forum, are satisfied.
The other is slightly more lengthy, and goes like this. It is received Catholic doctrine, recognized almost unanimously even by sedevacantists, that (i) Only a Pope can appoint a bishop to an office, thereby conferring on his person the power of ordinary jurisdiction attached to it (ii) All offices of the Church cannot be vacant, this being required by the Apostolicity of the Church. Formal Apostolic succession requires the succession of persons to an episcopal see.
Taking the two of these considerations from doctrine together, combined with the facts of the alleged ongoing vacancy in the Holy See since 1958, we are left with the following conclusion - Since just about every bishop appointed by Pope Pius XII has either died or resigned his office, the Catholic Church, under sedevacantism, has ceased to be Apostolic, does not have a hierarchy having formal Apostolic succession, which is impossible.
That is a sufficient demonstration of the impossibility of 55 year sedevacantism.
-
Nishant,
The teaching of St. Alphonsus, Cardinal Billot et al, are fallible teachings. There are numerous examples of Doctors of the Church holding conflicting opinions. Cornelius Lapide points this out throughout his commentaries. So if you are considering what S. Alphonsus said on this, why are you not giving weight to what S. Bellarmine, S. Francis de Sales, S. Antonius stated in support of sedevacantism?
Why overlook what the popes themselves wrote in support of sedevacantism? See Eugene IV, Council of Florence Cantate Domino, Pius XII Mystici Corporis Christi, Leo XIII Satis Cognitum, Innocent III Eius exemplo in addition to the Bull I've already provided by Paul IV. I didn't quote them because anyone who rejects sedevactanism in the 1917 Code of Canon Law and the Papal docuмents I've already provided, it seems to me is intransigent in their thinking.
Papal elections are not infallible. Pope Paul IV declared that infallibly in Bull cuм ex Apostolatus officio, which I provided to you in full. Read #6. Are you rejecting the excathedra declaration of a pope?
Furthermore, this has already happened, and it is widely accepted that the Cardinals elected an antipope. In the 12th century Anacletus II reigned 8 years in Rome while rivaling the true Pope, Innocent II. Anacletus was elected by the majority of the cardinals.
During the great Western Schism 15 of the 16 cardinals who elected Pope Urban VI withdrew from his obedience on the grounds that the unruly Roman mob made the election uncanonical. There was only one cardinal who did not repudiate Pope Urban VI, Cardinal Tebaldeschi, who died shortly thereafter leaving a situation where not one of the cardinals of the Catholic Church recognized the true Pope, Urban VI. All of the living cardinals then regarded his election as invalid.
-
Nishant,
The teaching of St. Alphonsus, Cardinal Billot et al, are fallible teachings. There are numerous examples of Doctors of the Church holding conflicting opinions. Cornelius Lapide points this out throughout his commentaries. So if you are considering what S. Alphonsus said on this, why are you not giving weight to what S. Bellarmine, S. Francis de Sales, S. Antonius stated in support of sedevacantism?
Why overlook what the popes themselves wrote in support of sedevacantism? See Eugene IV, Council of Florence Cantate Domino, Pius XII Mystici Corporis Christi, Leo XIII Satis Cognitum, Innocent III Eius exemplo in addition to the Bull I've already provided by Paul IV. I didn't quote them because anyone who rejects sedevactanism in the 1917 Code of Canon Law and the Papal docuмents I've already provided, it seems to me is intransigent in their thinking.
Papal elections are not infallible. Pope Paul IV declared that infallibly in Bull cuм ex Apostolatus officio, which I provided to you in full. Read #6. Are you rejecting the excathedra declaration of a pope?
Furthermore, this has already happened, and it is widely accepted that the Cardinals elected an antipope. In the 12th century Anacletus II reigned 8 years in Rome while rivaling the true Pope, Innocent II. Anacletus was elected by the majority of the cardinals.
During the great Western Schism 15 of the 16 cardinals who elected Pope Urban VI withdrew from his obedience on the grounds that the unruly Roman mob made the election uncanonical. There was only one cardinal who did not repudiate Pope Urban VI, Cardinal Tebaldeschi, who died shortly thereafter leaving a situation where not one of the cardinals of the Catholic Church recognized the true Pope, Urban VI. All of the living cardinals then regarded his election as invalid.
Jerry, can you (or other SV's) respond to this part of Nishant's post:
Taking the two of these considerations from doctrine together, combined with the facts of the alleged ongoing vacancy in the Holy See since 1958, we are left with the following conclusion - Since just about every bishop appointed by Pope Pius XII has either died or resigned his office, the Catholic Church, under sedevacantism, has ceased to be Apostolic, does not have a hierarchy having formal Apostolic succession, which is impossible.
-
So you are a sedevacantist now? :geezer:
Yes. I think that "Pope" Francis is a public heretic, and therefore, no longer a Catholic, and therefore, no longer Pope. The Chair of Peter is, IMO, empty. Given the sensus fidelium of the sede movement, it seems to me reasonable to conclude that Pope Pius XII was the last true Roman Pontiff.
I can't understand why anyone would object to my predictions. An increase of numbers in the sede movement is precicely what I think is coming down the pike.
It just seems to be the way things will go.
-
Well, sedevacantism is an error, but I suppose it is preferable to falling into indifferentism. Those two I think will be some effects of these unfortunate interviews the Pope never seems to tire of. Even the Conciliar catechism doesn't go so far as this new liberal orientation of the Roman authorities toward even outright godlessness, such as the interviewer was.
"848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338"
Anyway, I thought you were a self-acclaimed Feeneyite, Jehanne, who had said he would never become a sedevacantist?
I think the two articles of the SBC are surprisingly good, even though it did not raise what I would think is the principal challenge for the serious sedevacantist, the question of the perpetuation of the hierarchy without the person of the Pope, other than in passing.
http://catholicism.org/modern-popes.html
http://catholicism.org/sedevacantism-and-schism.html
Although I can be sympathetic to the sedevacantist position, and I agree that it is better than falling into indifferentism, I can not and will not adhere to the position myself.
It is true that all Conciliar Popes have fallen into the heresy of universal salvation, when they stand behind the belief that a soul can be saved in any religion. These Popes are heretic and therefore, illegitimate Popes. But they are still the valid authorities of the Church.
At least until a new valid Pope declares their heresy. (For example, in the case of Pope Honorius, it was Pope St. Leo II who condemned him as heretic in the Council of Constantinople). Or until there is enough resistance on the part of the faithful, to resist his authority and make it inefficacious. That is why the traditionalist movement should be unified, to make our position truly effective.
Until this happens, Pope Francis is still the valid Pope. Duly elected by a College of Cardinals, followed by a hierarchy of Bishops, and accepted by the Church as such.
Let us pray that God intervenes and a holy Pope finally enters the scene, he will have all the authority to judge and declare those Conciliar Popes heretics and be followed by true Catholics throughout the globe.
-
Nishant,
The teaching of St. Alphonsus, Cardinal Billot et al, are fallible teachings. There are numerous examples of Doctors of the Church holding conflicting opinions. Cornelius Lapide points this out throughout his commentaries. So if you are considering what S. Alphonsus said on this, why are you not giving weight to what S. Bellarmine, S. Francis de Sales, S. Antonius stated in support of sedevacantism?
Why overlook what the popes themselves wrote in support of sedevacantism? See Eugene IV, Council of Florence Cantate Domino, Pius XII Mystici Corporis Christi, Leo XIII Satis Cognitum, Innocent III Eius exemplo in addition to the Bull I've already provided by Paul IV. I didn't quote them because anyone who rejects sedevactanism in the 1917 Code of Canon Law and the Papal docuмents I've already provided, it seems to me is intransigent in their thinking.
Papal elections are not infallible. Pope Paul IV declared that infallibly in Bull cuм ex Apostolatus officio, which I provided to you in full. Read #6. Are you rejecting the excathedra declaration of a pope?
Furthermore, this has already happened, and it is widely accepted that the Cardinals elected an antipope. In the 12th century Anacletus II reigned 8 years in Rome while rivaling the true Pope, Innocent II. Anacletus was elected by the majority of the cardinals.
During the great Western Schism 15 of the 16 cardinals who elected Pope Urban VI withdrew from his obedience on the grounds that the unruly Roman mob made the election uncanonical. There was only one cardinal who did not repudiate Pope Urban VI, Cardinal Tebaldeschi, who died shortly thereafter leaving a situation where not one of the cardinals of the Catholic Church recognized the true Pope, Urban VI. All of the living cardinals then regarded his election as invalid.
Jerry, can you (or other SV's) respond to this part of Nishant's post:
Taking the two of these considerations from doctrine together, combined with the facts of the alleged ongoing vacancy in the Holy See since 1958, we are left with the following conclusion - Since just about every bishop appointed by Pope Pius XII has either died or resigned his office, the Catholic Church, under sedevacantism, has ceased to be Apostolic, does not have a hierarchy having formal Apostolic succession, which is impossible.
This hardly makes the proposition 'impossible.' In the first place, sedevacantism is merely the idea that the papal office is vacant. While in today's time it normally refers to the belief that the chair has been vacant for fifty some years, sedevacantism does not require someone to believe the chair has been vacant since 1958, though some do. So the ultimatum that he sets up is false.
Secondly, there are several possibilities on how the hierarchy continues. One is through those bishops who were installed by a valid pope, which is certainly Pius XII, possibly John XXIII and even possibly (though unlikely) Paul VI, at least before December 7, 1965.
There is also the possibility of bishops being given an office through actions of an antipope that receive supplied jurisdiction.
And, finally, there is the possibility of the hierarchy in hiding, as the hierarchy began at Pentecost.
It is not an insurmountable objection.
-
Anyway, I thought you were a self-acclaimed Feeneyite, Jehanne, who had said he would never become a sedevacantist?
I never dreamed of a "Pope" such as Francis, not in my "wildest dreams." Didn't think that such was even possible; well, I was wrong. It is not the Catholic faith, which is absolutely immutable, that is at fault; rather, it was my understanding of it that was wrong. I happily admit my mistake. While all the other post-conciliar "Popes" prior to Frances were "on the fringe," he's a liberal, an open, public heretic:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/09/pope_francis_interview_forget_ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity_and_birth_control_he_s_a_flaming.html
-
Anyway, I thought you were a self-acclaimed Feeneyite, Jehanne, who had said he would never become a sedevacantist?
I never dreamed of a "Pope" such as Francis, not in my "wildest dreams." Didn't think that such was even possible; well, I was wrong. It is not the Catholic faith, which is absolutely immutable, that is at fault; rather, it was my understanding of it that was wrong. I happily admit my mistake. While all the other post-conciliar "Popes" prior to Frances were "on the fringe," he's a liberal, an open, public heretic:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/09/pope_francis_interview_forget_ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity_and_birth_control_he_s_a_flaming.html
Jehenne,
I guess you have to have the Sede position to follow the Diamonds. They have been sede for years. All Feenites are not sede. I hear some of them are even Novus Ordo.
Anyway, congrats on arriving at your conclusion.
-
Jehenne,
I guess you have to have the Sede position to follow the Diamonds. They have been sede for years. All Feenites are not sede. I hear some of them are even Novus Ordo.
Anyway, congrats on arriving at your conclusion.
I don't follow the Dimonds, never have. I consider them to be excellent bibliographers but "second-rate, armchair" theologians.
-
Sure, I touched upon this in some of my other posts (as SV has surfaced in other topics) but there are a few additional points worth considering.
The magisterium of the Church has never taught that there must be a certain number of bishops or the faithful for the Church to exist. As long as there are at least one priest or bishop and at least a few faithful , the Church and the hierarchy are alive and visible. During the Arian crisis the true faith was eliminated from entire regions so much so that there were hardly any Catholic bishops to be found anywhere. "Perhaps the number of Catholic bishops in possession of sees, as opposed to Arian bishops of sees was no greater than something between 1 to 3% of the total.....In the time of Emperor Valens (4th Century) Basil was basically the only orthodox bishop in all the East who succeeded in retaining charge of his see...a knowledge of the history of Arianism should demonstrate at least that the Catholic Church takes no account of popularity and numbers in shaping and maintaining doctrine else we should have long since abandoned Basil and Hilary, Athanasius, Liberius and Ossius and call ourselves after Arius. Fr. William Jurgens The Faith of the Early Fathers Vol. 2
Pope Paul IV declared that Catholics should not accept a heretical claimant, even if obedience were given to him by all, indicating that all giving obedience to an anti-pope is a possibility. Note that he wrote that in 1559.
S. Athanasius "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."
-
For those who like to quote S. Alphonsus -- here is another quote that they apparently missed: If ever a pope, as a private person, shuld fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate. Oeuvres Completes
-
In terms of numbers:
They who define the Church by numbers are the scorn and scorn the little flock? S. Gregory Nizianz
There are not enough hours in the day for me to reciteeven the names of all the various sects of heretics. S. Ambrose (382)
-
Just please be mindful, Jehanne, that sedevacantism is not a simple, idyllic sort of solution that will loosen the Gordian knot of the present crisis. If in becoming a sedevacantist you are looking for a panacea for all the ills you observe, be prepared to be disappointed.
This is seen in the excellent reply Nishant wrote, commenting on a rather naive article that Stephen Heiner posted on his blog when he declared himself a sedevacantist:
As Father Anthony Cekada said in his interview with me on sedevacantism, sedevacantism may lead you into mystery but it won't lead you into contradiction.
Unfortunately, 55 year sedevacantism, especially among those who are unwilling to consider the possibility that sedevacantism was the wrong explanation of the crisis in the first place, and are aware of the theology involved, leads more and more not only into outright contradiction but even to severely grave doctrinal errors - such as on Apostolicity for instance. Fr. Cekada himself is a good or rather a bad example of this, and other sedevacantists have publicly pointed it out to him, rightly rebuking him for denying the formal Apostolicity of the Church in that sense in which it has always been understood, of course to no avail.
The Society is not tempted by sedevacantism because sedevacantists have not seriously tried to solve these and other seemingly irresolvable difficulties in any convincing manner whatsoever. Given the failure to do that, all other attempts to "prove" sedevacantism are useless and cannot make their case.
By that very fact, and having studied the matter in a more solid way itself, the Society knows and can be said to have demonstrated that sedevacantism is a false explanation of the crisis, and knowing it now to not just be unlikely but in fact false, therefore rejects it as well as theories leading to and implying it.
Just don't fall prey to pundits who take advantage of the present-day crises to advance their own ideological platform.
-
Just don't fall prey to pundits who take advantage of the present-day crises to advance their own ideological platform.
Good advice. The Roman Catechism is my guide (as it was for Archbishop Lefebvre), even on "Baptism of Desire." Any "Pope" that blatantly contradicts that must be a heretic. In my opinion, Anti-Pope Francis has "crossed the line", but just to be clear, sedevacantism is, for me, just a theological opinion, but also, for me, a theological conclusion, one that solves an immediate problem, a "pretend Pope" who calls "as nonsense" the Church's immemorial Tradition of proselytizing every non-Catholic in the entire World.
-
In my opinion, Anti-Pope Francis has "crossed the line", but just to be clear, sedevacantism is, for me, just a theological opinion, but also, for me, a theological conclusion, one that solves an immediate problem, a "pretend Pope" who calls "as nonsense" the Church's immemorial Tradition of proselytizing every non-Catholic in the entire World.
As long as you see it in this manner, you shall fare well.
Beware of the dogmatic opinionists who would have the attendance at Holy Mass at an SSPX chapel (or Resistance chapel) become the most gross and unmentionable thing imaginable.
Many here (especially the newer members) do not remember how much such characters have vouchsafed us the displeasure of their company here on CathInfo.
The following is an exchange with one such individual:
This problem with cross attendance also shows that people don't understand their faith - attending chapels that are directly opposite one another in belief.
"Cross attendance????" This very term speaks volumes and shows how the ideas of the Sanborn/Dolan/Cekada trio have been accepted without much thought in traddieland. Catholics with "different beliefs" avoiding each other????
Yep, this proves my above point, as well as this (posted in another thread):
Attaching a similar map of just sedevacantist Mass locations globally. There are numbers in each of the little sun icons, but I'm not sure how to make it bigger on here.
That map was featured in the SGG bulletin for 6th of January of this year:
Someone just pointed out to me an International directory of Non-una cuм Masses (on a French-language website), and looking it over, it looks like a pretty thorough listing....
I was curious what it would look like in graphical form on a map of the globe, so I put together the above diagram. All of the yellow sun graphics have a number inside them, for the number of traditional Catholic Masses in that state or country. Quite interesting looking at the big picture! Also quite frightening to see how few true Masses are left on the planet (about 140), and how many wide areas of the planet aside from United States and Europe have absolutely nothing. How blessed we are to even have a Mass! Here are the top countries offering true traditional Masses in order:
United States 78 Argentina 11
Mexico 25 Australia 4
France 20 Canada 4
Italy 17
All other countries are 1 or 2 maximum
...could this Directory just as easily be called “The International Directory of Sedevacantist Masses”?
It is interesting how the so-called non-una cuм Masses seem to be exclusively identified as the "few true Masses are left on the planet" - at least this seems to be the implication since the co-equaling of the non-una cuм Masses and any valid Mass out there is not qualified by any conditional word or phrase that would seem to consider any other alternatives. It is as if they consider "non-una cuм Masses" to be somehow defective enough (that is, somehow not Catholic) to not be considered as part of the "few true Masses are left on the planet."
And yet, these clerics think they alone can definitively interpret and apply the principles of the Sacred Canons...
Again, beware of the great perils of embracing the species of sedevacantism that such individuals have been hawking. As I had stated elsewhere in the past, the Resistance has been infiltrated by those with ulterior motives who have condemned the SSPX as heretics, schismatics, &c., in the past and now suddenly are more than willing to receive the betrayed faithful of the SSPX into what could possibly be a greater and darker betrayal.
Remember that these people judged Bp. Williamson to be a "mente-vacantist"
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=86&catname=12
...new words for puerile novelties.
If you are interested in sedevacantism, consult a CMRI Priest, as he would be a better guide than the missal-sifters who can offer you only a revamped Gallicanism and cult-mentality.
-
Jehenne,
I guess you have to have the Sede position to follow the Diamonds. They have been sede for years. All Feenites are not sede. I hear some of them are even Novus Ordo.
Anyway, congrats on arriving at your conclusion.
I don't follow the Dimonds, never have. I consider them to be excellent bibliographers but "second-rate, armchair" theologians.
Jehanne,
I have heard you expound the errors of Feenyism, especially the rejection of BOD and BOB. Do you get your ideas from the late Fr Feeney?
-
These are the reasons I cannot hold the sedevacantist position:
1) The doctrine of the Perpetuity of the Papacy, this is, the perpetual visibility of the Catholic Church, which is tied to the visibility of the Roman Pontiff. St. Peter must have perpetual successors in the primacy of the Church. A half a century vacant Chair of Peter goes against the perpetual visibility of the Catholic Church. Sedevacantism creates an invincible Church, just as Protestantism does. Where is the Pope?
2) The lack of authority of the sedevacantist person to prove that a valid pope has not been elected since Pope Pius XII as well as to formally judge heresy. These claims, in order to be efficacious, must be established by a competent authority, not by any layman, as myself, or the 99% of sedevacantists I know of. We can blame incessantly Pope Francis of heresy, but in the big scheme of things, we simply do not have the competence to accuse Him of formal heresy.
3) A pope can err, commit doctrinal errors, and be evil, but he is still the lawful authority of the visible Catholic Church. No saint has ever been a sedevacantist, but many of them have actually resisted the pope's errors, on an open and even forcefully manner. This should also be our call.
4)The words of Our Lord Himself in dealing with the established authority. Our Lord was not a sedevacantist. The heretic who had authority over Israel, was still the head of the religion in the Old Law.
"[1] Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, [2] Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. [3] All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not. [4] For they bind heavy and insupportable burdens, and lay them on men' s shoulders; but with a finger of their own they will not move them. [5] And all their works they do for to be seen of men. For they make their phylacteries broad, and enlarge their fringes".
5) The sedevacantist position could indeed be detrimental for the Resistance and the Traditional Catholic movement in general, precisely because it does not offer a solution. Since the College of Cardinals is vacant, there cannot be an election of a valid Pope, so unless there is a visible and sudden divine intercession, what hope is there? That seems to be in direct opposition to what Archbishop Lefebvre established: open resistance to the Pope's errors. Notice that Archbishop Lefebvre never adopted the sedevacantist position, and even forbade the priests of the Society of St. Pius X to profess it.
-
Cantarella, I ask this in all sincerity, as I have gone back and forth over this in my mind for a long time: What exactly does "perpetual" mean in the context set forth by Vatican I? I'm a technical editor, so I work with phrases and their exact meanings for a living, and I still believe that words have meaning. The primary definition of "perpetual" is "continuing or enduring forever; everlasting." The primary definition of "continuous," however, is "uninterrupted in time; without cessation." It seems to me that those who continually quote "perpetual successors" from Vatican I in an attempt to disprove sedevacantism, even as simply a theological opinion or conclusion, desire to attach the meaning of "continuous" to "perpetual." I have no doubt whatsoever that the office of the Papacy is endless, but I don't know of any official Church teaching that restricts the election of a papal successor to a certain time limit.
Furthermore, words and their meanings must always be taken in the context of the way they were understood when written or spoken. A perfect example is "worship." If any of us here today were to post on a public forum - even this one - that Catholics worship the Blessed Virgin Mary, he would be corrected quickly. "No, we worship only God!" would be the retort. If one would have said in the middle of the 16th century, however, that we worship the Blessed Virgin, there would be no argument from anyone, for at that time, to worship was understood to mean "to show honor." If I were to say even today, however, that I worship the Blessed Virgin, I would be quite correct because "worship" means "reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage." It's very much analogous to "redeemed" versus "saved" in our own time. Francis was absolutely correct (like a broken clock) when he stated that all have been redeemed by the Blood of Christ. Because "redeemed" today is understood by many (most?) to mean "saved," however, he just further confused (and scandalized) his hearers.
As I stated, I'm sincere when I ask what "perpetual" meant when put forth by the Fathers of Vatican I, and I would love it if someone would enlighten me. Perhaps a new thread would be in order?
-
Jehenne,
I guess you have to have the Sede position to follow the Diamonds. They have been sede for years. All Feenites are not sede. I hear some of them are even Novus Ordo.
Anyway, congrats on arriving at your conclusion.
I don't follow the Dimonds, never have. I consider them to be excellent bibliographers but "second-rate, armchair" theologians.
Jehanne,
I have heard you expound the errors of Feenyism, especially the rejection of BOD and BOB. Do you get your ideas from the late Fr Feeney?
I am content with what Pope Pius XII stated in Humani Generis, which, of course, was published after the 1949 Holy Office Letter:
Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[6] Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith. (Humani Generis, 27)
After this encyclical was published, a New York Times reporter showed-up on Father Feeney's doorstep wanting an interview. He wanted to ask Father, "Hey, the Pope says that you are right...what say you?" or something to that effect.
You may see the whole "baptism of desire" issue as being fundamental and dogmatic, and in doing so, you have certainly misunderstood my POV. I don't deny "baptism of desire" at all; never have, in fact. Neither do I deny the possibility that there are souls in Paradise who may lack the character of sacramental Baptism, even after the Law of Baptism became binding and obligatory upon every human being without exception. However, if there are such individuals in Heaven, life eternal, such a fact is known to the Triune God alone, not to us. It is enough for me to say that He can bring Baptism to whomever He wishes.
The SSPX does not have a problem with that proposition and/or observation, and you shouldn't, either. I don't think that anyone with the CMRI or SSPV would have a problem with it, either; you could, of course, ask them and get back to us (me).
-
You may see the whole "baptism of desire" issue as being fundamental and dogmatic, and in doing so, you have certainly misunderstood my POV. I don't deny "baptism of desire" at all; never have, in fact. Neither do I deny the possibility that there are souls in Paradise who may lack the character of sacramental Baptism, even after the Law of Baptism became binding and obligatory upon every human being without exception. However, if there are such individuals in Heaven, life eternal, such a fact is known to the Triune God alone, not to us. It is enough for me to say that He can bring Baptism to whomever He wishes.
Jehenne,
Im sorry that I misunderstood your POV.
-
You may see the whole "baptism of desire" issue as being fundamental and dogmatic, and in doing so, you have certainly misunderstood my POV. I don't deny "baptism of desire" at all; never have, in fact. Neither do I deny the possibility that there are souls in Paradise who may lack the character of sacramental Baptism, even after the Law of Baptism became binding and obligatory upon every human being without exception. However, if there are such individuals in Heaven, life eternal, such a fact is known to the Triune God alone, not to us. It is enough for me to say that He can bring Baptism to whomever He wishes.
Jehenne,
Im sorry that I misunderstood your POV.
You're not the only one who misunderstood her/his POV. I thought s/he agreed with Stubborn and Bowler.
-
It is true that all Conciliar Popes have fallen into the heresy of universal salvation, when they stand behind the belief that a soul can be saved in any religion. These Popes are heretic and therefore, illegitimate Popes. But they are still the valid authorities of the Church.
My common sense just doesn't get this position. How can an illegitimate, heretical pope still maintain the right to the authority of the Church?
-
Just don't fall prey to pundits who take advantage of the present-day crises to advance their own ideological platform.
Good advice. The Roman Catechism is my guide (as it was for Archbishop Lefebvre), even on "Baptism of Desire." Any "Pope" that blatantly contradicts that must be a heretic. In my opinion, Anti-Pope Francis has "crossed the line", but just to be clear, sedevacantism is, for me, just a theological opinion, but also, for me, a theological conclusion, one that solves an immediate problem, a "pretend Pope" who calls "as nonsense" the Church's immemorial Tradition of proselytizing every non-Catholic in the entire World.
This is where I am leaning towards as well. Of course, for me, it doesn't change the fact that I do not have a mass that I can attend without doubt of its validity. Accepting SV doesn't solve that problem. That's another issue.
-
Cantarella, I ask this in all sincerity, as I have gone back and forth over this in my mind for a long time: What exactly does "perpetual" mean in the context set forth by Vatican I? I'm a technical editor, so I work with phrases and their exact meanings for a living, and I still believe that words have meaning. The primary definition of "perpetual" is "continuing or enduring forever; everlasting." The primary definition of "continuous," however, is "uninterrupted in time; without cessation." It seems to me that those who continually quote "perpetual successors" from Vatican I in an attempt to disprove sedevacantism, even as simply a theological opinion or conclusion, desire to attach the meaning of "continuous" to "perpetual." I have no doubt whatsoever that the office of the Papacy is endless, but I don't know of any official Church teaching that restricts the election of a papal successor to a certain time limit.
Furthermore, words and their meanings must always be taken in the context of the way they were understood when written or spoken. A perfect example is "worship." If any of us here today were to post on a public forum - even this one - that Catholics worship the Blessed Virgin Mary, he would be corrected quickly. "No, we worship only God!" would be the retort. If one would have said in the middle of the 16th century, however, that we worship the Blessed Virgin, there would be no argument from anyone, for at that time, to worship was understood to mean "to show honor." If I were to say even today, however, that I worship the Blessed Virgin, I would be quite correct because "worship" means "reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage." It's very much analogous to "redeemed" versus "saved" in our own time. Francis was absolutely correct (like a broken clock) when he stated that all have been redeemed by the Blood of Christ. Because "redeemed" today is understood by many (most?) to mean "saved," however, he just further confused (and scandalized) his hearers.
As I stated, I'm sincere when I ask what "perpetual" meant when put forth by the Fathers of Vatican I, and I would love it if someone would enlighten me. Perhaps a new thread would be in order?
Charlemagne,
That struck me as an exemplary post -- terse and very much to the point.
On the question of what the Vatican Council (1870) meant by "perpetual successors":-
1) Although he is anti-sedevacantist, Jimmy Akin seems to have got it right.
See How Useful Is This Argument Against Sedevacantism? (http://jimmyakin.com/2011/06/how-useful-is-this-argument-against-sedevacantism.html)
2) The comments of the late Fr Martin Stepanich OFM, found on Griff Ruby's website are helpful.
See THE MATTER OF THE POPE (http://www.the-pope.com/commstep.html)
-
Cantarella, I ask this in all sincerity, as I have gone back and forth over this in my mind for a long time: What exactly does "perpetual" mean in the context set forth by Vatican I? I'm a technical editor, so I work with phrases and their exact meanings for a living, and I still believe that words have meaning. The primary definition of "perpetual" is "continuing or enduring forever; everlasting." The primary definition of "continuous," however, is "uninterrupted in time; without cessation." It seems to me that those who continually quote "perpetual successors" from Vatican I in an attempt to disprove sedevacantism, even as simply a theological opinion or conclusion, desire to attach the meaning of "continuous" to "perpetual." I have no doubt whatsoever that the office of the Papacy is endless, but I don't know of any official Church teaching that restricts the election of a papal successor to a certain time limit.
Furthermore, words and their meanings must always be taken in the context of the way they were understood when written or spoken. A perfect example is "worship." If any of us here today were to post on a public forum - even this one - that Catholics worship the Blessed Virgin Mary, he would be corrected quickly. "No, we worship only God!" would be the retort. If one would have said in the middle of the 16th century, however, that we worship the Blessed Virgin, there would be no argument from anyone, for at that time, to worship was understood to mean "to show honor." If I were to say even today, however, that I worship the Blessed Virgin, I would be quite correct because "worship" means "reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage." It's very much analogous to "redeemed" versus "saved" in our own time. Francis was absolutely correct (like a broken clock) when he stated that all have been redeemed by the Blood of Christ. Because "redeemed" today is understood by many (most?) to mean "saved," however, he just further confused (and scandalized) his hearers.
As I stated, I'm sincere when I ask what "perpetual" meant when put forth by the Fathers of Vatican I, and I would love it if someone would enlighten me. Perhaps a new thread would be in order?
Charlemagne,
That struck me as an exemplary post -- terse and very much to the point.
On the question of what the Vatican Council (1870) meant by "perpetual successors":-
1) Although he is anti-sedevacantist, Jimmy Akin seems to have got it right.
See How Useful Is This Argument Against Sedevacantism? (http://jimmyakin.com/2011/06/how-useful-is-this-argument-against-sedevacantism.html)
2) The comments of the late Fr Martin Stepanich OFM, found on Griff Ruby's website are helpful.
See THE MATTER OF THE POPE (http://www.the-pope.com/commstep.html)
I noticed that he mentions that canon law requires cardinals to elect a pope. A poster in another thread mentioned that cardinals are not necessary.
Which is it? This is important.
-
On the question of what the Vatican Council (1870) meant by "perpetual successors"
Of interest here, from a Papal theologian at Vatican I:
VACANCY OF THE APOSTOLIC SEE
15. "Hence the distinction arises between the seat [sedes, See] and the one sitting in it [sedens], by reason of perpetuity. The seat, that is the perpetual right of the primacy, never ceases, on the part of God in His unchangeable law and supernatural providence, and on the part of the Church in her right and duty of forever keeping as a deposit the power divinely instituted on behalf of the individual successors of Peter, and of securing their succession by a fixed law; but the individual heirs or those sitting [sedentes] in the Apostolic seat are mortal men; and therefore the seat can never fail, but it can be *vacant* and often is vacant. Then indeed the divine law and institution of perpetuity remains, and by the same reason the right and duty in the Church of procuring the succession according to the established law; there remain also the participations in the powers [of the papacy] to the extent they are communicable to others [e.g. to the Cardinals or bishops], and have been communicated by the successor of Peter while still alive, or have been lawfully established and not abrogated [thus the jurisdiction of bishops, granted by the Pope, does not cease when he dies]; but the highest power itself, together with its rights and prerogatives, which can in no way exist except in the one individual heir of Peter, now actually belong to no one while the See is vacant.
"From this can be understood the distinction in the condition of the Church herself in the time of the *vacancy of the See* and the time of the *occupation of the See* [sedis plenae], namely that in the former time, a successor of Peter, the visible rock and visible head of the Church, *is owed* to the vacant Apostolic See by divine right or law but *does not yet exist*; in the time of the occupation of the See he now *actually sits* by divine right. It is most important to consider the very root of the whole life of the Church, by which I mean the indefectibility and infallible custody of the deposit of the faith. Certainly there remains in the Church not only indefectibility *in believing* (called passive infallibility) but also infallibility *in proclaiming* the truth already revealed and already sufficiently proposed for Catholic belief, even while she is for a time bereaved of her visible head, so that neither the whole body of the Church in its belief, nor the whole Episcopate in its teaching, can depart from the faith handed down and fall into heresy, because this permanence of the Spirit of truth in the Church, the kingdom and spouse and body of Christ, is included in the very promise and institution of the indefectibility of the Church *for all days* even to the consummation of the world. The same is to be said, by the same reasoning, for the unity of communion against a universal schism, as for the truth of the faith against heresy. For the divine law and promise of perpetual succession in the See of Peter, as the root and center of Catholic unity, remains; and to this law and promise correspond, on the part of the Church, not only the right and duty of, but also indefectibility in, legitimately procuring and receiving the succession and in keeping the unity of communion with the Petrine See EVEN WHEN VACANT, in view of the successor who is awaited and will indefectibly come ... " (Franzelin, op. cit., p. 221-223)
16. " ...When the Pope dies, says Cano [a leading theologian of the 16th century], the Church, without doubt, remains *one*, and the *Spirit of truth* remains in her; but she is left crippled [manca] and diminished without the Vicar of Christ and the one pastor of the Catholic Church.
Therefore, although *truth even then is in the Church*; but if CONTROVERSIES OVER THE FAITH AND RELIGION SHOULD ARISE, *THE JUDGMENTS OF THE CHURCH* which is without a head on earth *WILL NOT BE AS CERTAIN*." (Ibid. p. 223)
17. "On account of the distinction as explained [between sedes and sedens], in so far as the Apostolic See can never fail in its permanence by divine right and law, but the individual occupants [sedentes], being mortal, fail at intervals, the APOSTOLIC SEE ITSELF, as the necessary foundation and center of unity of the Church can never be called in doubt without heresy; but it can happen sometimes, in great disturbances, and it is evident from history that it has happened, that many men, while holily keeping the Faith and veneration towards the Apostolic See as true Catholics, without their own fault are not able to acknowledge the one seated in the Apostolic See, and therefore while in no way falling into heresy, slip into schism, which however is not formal but only material. Thus in the lamentable disturbance throughout forty years, from Urban VI until Gregory XII [the Great Western Schism], Catholics were split into two and then three obediences, as they were then called, while all acknowledged and revered the divine rights of the Apostolic See; nevertheless, not acknowledging the right of the one seated in the Apostolic See, from invincible ignorance of the lawful succession [i.e. as to which claimant was the lawful successor] and thus adhering either to no one, or to a pseudo-pontiff. Among these, even saints such as St. Vincent Ferrer for a time, and his brother Boniface, a Carthusian Prior, were implicated in material schism." (Ibid. p. 223-4)
-
Cantarella, I ask this in all sincerity, as I have gone back and forth over this in my mind for a long time: What exactly does "perpetual" mean in the context set forth by Vatican I? I'm a technical editor, so I work with phrases and their exact meanings for a living, and I still believe that words have meaning. The primary definition of "perpetual" is "continuing or enduring forever; everlasting." The primary definition of "continuous," however, is "uninterrupted in time; without cessation." It seems to me that those who continually quote "perpetual successors" from Vatican I in an attempt to disprove sedevacantism, even as simply a theological opinion or conclusion, desire to attach the meaning of "continuous" to "perpetual." I have no doubt whatsoever that the office of the Papacy is endless, but I don't know of any official Church teaching that restricts the election of a papal successor to a certain time limit.
As I stated, I'm sincere when I ask what "perpetual" meant when put forth by the Fathers of Vatican I, and I would love it if someone would enlighten me. Perhaps a new thread would be in order?
I can understand the difference between "perpetual" and "continuous" and how a sedevancantist could argue that this does not constitute a proof that the Chair of Peter could not have been vacant for half a century.
However, the problem of the visibility of the Church still remains. The Roman Pontiff is the principle of the Church’s visibility. Sedevacantists end up with an invisible Church, kind of a Protestant church, made up of believers "spiritually" subject to the Faith. Many sedevacantists end up in fact being "home alone" and not attending Mass at all, nor even taking the sacraments, since according to them, all priests are either heretics, or schismatics. This is not Catholicism.
The visibility of the Catholic Church is tied to the visible foundation of the Vicar of Christ.
-
Cantarella, I ask this in all sincerity, as I have gone back and forth over this in my mind for a long time: What exactly does "perpetual" mean in the context set forth by Vatican I? I'm a technical editor, so I work with phrases and their exact meanings for a living, and I still believe that words have meaning. The primary definition of "perpetual" is "continuing or enduring forever; everlasting." The primary definition of "continuous," however, is "uninterrupted in time; without cessation." It seems to me that those who continually quote "perpetual successors" from Vatican I in an attempt to disprove sedevacantism, even as simply a theological opinion or conclusion, desire to attach the meaning of "continuous" to "perpetual." I have no doubt whatsoever that the office of the Papacy is endless, but I don't know of any official Church teaching that restricts the election of a papal successor to a certain time limit.
As I stated, I'm sincere when I ask what "perpetual" meant when put forth by the Fathers of Vatican I, and I would love it if someone would enlighten me. Perhaps a new thread would be in order?
I can understand the difference between "perpetual" and "continuous" and how a sedevancantist could argue that this does not constitute a proof that the Chair of Peter could not have been vacant for half a century.
However, the problem of the visibility of the Church still remains. The Roman Pontiff is the principle of the Church’s visibility. Sedevacantists end up with an invisible Church, kind of a Protestant church, made up of believers "spiritually" subject to the Faith. Many sedevacantists end up in fact being "home alone" and not attending Mass at all, nor even taking the sacraments, since according to them, all priests are either heretics, or schismatics. This is not Catholicism.
The visibility of the Catholic Church is tied to the visible foundation of the Vicar of Christ.
There is a reply in the other thread that basically explains that the Church can still elect a pope without cardinals.
-
Cantarella, I ask this in all sincerity, as I have gone back and forth over this in my mind for a long time: What exactly does "perpetual" mean in the context set forth by Vatican I? I'm a technical editor, so I work with phrases and their exact meanings for a living, and I still believe that words have meaning. The primary definition of "perpetual" is "continuing or enduring forever; everlasting." The primary definition of "continuous," however, is "uninterrupted in time; without cessation." It seems to me that those who continually quote "perpetual successors" from Vatican I in an attempt to disprove sedevacantism, even as simply a theological opinion or conclusion, desire to attach the meaning of "continuous" to "perpetual." I have no doubt whatsoever that the office of the Papacy is endless, but I don't know of any official Church teaching that restricts the election of a papal successor to a certain time limit.
As I stated, I'm sincere when I ask what "perpetual" meant when put forth by the Fathers of Vatican I, and I would love it if someone would enlighten me. Perhaps a new thread would be in order?
I can understand the difference between "perpetual" and "continuous" and how a sedevancantist could argue that this does not constitute a proof that the Chair of Peter could not have been vacant for half a century.
However, the problem of the visibility of the Church still remains. The Roman Pontiff is the principle of the Church’s visibility. Sedevacantists end up with an invisible Church, kind of a Protestant church, made up of believers "spiritually" subject to the Faith. Many sedevacantists end up in fact being "home alone" and not attending Mass at all, nor even taking the sacraments, since according to them, all priests are either heretics, or schismatics. This is not Catholicism.
The visibility of the Catholic Church is tied to the visible foundation of the Vicar of Christ.
If the visibility of the Church is tied to the visibility of the Pope, what happens when a Pope dies? The seat is vacant, obviously, but the office endures ("in perpetuity"). Does a Pope's death, therefore, make the Church invisible or without a head (Who is, after all, Christ Himself)? I would argue that Her visibility is tied to the office of the Papacy and to the Faithful. "When the Son of Man returneth, will He, think ye, find faith on earth?"
-
The visibility of the Roman Catholic Church is tied,
(i) To the Roman Pontiff when there is one, and the Roman Church in an interregnum, namely the clergy incardinated into the diocese of Rome and
(ii) To the hierarchy throughout the world, namely the bishops who have succession from the Apostles, with both orders and jurisdiction.
Apostolic succession is an external mark and is critical to the question of visibility. It is like genealogical succession from King David the Messiah was to have and which Christ Our Lord demonstrated.
Bishops without the power of jurisdiction do not have formal Apostolic succession. Now, individual bishops who do not have ordinary jurisdiction pose no doctrinal problem to an explanation of the crisis, but if your explanation leads you to the conclusion that there are no such bishops in the whole Church, then you need to rethink or modify some aspect of your explanation, because that conclusion is heretical. The same First Vatican Council says,
Just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world , even as he had been sent by the Father, in like manner it was his will that in his Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.
In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation.
Now, as is evident here, and as any theology manual will tell you in any case, the shepherds and teachers who are sent are those who have full and formal succession from the Apostles, including the power of jurisdiction.
This also provides an answer as to how and where the perpetual Petrine sucession comes into it. The Apostolic sucession itself is closely interconnected with the Petrine succession, so that if the one indefinitely ceases, the other will as well. The conclusion of an indefinitely extended interregnum, then, would be that the Catholic Church would cease to be Apostolic, which is an inadmissible conclusion.
If you take cuм Ex as your guide, by the way, this is evident, for that very bull says clearly, as is obvious, that a heretic non-Pope would grant neither stability nor right to anyone, so that the bishops he appoints would have no office or jurisdiction at all.
Dear Jerry, for the record, I agree with you and with St. Robert on the specific question of whether the Pope who becomes a heretic will lose his jurisdiction. But the other opinion, that of Suarez, Cajetan, John of St. Thomas and others, that the Pope would lose his authority only at that moment when the sentence is passed on him by the Church, is also a permitted theological opinion.
But Cardinal Billot isn't talking about that, (nor is St. Alphonsus contradicting himself) he is introducing a superior principle worthy of consideration, hardly taken into account by sedevacantists today, with some exceptions.
"Finally, what one may think of the possibility or the impossibility of an heretical pope, there is at least one point absolutely clear which no one can put in doubt, and it is that the acceptance, the adherence, of the Universal Church to a pope will always be, by itself, the infallible sign of the legitimacy of such-and-such a pontiff; and consequently of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy."
For the record, I don't think most sedevacantists are schismatic, just mistaken about something they have in most cases not thought through sufficiently in good faith.
But I'm afraid your statement "The magisterium of the Church has never taught that there must be a certain number of bishops or the faithful for the Church to exist. As long as there are at least one priest or bishop and at least a few faithful , the Church and the hierarchy are alive and visible" is not correct, since the power of jurisdiction given to the Apostles being handed down is essential to Apostolic succession.
Dear Cantarella, some specifics aside (like that about Pope Honorius), I agree with the gist of what you say. May God send us a holy Pope, a shepherd after His own heart.
“The most evident mark of God’s anger and the most terrible castigation He can inflict upon the world are manifested when He permits His people to fall into the hands of clergy who are priests more in name than in deed, priests who practice the cruelty of ravening wolves rather than charity and affection of devoted shepherds ...
“When God permits such things, it is a very positive proof that He is thoroughly angry with His people, and is visiting His most dreadful anger upon them. That is why He cries unceasingly to Christians, ‘Return O ye revolting children ... and I will give you pastors according to My own heart’. (Jer. 3:14,15)
-
Cantarella, I ask this in all sincerity, as I have gone back and forth over this in my mind for a long time: What exactly does "perpetual" mean in the context set forth by Vatican I? I'm a technical editor, so I work with phrases and their exact meanings for a living, and I still believe that words have meaning. The primary definition of "perpetual" is "continuing or enduring forever; everlasting." The primary definition of "continuous," however, is "uninterrupted in time; without cessation." It seems to me that those who continually quote "perpetual successors" from Vatican I in an attempt to disprove sedevacantism, even as simply a theological opinion or conclusion, desire to attach the meaning of "continuous" to "perpetual." I have no doubt whatsoever that the office of the Papacy is endless, but I don't know of any official Church teaching that restricts the election of a papal successor to a certain time limit.
As I stated, I'm sincere when I ask what "perpetual" meant when put forth by the Fathers of Vatican I, and I would love it if someone would enlighten me. Perhaps a new thread would be in order?
I can understand the difference between "perpetual" and "continuous" and how a sedevancantist could argue that this does not constitute a proof that the Chair of Peter could not have been vacant for half a century.
However, the problem of the visibility of the Church still remains. The Roman Pontiff is the principle of the Church’s visibility. Sedevacantists end up with an invisible Church, kind of a Protestant church, made up of believers "spiritually" subject to the Faith. Many sedevacantists end up in fact being "home alone" and not attending Mass at all, nor even taking the sacraments, since according to them, all priests are either heretics, or schismatics. This is not Catholicism.
The visibility of the Catholic Church is tied to the visible foundation of the Vicar of Christ.
16. " ...When the Pope dies, says Cano [a leading theologian of the 16th century], the Church, without doubt, remains *one*, and the *Spirit of truth* remains in her; but she is left crippled [manca] and diminished without the Vicar of Christ and the one pastor of the Catholic Church.
Therefore, although *truth even then is in the Church*; but if CONTROVERSIES OVER THE FAITH AND RELIGION SHOULD ARISE, *THE JUDGMENTS OF THE CHURCH* which is without a head on earth *WILL NOT BE AS CERTAIN*." (Ibid. p. 223)
-
16. " ...When the Pope dies, says Cano [a leading theologian of the 16th century], the Church, without doubt, remains *one*, and the *Spirit of truth* remains in her; but she is left crippled [manca] and diminished without the Vicar of Christ and the one pastor of the Catholic Church.
Therefore, although *truth even then is in the Church*; but if CONTROVERSIES OVER THE FAITH AND RELIGION SHOULD ARISE, *THE JUDGMENTS OF THE CHURCH* which is without a head on earth *WILL NOT BE AS CERTAIN*." (Ibid. p. 223)
Interesting. This sounds exactly like what has happened post-Vatican II: the judgments of the church without a head on earth have not been as certain.
Coincidence?
It's as if the Pope has been dead since Vatican II.
Oh, wait.
-
Sorry about the formatting. I have no idea how to fix it even though I just edited it about 25 times...lol.
-
I have yet to see this proven.
It can be proven in many ways, two in particular, one shorter and one more lengthy. The first was discussed in the article, as according to the teaching of St. Alphonsus, Cardinal Billot and other most eminent authorities, the acceptance of a Papal election by the whole Church, in particular by the hierarchy, is an infallible sign and effect of a valid election, and therefore proves definitely that all the conditions required for validity, even in the internal forum, are satisfied.
Malleus The fact that an Election may have taken place doesnt mean a Heretic can assume the Papacy. One must always be Catholic in order to be elected Pope and in addition even Scripture itself describes the Anti Christ as sitting on the throne but Scripture never States it is a good thing or even that Catholics should follow him but rather beware that he will one day come . Are we to now assume so long as an election takes place we are to follow Anti Christ? Did our Lord not warn us to beware of false Prophets who come clothed as sheep but inwardly are as ravening wolves? What fruits do you see today? Where you see a "Valid Election" we see a man who doesnt even practice or proclaim the Catholic faith and by those fruits do we know him.
The other is slightly more lengthy, and goes like this. It is received Catholic doctrine, recognized almost unanimously even by sedevacantists, that (i) Only a Pope can appoint a bishop to an office, thereby conferring on his person the power of ordinary jurisdiction attached to it (ii) All offices of the Church cannot be vacant, this being required by the Apostolicity of the Church. Formal Apostolic succession requires the succession of persons to an episcopal see.
Malleus: Apostolic Succession is through the Bishops not the Pope. Even the Schismatic Orthodox have Valid Apostolic Orders and that schism is 1000 years old. Granted , they are illicit - but Valid nonetheless. As for choosing a True Pope - Our Lord Chose St Peter - The Council of Constance chose Pope Martin V - or say perhaps the Orthodox were to abjur en mass because Our Lady who asked us to pray for Russia - The prayers were answered? There are many ways in which a true universal Pope could emerge. Nothing is impossible with GOD.
Taking the two of these considerations from doctrine together, combined with the facts of the alleged ongoing vacancy in the Holy See since 1958, we are left with the following conclusion - Since just about every bishop appointed by Pope Pius XII has either died or resigned his office, the Catholic Church, under sedevacantism, has ceased to be Apostolic, does not have a hierarchy having formal Apostolic succession, which is impossible.
That is a sufficient demonstration of the impossibility of 55 year sedevacantism.
Sorry , But GOD's will will be done. Look no farther than the "OUR Father" and besides that - we know from Fatima that in the End Her Immaculate Heart will triumph.
-
Apostolic Succession is through the Bishops not the Pope. Even the Schismatic Orthodox have Valid Apostolic Orders and that schism is 1000 years old. Granted , they are illicit - but Valid nonetheless.
This is not correct. The Pope is the sole source of jurisdiction, being the sole and supreme legislator as Vicar of Christ, and only the Supreme Pontiff can appoint Bishops as successors of the Apostles. Valid Episcopal consecration alone does not suffice to make bishops successors of the Apostles and thereby have them attain to and exercise ordinary jurisdiction. You need Apostolic mandate for a Bishop to claim such a thing.
The Oriental schismatics do have valid Orders, but not formal Apostolic succession. They have only material Apostolicity, with only supplied jurisdiction to be used in those instances necessitated by the greater good of souls. And this only because the Orders, the Sacraments, &c., that these schismatics have are the treasures proper to Holy Mother Church alone. They are pilfered by bastard children who have refused obedience to the successor of St. Peter.
When it comes to the bishops of the Catholic traditionalist movement, they can only claim to be enabled to exercise supplied jurisdiction in the instances mentioned above, and in those instances alone. They cannot claim to have Canonical mission and therefore cannot claim formal Apostolicity. This is especially so with those sedevacantist bishops who claim that there is no Pope who can give the requisite mandate.
To propose the contrary is a very rash and perilous thing, and it is detrimental to the primacy of the Supreme Pontiff and to the hierarchical nature of the Church.
It is not an attack upon the sedevacantists to emphasize these realities. In fact, it is a great disservice and detriment to charity to be culpable of negligence in this regard. The acceptance of this reality serves to make the traditionalist clergy all the more humble, self-abased and self-abandoned unto the designs of Divine Providence.
This is the case with the CMRI Fathers, who rely on total consecration to Our Lord through His Blessed Mother and who frankly admit that they cannot claim jurisdiction, mission nor formal Apostolicity.
-
Dear Malleus, I agree with what Hobbledehoy has said. Some references for what I'd said earlier,
In explaining the concept of Apostolicity, then, special attention must be given to Apostolicity of mission, or Apostolic succession. Apostolicity of mission means that the Church is one moral body, possessing the mission entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Apostles, and transmitted through them and their lawful successors in an unbroken chain to the present representatives of Christ upon earth. This authoritative transmission of power in the Church constitutes Apostolic succession.
This Apostolic succession must be both material and formal; the material consisting in the actual succession in the Church, through a series of persons from the Apostolic age to the present; the formal adding the element of authority in the transmission of power. It consists in the legitimate transmission of the ministerial power conferred by Christ upon His Apostles.
Succession may be material or formal. Material succession consists in the fact that there have never been lacking persons who have continuously been substituted for the Apostles ; formal succession consists in the fact that these substituted persons truly enjoy authority derived from the Apostles and received from him who is able to communicate it.
For someone to be made a successor of the Apostles and pastor of the Church, the power of order — which is always validly conferred by virtue of ordination — is not enough; the power of jurisdiction is also required, and this is conferred not by virtue of ordination but by virtue of a mission received from him to whom Christ has entrusted the supreme power over the universal Church.
First, then, the Church is infallible when she declares what person holds the office of Pope; for if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope; but according to the Catholic faith, as will be proved hereafter, communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the function of teaching by the body of Bishops (n. 208); if then the uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not he exercised, and Christ’s promise (St. Matt. xxviii. 20; and n. 199, II.) would be falsified, which is impossible.
This argument is in substance the same as applies to other cases of dogmatic facts. Also, it affords an answer to a much vaunted objection to the claims of the Catholic Church, put forward by writers who think that they find proof in history that the election of a certain Pope was simoniacal and invalid, and that the successor was elected by Cardinals who owed their own appointment to the simoniacal intruder; from which it is gathered that the Papacy has been vacant ever since that time. A volume might be occupied if we attempted to expose all the frailness of the argument which is supposed to lead to this startling conclusion; but it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined.
"God some times can allow that the vacancy of the Apostolic See be for a certain time. He can allow also that a doubt may come concerning the legitimacy of such-and-such an election, but He cannot allow that the whole Church accept as a pontiff one who is not really legitimate. Therefore, from the moment that the pope is accepted by the Church and is united to Her as the head to the body, we can no longer raise the doubt on the possible bias of election or the possible lack of the necessary conditions for legitimacy. Because this adherence of the Church heals in its root all faults committed at the moment of election, and proves infallibly the existence of all the conditions required."
-
Cantarella, I ask this in all sincerity, as I have gone back and forth over this in my mind for a long time: What exactly does "perpetual" mean in the context set forth by Vatican I? I'm a technical editor, so I work with phrases and their exact meanings for a living, and I still believe that words have meaning. The primary definition of "perpetual" is "continuing or enduring forever; everlasting." The primary definition of "continuous," however, is "uninterrupted in time; without cessation." It seems to me that those who continually quote "perpetual successors" from Vatican I in an attempt to disprove sedevacantism, even as simply a theological opinion or conclusion, desire to attach the meaning of "continuous" to "perpetual." I have no doubt whatsoever that the office of the Papacy is endless, but I don't know of any official Church teaching that restricts the election of a papal successor to a certain time limit.
Furthermore, words and their meanings must always be taken in the context of the way they were understood when written or spoken. A perfect example is "worship." If any of us here today were to post on a public forum - even this one - that Catholics worship the Blessed Virgin Mary, he would be corrected quickly. "No, we worship only God!" would be the retort. If one would have said in the middle of the 16th century, however, that we worship the Blessed Virgin, there would be no argument from anyone, for at that time, to worship was understood to mean "to show honor." If I were to say even today, however, that I worship the Blessed Virgin, I would be quite correct because "worship" means "reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage." It's very much analogous to "redeemed" versus "saved" in our own time. Francis was absolutely correct (like a broken clock) when he stated that all have been redeemed by the Blood of Christ. Because "redeemed" today is understood by many (most?) to mean "saved," however, he just further confused (and scandalized) his hearers.
As I stated, I'm sincere when I ask what "perpetual" meant when put forth by the Fathers of Vatican I, and I would love it if someone would enlighten me. Perhaps a new thread would be in order?
Charlemagne,
That struck me as an exemplary post -- terse and very much to the point.
On the question of what the Vatican Council (1870) meant by "perpetual successors":-
1) Although he is anti-sedevacantist, Jimmy Akin seems to have got it right.
See How Useful Is This Argument Against Sedevacantism? (http://jimmyakin.com/2011/06/how-useful-is-this-argument-against-sedevacantism.html)
2) The comments of the late Fr Martin Stepanich OFM, found on Griff Ruby's website are helpful.
See THE MATTER OF THE POPE (http://www.the-pope.com/commstep.html)
I am certainly impressed with Jimmy Akin's ability to have been able to actually admit an invalid point. Thanks for the article!
Good to know that even among the neo-Conciliar bloggers they have the intellectual honesty to see some false arguments. Sadly enough they are being raised by our folks at this forum! Not only that they are anathematizing that if anyone does not hold that specific view they are outside of the Church, ohh the cleverness! :laugh2:
:dwarf: