Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Nishant on May 06, 2014, 06:41:43 AM
-
Historically, sedeprivationists have held that the Pope who is not formally Pope may still be able to effect some acts validly, so that thereby the Church can be continued. These include appointing Cardinals, or incardinating Roman clergy, and at least some have argued that they would extend to appointing Ordinaries. Some of them denounced simple sedevacantism as heretical because it provided no mechanism for this, also because most sedevacantists held to the idea that the whole hierarchy had lost their offices and all episcopal sees were formally vacant.
More recently, some sedevacantists, although rejecting sedeprivationism, still seeing the need for the same appointments to be valid, believe that although the Pope is not the Pope in any sense, still these acts of his could be validated by supplied jurisdiction. Almost all can see that the Church cannot be continued otherwise, when all existing Ordinaries die, therefore such a theory is proposed.
But both of these seem impossible to reconcile with, among other things, Pope Paul IV's Bull cuм Ex Apostolatus, stipulating that
each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone
Therefore, if the Pope is not the Pope, then those appointed by him have neither right nor stability, meaning bishops have neither office nor jurisdiction and Roman clerics cannot be incardinated by his acts, for they are null and void. The bishops and clerics, then, and the validity of their appointments stand or fall with the Pope's own claim. If he is really the Pope, then his enactments are valid and give rise to real bishops and clerics with a mission, ordinary jurisdiction and lawful incardination. If he is not, all his acts are as null and void as his Papacy itself.
The Church is indefectible ... in her monarchical constitution (principle 4), comprising governing power i.e., jurisdiction, hence Vatican I’s profession that Peter will have perpetual successors ... is indefectibility preserved if there is no pope since 1962 or if there is no one with ordinary jurisdiction whom the sedevacantists can point out as such?
There are only about 15 ordinaries left in the world appointed by Pius XII, if we include bishops appointed by John XXIII, their number increases by about 10, almost all of these near death and emeritus. When these die, the formal Apostolic succession has ceased, the ecclesia docens is no more, ordinary jurisdiction has not been passed on, and the promise of Christ has failed. Either that, or 50+ year sedevacantism is false.
-
There are only about 15 ordinaries left in the world appointed by Pius XII, if we include bishops appointed by John XXIII, their number increases by about 10, almost all of these near death and emeritus. When these die, the formal Apostolic succession has ceased, the ecclesia docens is no more, ordinary jurisdiction has not been passed on, and the promise of Christ has failed. Either that, or 50+ year sedevacantism is false.
Sedevacantism is false.
-
But both of these seem impossible to reconcile with, among other things, Pope Paul IV's Bull cuм Ex Apostolatus, ...
Meanwhile, R&R is incompatible with the Church's indefectibility in a different way.
So it's pick your poison.
There are actually a number of the papa haereticus schools which suggest that heretical popes maintain jurisdictional authority despite losing other formal papal authority.
-
Sedevacantism is false.
R&R is false and borderline heretical.
It's much easier to deal with jurisdiction questions (since in many cases the Church can supply jurisdiction) than to deal with an ecclesiology where Catholics now are entitled to and required to second-guess the Magisterium, to claim that an Ecuмenical Council taught by the world's bishops contains and propagates error, to claim that the Church can produce a Rite of Mass that's harmful to the faith and cannot be attended by Catholics in good conscience. THAT is incompatible with the Church's indefectibility, whereas the Church can supply jurisdiction.
-
But both of these seem impossible to reconcile with, among other things, Pope Paul IV's Bull cuм Ex Apostolatus, ...
And cuм Ex also contradict's Billot's contention that acceptance by the world's bishops causes a sanatio in radice for defective elections.
-
Somehow we're supposed to believe that the body of bishops cannot adhere to a false pope yet this same body of bishops can produce an Ecuмenical Council that's polluted with error and can accept and implement a harmful Rite of Mass.
You see the argument about the bishops accepting a false pope stems from considerations regarding the indefectibility of the Church. Yet these same bishops can defect by teaching error in unison to the Church?
-
There's a Catholic prophecy about how it will appear as if the Apostolic Succession had nearly ceased.
-
I do not recognize the Church of R&R ecclesiology as the Catholic Church.
You can quibble all you want about whether we have the right to depose or consider deposed, whether we should give them the benefit of the doubt as popes, but please don't keep telling me that the Church's magisterium has defected. That's heretical.
If these guys are certainly popes, then submit yourselves at once to them; you are in schism.
-
There are only about 15 ordinaries left in the world appointed by Pius XII, if we include bishops appointed by John XXIII, their number increases by about 10, almost all of these near death and emeritus. When these die, the formal Apostolic succession has ceased, the ecclesia docens is no more, ordinary jurisdiction has not been passed on, and the promise of Christ has failed. Either that, or 50+ year sedevacantism is false.
That's a logically false either ... or. Since all these have NOT yet died, this does not mean that 50+ years of sedevcante are false.
This merely suggests that God will intervene soon to end the crisis.
I also still think that the Papal Mandate given to Bishop Thuc has some role to play in this. There's every indication that he was given papal authority to consecrate bishops without explicit papal mandate, and this authority has never been revoked.
-
One final consideration.
Eastern Rite Canon Law does not require explicit papal mandate in order to consecrate bishops; that's only in the Western Rite Canon Law.
-
Well worth the read:
http://betrayedcatholics.com/wpcms/catacomb-catholics/faculties/
We know, ironically, that Our Lady tied the Vatican II disaster to Russia.
-
There's also the final possibility that Pope Gregory XVII (Siri) made provision to continue the papal succession.
-
There are only about 15 ordinaries left in the world appointed by Pius XII, if we include bishops appointed by John XXIII, their number increases by about 10, almost all of these near death and emeritus. When these die, the formal Apostolic succession has ceased, the ecclesia docens is no more, ordinary jurisdiction has not been passed on, and the promise of Christ has failed. Either that, or 50+ year sedevacantism is false.
That's a logically false either ... or. Since all these have NOT yet died, this does not mean that 50+ years of sedevcante are false.
This merely suggests that God will intervene soon to end the crisis.
I also still think that the Papal Mandate given to Bishop Thuc has some role to play in this. There's every indication that he was given papal authority to consecrate bishops without explicit papal mandate, and this authority has never been revoked.
Thumbs Up, EXACTLY, my point for what its worth.
This entire scenario thread here reminds me so much of when Our Lord was walking on the water to His apostles, while a storm was raging, and Peter saw Him and he too with confidence in Our Lord, wanted to walk on the water. Jesus told Peter to come, and Peter climbed out of the boat and started to walk across the water to Jesus. The wind was blowing and the waves were high; Peter became afraid, he started to sink. Jesus took Peter by his hand and said, "O you of little Faith, why did you doubt?"
-
Well worth the read:
http://betrayedcatholics.com/wpcms/catacomb-catholics/faculties/
We know, ironically, that Our Lady tied the Vatican II disaster to Russia.
Ladislaus,
I am edified by your posts in this thread, but I think fair warning should be given that the article you've just linked to is the product of Teresa Stanfill Benns, a major publisher of "home alone" tracts.
The article may in fact be worthy of a read, but her purpose in publishing is to encourage Catholics to not receive the sacraments from any priest, causing scrupulosity and spiritual ruin by insisting on a Pharisaical letter of the law.
Be very careful in going to that site.
-
Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira, “Theological and Moral Implications of the New Ordo Missae." Circa 1975:
A more attentive examination of the question would reveal, nevertheless, that even on purely theoretical grounds, an important difficulty arises, which would consist in determining precisely what is the concept of pacific and universal acceptation by the Church. For such acceptation to have been pacific and universal would it be enough that no Cardinal had contested the election? Would it be enough that in a Council, for example, almost the totality of the Bishops had signed the acts, recognizing in this way, at least implicitly, that the Pope be the true one? Would it be enough that no voice, or practically no voice had publicly given the cry of alert? Or, on the contrary, would a certain very generalized, though not always well defined, distrust be sufficient to destroy the apparently pacific and universal character of the acceptance of the Pope? And if this distrust became a suspicion in numerous spirits, a positive doubt in many, a certainty in some, would the aforementioned pacific and universal acceptance subsist? And if such distrusts, suspicions, doubts and certainties cropped out with some frequency in conversations or private papers, or now and again in published writings, could one still classify as pacific and universal the acceptance of a Pope who was already a heretic on the occasion of his election by the Sacred College?
-
The article may in fact be worthy of a read, but her purpose in publishing is to encourage Catholics to not receive the sacraments from any priest, causing scrupulosity and spiritual ruin by insisting on a Pharisaical letter of the law.
Be very careful in going to that site.
Thanks for the warning. I was interested only in the article's thorough exploration of the clandestine bishops behind the Iron Curtain.
-
Well, wow.
Ladislaus, I know you have difficulties with the R&R position, and we've discussed some or most of these elsewhere. You still misunderstand what canonists and theologians teach regarding the distinction between convalidation as a cause of an election acquiring validity and universal acceptance as a sign and effect of a valid election. I think I cited at least 5 authorities explaining it elsewhere. But that's not the point here.
This thread is entirely about the reasons for the first R, why it is necessary to recognize the Pope. It is self-evident that it is necessary to resist error, therefore to prove the second R, and thereby the R&R position (and what you are attacking is a strawman and a misrepresentation of it), it is only necessary to carefully define after that, according to pre-Vatican II teaching, in what circuмstances, teaching and acts a Pope can be questioned and resisted.
In particular is a rejection of the claim that an interregnum can be indefinitely extended. In the past, you have yourselves said it is probable that the Church would defect in a 100 year interregnum, or at least a 500 year one, and asked for a definition of what the limits are. So I put you on the spot and ask you why you think an interregnum cannot last forever, if formal Apostolic succession can indeed be continued apart from the actual Petrine succession.
I say that it cannot, for only a Pope, and certainly not a heretical non-Pope, can appoint bishops to offices, and all offices or episcopal sees cannot be vacant, otherwise formal Apostolic succession has ceased. In this way, the Apostolic succession and the Petrine succession are inextricably interconnected.
Likewise, only a Pope can incardinate Roman clergy, and Roman clergy cannot cease to exist, as St. Robert taught, Pope Sixtus IV defined, and Msgr. Fenton among other theologians explain. But if all the acts of the non-Pope grant neither stability nor right to anyone, those he attempts to incardinate into the diocese of Rome are not really incardinated. This then is another reason why an interregnum cannot continue indefinitely.
There are two consequences of such an absurdity, that the Catholic Church will cease to be Apostolic, and that She will lost Her Roman character, both of which are impossible. Therefore, an interregnum cannot be indefinitely extended. Can we agree on this much?
This is not something exceptional or strange, because it is a defined dogma that Peter must have perpetual successors, that what Christ has established in Peter and the Roman Church where the Petrine succession is continued must "of necessity remain forever" (Vatican I). It is a condemned proposition that "There is nothing whatsoever to show that the spiritual order demands a head who shall continue to live and endure with the Church Militant" (Constance).
-
The Pope is the principle of the Church’s visibility. Sedevacantists end up with an invisible Calvinist Church composed of believers spiritually “subject” to illicitly consecrated bishops of questionable validity, giving no adherence to anyone other than themselves, since they have constituted themselves judges of the Supreme Pontiff, forgetting that as a Catholic, one is obligued to believe there is a hierarchical order to everything.
It is a defined dogma of the Catholic Church that no one can be saved who is not subject to the Roman Pontiff. It is one of the requirements for salvation.
Pope Boniface VIII, in 1302, infallibly declared in his bull, Unam Sanctam: “We declare, say, define and pronounce, that it is wholly necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Modern day donatists, fueled by mutual hatred for one another, sedevacantists divert the attention from the real enemy: Modernism. Many sedevacantists, resentful and wounded (with reason), blame every single modern evil on the "usurp" of the conciliar Popes, losing focus on what the fight is really about. Satan and his many disguises: In present time, Modernism (the synthesis of all heresies). Instead of attacking the Modernist heresy that has infiltrated the Church, they use it as an ally to justify their own position.
What is worse, there is no solution to sedevacantism. Without a functioning hierarchy, the Church will never be able to choose a new Pope.
-
There is actually an article in Tradition in Action about how Sedevacantism and Progressivism goes hand and hand:
www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B277_SedeProgres.html
In the cited TIA article, they advice: "Never take a sede-vacantist position. Their leaders consciously or unconsciously follow an agenda to take people outside of the Church, as the Protestants did in the 16th century.
Instead of attacking the Progressivism that has infiltrated the Church, they use it as an ally to justify their own position. When the Pope goes to the Dome of the Rock, for example, they do not show concern for the suffering of the Church. They just say, "See, we are right in our stand of I happen to think that sede-vacantism."
It is also curious to notice that they challenge any Catholic leader who takes an effective stance of Resistance. The endless discussions they try to engage him in are not to change their own minds - which they never do - but to waste the time of the person who holds the right position".
-
No offense- but so far it seems as if Ladislaus' entire argument is summed up as: "I don't like R&R, so I'm a sede."
He has not taken time to answer anything that Nishant has proposed, apart from trying to demean the R&R position. Nishant proposed a valid conundrum faced by sedevecantists, and it has not been explained adequately. Perhaps it cannot, and that's okay. But just say so, instead of throwing up a bunch of red herrings.
-
No offense- but so far it seems as if Ladislaus' entire argument is summed up as: "I don't like R&R, so I'm a sede."
He has not taken time to answer anything that Nishant has proposed, apart from trying to demean the R&R position. Nishant proposed a valid conundrum faced by sedevecantists, and it has not been explained adequately. Perhaps it cannot, and that's okay. But just say so, instead of throwing up a bunch of red herrings.
In other words: R&R has problems(!)- but I will not answer the problems found within sedevecantism.
-
This is a good thread and I hope some sedes respond, I too would be interested in hearing some responses.
One comment, if Francis completely converted, repudiated the Vatican II changes, began to restore the Church and rallied some still Catholic cardinals/bishops to the fight (and it would be a huge fight) I don't think sedes would necessarily reject that. I recall Bishop Sandborn mentioning something along those lines. But I imagine sedes would take a careful look at whatever that scenario might entail as would other traditionalists.
But this question can be thoughtfully posed to R&R Catholics as well. What if this crisis continues to grind on decade after decade with no end in sight? Only a continual sinking into modernism, heresy and error. Perhaps the synod in the fall 'allows' communion for adulterers with a wink and nudge. As time goes by and more outrages are given to the Church, more Catholic doctrines/disciplines get thrown under the bus. The papal power is given to the episcopal conferences and they throw even the pretense of orthodoxy out the window. And Francis and his successors just continues to say "who am I to judge ?".
If you are thinking about this very possible scenario and thinking to yourself all we can do is keep the faith, seek valid orthodox clergy and sacraments, continue to pray the rosary, offer up our penances as reparation to our Lord and our Lady and trust in God to solve this terrible crisis. Then I would suggest that you have ultimately the very same solution to the crisis as your sedevacantist friends in Christ.
-
It is self-evident that it is necessary to resist error, therefore to prove the second R, and thereby the R&R position (and what you are attacking is a strawman and a misrepresentation of it), it is only necessary to carefully define after that, according to pre-Vatican II teaching, in what circuмstances, teaching and acts a Pope can be questioned and resisted.
...
In particular is a rejection of the claim that an interregnum can be indefinitely extended. In the past, you have yourselves said it is probable that the Church would defect in a 100 year interregnum, or at least a 500 year one, and asked for a definition of what the limits are. So I put you on the spot and ask you why you think an interregnum cannot last forever, if formal Apostolic succession can indeed be continued apart from the actual Petrine succession.
As I posted earlier, I acknowledge the problems with both sides of this issue:
SVism -- problems regarding indefectibility vis-a-vis Petrine succession.
R&R -- problems regarding indefectibility vis-a-vis large-scale failure of the Magisterium.
There are plausible resolutions to the Petrine succession problem:
1) sedeprivationism (continuity of material succession)
2) lengthy vacancy of the Holy See does not inherently cause defection
3) underground Church
4) supplied jurisdiction by the Church
5) a handful of Pius XII-era bishops are still alive
6) Siri theory
7) Catholic prophecy to the effect that Apostolic Succession will appear almost to have ceased
8) Our Lady of LaSalette referring to the Church being in "eclipse" and Rome becoming the Seat of the Antichrist
9) Catherine Emmerick talking about the two Churches, one a dark imposter Church
There's ZERO resolution to the problem that the Magisterium has failed. That means the defection of the Catholic Church. Period. We can quibble about the conditions for infallibility of the Magisterium, but the non-infallible part of the Magisterium was always understood as the relatively trivial, non-binding, less authoritative pronouncements here and there by particular Popes, but teachings made on a grand scale (in an Ecuмenical Council) and universal disciplines (such as the Novus Ordo Missae) CANNOT harm the faith and lead souls into error. When quibbling over conditions of infallibility, we lose the forest for the trees, the forest being that the notion of infallibility means that the Church as a whole cannot be lead into error on such a grand scale.
I find it inconceivable that you think that the Episcopal Body cannot fail in recognizing a legitimate pope but that this same Episcopal Body can fail in adhering to and teaching error to the Universal Church and that this same Episcopal Body can accept and implement universally a harmful Rite of Mass.
I find it inconceivable that you acknowledge the infallibility of canonizations but then ignore the infallibility of universal discipline.
All these types of infallibility actually DERIVE theologically from the Church's overall indefectibility. Theologians teach that the Church is infallible when it comes to universal discipline BECAUSE saying the contrary would undermine the Church's indefectibility.
You can slice the legitimacy of the V2 Popes any which way you'd like, but do NOT tell me that the Magisterium has failed. That's heretical. Period. It's not even debatable.
-
It is a defined dogma of the Catholic Church that no one can be saved who is not subject to the Roman Pontiff. It is one of the requirements for salvation.
So those who die during a papal interregnum are lost?
I reiterate that R&Rers are NOT "subject to" the Roman Pontiff. Attending a chapel with a picture of Francis in the vestibule and his name mentioned in the Canon does not qualify as subjection.
What is worse, there is no solution to sedevacantism. Without a functioning hierarchy, the Church will never be able to choose a new Pope.
See my last post in response to Nishant.
-
No offense- but so far it seems as if Ladislaus' entire argument is summed up as: "I don't like R&R, so I'm a sede."
No offense, but don't be stupid; my argument derives from considerations regarding the infallibility of the Magisterium.
-
No offense- but so far it seems as if Ladislaus' entire argument is summed up as: "I don't like R&R, so I'm a sede."
No offense, but don't be stupid; my argument derives from considerations regarding the infallibility of the Magisterium.
Up until a few minutes ago, you did everything but respond to Nishant's points; there was no relevant argument.
Anyways, its hard not to be stupid when you're me.
-
To answer the "time limit" question, there can be no inherent time limit, so the theoretical duration of a sede vacante cannot be determined by time. There's nothing substantially different between one year, three years, ten years, fifty years.
So the max duration has to be defined along the lines of the juridical continuity question.
-
To answer the "time limit" question, there can be no inherent time limit, so the theoretical duration of a sede vacante cannot be determined by time. There's nothing substantially different between one year, three years, ten years, fifty years.
So the max duration has to be defined along the lines of the juridical continuity question.
It wasn't a question of 'time limits', as far as I could tell. The question was more along the lines of how is the papacy 'reinstated'.
-
No offense- but so far it seems as if Ladislaus' entire argument is summed up as: "I don't like R&R, so I'm a sede."
No offense, but don't be stupid; my argument derives from considerations regarding the infallibility of the Magisterium.
Up until a few minutes ago, you did everything but respond to Nishant's points; there was no relevant argument.
Anyways, its hard not to be stupid when you're me.
I'm sorry that I got upset. This argument spills over from multiple other threads on the same subject, so there's a background that was implied.
Between us here, what I don't "like" is Traditional Catholicism. I can't stand it. There's nothing I'd rather do than to be able to just be a normal Catholic, to be able to go to the Catholic church down the street for Mass and Confession and Eucharistic Adoration. There's nothing I'd rather do than to stop having to deal with theological issues and get embroiled in constant polemic. I would much rather just go to an FSSP Mass center or an Eastern Rite church, pray for the Holy Father Francis, and go about the business of saving my soul as a normal ordinary run-of-the-mill mainstream Catholic. I'm tired of being a Traditional Catholic. I just want to be a Catholic. If I went by what I liked, I would be a Novus Ordo Catholic. But my conscience simply will not permit that. I often envy those who just blithely go to the Novus Ordo and haven't a care in the world.
-
I'm sorry that I got upset. This argument spills over from multiple other threads on the same subject, so there's a background that was implied.
I'm the last person you should apologize to. My trad friends like to joke, knowing I'm 1/2 Lebanese, that if I were born a Moslem, i'd have blown myself up by now! lol I'm sure I was more snarky than I should have been too- and I am also sorry.
Between us here, what I don't "like" is Traditional Catholicism. I can't stand it. There's nothing I'd rather do than to be able to just be a normal Catholic, to be able to go to the Catholic church down the street for Mass and Confession and Eucharistic Adoration. There's nothing I'd rather do than to stop having to deal with theological issues and get embroiled in constant polemic. I would much rather just go to an FSSP Mass center or an Eastern Rite church, pray for the Holy Father Francis, and go about the business of saving my soul as a normal ordinary run-of-the-mill mainstream Catholic. I'm tired of being a Traditional Catholic. I just want to be a Catholic. If I went by what I liked, I would be a Novus Ordo Catholic. But my conscience simply will not permit that. I often envy those who just blithely go to the Novus Ordo and haven't a care in the world.
You and me both brother! But I always think- what if I were born into a "normal" time in the Church; chances are that I'd be lax and lukewarm. Now that would be a situation I would not like to find myself in! For now, it is honest to goodness sacrifice to be Catholic- but if it weren't, what sort of Catholic would I be (literally, not rhetorically)?! That's why I think we can all agree to say, on some level: thank God for this Crisis, but let it end soon!
-
No offense- but so far it seems as if Ladislaus' entire argument is summed up as: "I don't like R&R, so I'm a sede."
No offense, but don't be stupid; my argument derives from considerations regarding the infallibility of the Magisterium.
Up until a few minutes ago, you did everything but respond to Nishant's points; there was no relevant argument.
Anyways, its hard not to be stupid when you're me.
I'm sorry that I got upset. This argument spills over from multiple other threads on the same subject, so there's a background that was implied.
Between us here, what I don't "like" is Traditional Catholicism. I can't stand it. There's nothing I'd rather do than to be able to just be a normal Catholic, to be able to go to the Catholic church down the street for Mass and Confession and Eucharistic Adoration. There's nothing I'd rather do than to stop having to deal with theological issues and get embroiled in constant polemic. I would much rather just go to an FSSP Mass center or an Eastern Rite church, pray for the Holy Father Francis, and go about the business of saving my soul as a normal ordinary run-of-the-mill mainstream Catholic. I'm tired of being a Traditional Catholic. I just want to be a Catholic. If I went by what I liked, I would be a Novus Ordo Catholic. But my conscience simply will not permit that. I often envy those who just blithely go to the Novus Ordo and haven't a care in the world.
Oh Ladislaus. I think many if not most of us feel this way.
-
Oh Ladislaus. I think many if not most of us feel this way.
I know that. I sometimes walk in to Novus Ordo (formerly Catholic) churches (the old Traditional ones that haven't been dismantled, where it was too expensive, so they just slapped a table in front of the intact main altar), and I fantasize about being a Catholic in the 40s or 50s.
I just brought it up in response to the suggestion that I have a problem with "R&R" because I don't "like" it.
I was actually uplifted by a thread in "General" about how to get rid of ants; it brought a feel of normalcy to the forum.
-
Nishant,
This is not the first time you've said that an X year sede vacante is impossible. You've said you've read Fr. O'Reilly's article, so I won't try to debate the issue with you, but just so people realize that a renowned theologian disagrees with your position. They can read him for themselves and make up their mind: http://sedevacantist.com/oreilly.html
"We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope - with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum."
...
"The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfil His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one's service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree."
But let's leave that be, if you will. I just think people should be aware that an authority has dealt with this very issue, and concluded differently than you have.
Secondly, as concerns CEAO, direct your attention to the two posts by Joe Cupertino: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=31276&min=5
In short, we know that the Church supplies jurisdiction under common error. I am uncertain if Paul IV was saying that common error would not apply in this particular instance or if he believed it would, but the case is moot considering that the 1917 CIC clearly provides for the supplication of jurisdiction and Miaskewicz tells us that there is no act for which the supply could not occur.
-
Oh Ladislaus. I think many if not most of us feel this way.
I know that. I sometimes walk in to Novus Ordo (formerly Catholic) churches (the old Traditional ones that haven't been dismantled, where it was too expensive, so they just slapped a table in front of the intact main altar), and I fantasize about being a Catholic in the 40s or 50s.
I just brought it up in response to the suggestion that I have a problem with "R&R" because I don't "like" it.
I was actually uplifted by a thread in "General" about how to get rid of ants; it brought a feel of normalcy to the forum.
Sounds like you're getting a little bit of purgatory on earth. :cheers:
-
Oh Ladislaus. I think many if not most of us feel this way.
I know that. I sometimes walk in to Novus Ordo (formerly Catholic) churches (the old Traditional ones that haven't been dismantled, where it was too expensive, so they just slapped a table in front of the intact main altar), and I fantasize about being a Catholic in the 40s or 50s.
I just brought it up in response to the suggestion that I have a problem with "R&R" because I don't "like" it.
I was actually uplifted by a thread in "General" about how to get rid of ants; it brought a feel of normalcy to the forum.
I understand. I think my "Oh Ladislaus" came off with a negative tone. I meant it as "Oh yes, I feel your pain".
-
Many thought Christ rising from the dead was also impossible.
-
wow...lol
-
The Pope is the principle of the Church’s visibility.
I'm surprised to hear you say that-- but you haven't thought very clearly, since this harms your case more than makes it. The visibility of the Church is a bond of faith and charity. The pope is the principle of this visibility. If "the pope" neither has faith nor charity (we know he does not have the faith, and without faith it is impossible to have supernatural charity) then your "pope" doesn't amount to a hill of beans, he's a principle of disunity, not unity.
Neither are traditionalists subject to him in faith (as they don't share his faith) nor in charity (they are not subject to his laws).
So, can you explain again just how this principle of unity who has neither faith nor charity, and with whom traditionalists are neither united to in faith or charity is so important? :laugh1:
Sedevacantists end up with an invisible Calvinist Church composed of believers spiritually “subject” to illicitly consecrated bishops of questionable validity,
Just which sedevacantists are "spiritually subject" to "illicitly consecrated bishops of questionable validity"?
Are you even a traditional Catholic? There are no major concerns with the validity of any traditional group, but even if there were, it pales in comparison to the Novus Ordo which has been producing almost certainly invalid bishops and doubtful priests (who are likewise almost certainly invalid if ordained by a "new" bishop) since the late 1960's.
And if we take traditional Catholics as a whole, the group which most offends what you have mentioned are the SSPX faithful, who view +Fellay as their "lawful superior" or something along those lines.
And, traditional Catholics are hardly invisible.
giving no adherence to anyone other than themselves,
Excuse me? There is a reason that the main publishers of sedevacantis tracts cite copious sources to docuмent their position: the saints, popes and theologians have laid down the principles for their position, and sedevacantists merely apply those principles to the current situation.
There is likewise a reason that sedeplenists either quote themselves, SSPX "theologians" or a primary text which they don't understand.
If there was a pope, sedevacantists would certainly submit to him. It is their cognizance of the necessity of submission to legitimate authority which compels them to take the position they do in the first place, rather than simply give vain lip service.
since they have constituted themselves judges of the Supreme Pontiff,
No, they haven't. That is your obstinate misunderstanding. The "pope heretic" is already judged, this is the opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine and most others. Do you think Bellarmine constituted himself judge of the supreme pontiff? It's precisely because the pope has no judge that Bellarmine taught as he taught, and that sedevacantists believe as they believe you silly woman.
forgetting that as a Catholic, one is obligued to believe there is a hierarchical order to everything.
But he's not compelled to actually ACT as if there's a hierarchy, right? He can judge all the laws and decrees of the hierarchy, rejecting them left and right as if the authority behind them was no more than a gentle suggestion from a subordinate.
Sedevacantists believe in hierarchy. That's why they consult the authorities on the issues.
It is a defined dogma of the Catholic Church that no one can be saved who is not subject to the Roman Pontiff. It is one of the requirements for salvation.
Pope Boniface VIII, in 1302, infallibly declared in his bull, Unam Sanctam: “We declare, say, define and pronounce, that it is wholly necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Which presupposes that there is a Roman Pontiff in the first place, unless you believe that anyone who dies during an interregnum goes to Hell because a pope had not yet been elected when they died.
Also, many Catholics didn't even know who the pope was throughout history. Peasants, especially. "Subjection to the Roman Pontiff" is expressed by being subject to his laws and teachings, not by putting a picture of him in the hallway and disobeying everything he teaches and ignoring his laws.
Modern day donatists, fueled by mutual hatred for one another,
Hilarious! You don't even know what that means, or you haven't understood a single argument levied in favor of the sedevacante thesis (probably both) to say that.
You are a prototypical example of an indoctrinated SSPXer who has bit into the whole "sedevacantist boogeyman" story. You probably sit around a campfire with a flashlight and tell your kids that if they're not good, the big bad sedevacantist is going to snatch them up and carry them to Hell, laughing maniacally. Pathetic.
sedevacantists divert the attention from the real enemy: Modernism.
:facepalm:
So, in rejecting the authority of modernist non-Catholic heretics, sedevacantists distract from the modernist enemies. Gotcha.
Many sedevacantists, resentful and wounded (with reason), blame every single modern evil on the "usurp" of the conciliar Popes,
No they don't, but even if they did, that is hardly a distraction from modernism any more than blaming Stalin for communism is a distraction from communism.
losing focus on what the fight is really about.
You don't actually say what this is. Is it a contest to see how long one can hold mutually exclusive truths? If so, you win!
Satan and his many disguises: In present time, Modernism (the synthesis of all heresies).
Yes, one of them is as "the pope."
Instead of attacking the Modernist heresy that has infiltrated the Church, they use it as an ally to justify their own position.
Would you prefer they make a deal with the modernists and "change them from the inside?"
What is worse, there is no solution to sedevacantism.
Sedevacantism is a diagnosis, not a remedy. You only betray your complete ignorance on what you're arguing against, as if Fellay or Pfeiffer themselves are slipping you notes under the table.
Without a functioning hierarchy, the Church will never be able to choose a new Pope.
Ha! You think the Novus Ordo has a functioning hierarchy?
The Church is a perfect society and can always elect a new head. Many theologians have treated the issue of extraordinary elections, and you have been told this many times.
-
Between us here, what I don't "like" is Traditional Catholicism. I can't stand it. There's nothing I'd rather do than to be able to just be a normal Catholic, to be able to go to the Catholic church down the street for Mass and Confession and Eucharistic Adoration. There's nothing I'd rather do than to stop having to deal with theological issues and get embroiled in constant polemic. I would much rather just go to an FSSP Mass center or an Eastern Rite church, pray for the Holy Father Francis, and go about the business of saving my soul as a normal ordinary run-of-the-mill mainstream Catholic. I'm tired of being a Traditional Catholic. I just want to be a Catholic.
Agreed.
The term traditional Catholic is redundant. The pursuit of Heaven should be the first priority so why then to exhaust oneself in a position that is based on bitterness, instead on a sincere Christian zeal for souls? Everything that is divisive and disordered comes from Satan. Not God.
God has not failed in His promise to be with His Church. If a Catholic knows his faith, the Catholic Faith, then he knows that nothing of the truths taught by the Church and received by the faithful can ever be changed. The doctrines which God has revealed and we believe are immutable regardless of Vatican II. If a suspicion exists that truths which have always been believed by can be changed because of the defficiency of a Pope or the ambiguiity of a fallible council, then that person who holds such suspicion, does not know or does not believe very strongly his Catholic Faith.
Thus, the problem here is not inherent in the Novus Ordo Mass, but is the result of either poor catechesis, or the result of that particular person being slothful for not making the efforts to learn his faith properly. Thus, the problem, if such and persistent suspicion occurs, pre-exists in the person before he comes to face the problems of the hierarchical organization of the Church.
How many here are "always learning but never able to reach a knowledge of the truth"? (2 Tim 3: 5-7). It is evident in these discussions that some are more focused on winning arguments via verbal intimidation and than they are in getting to Heaven. It becomes a matter of pride. The poster above is a good example of this effect of trying to "learn" the Faith without having real Divine given Faith.
Someone said that the problem with the sedevacantists logic is that they do not really take the trouble to apply the existing knowledge of what Modernism is. In fact, it seems that they deliberately steer their followers (an even themselves) away from a solid recognition of the dangers of Modernism IN ORDER THAT the less informed audience becomes vulnerable to Modernism itself, all of this in order to advance their common cause: sedevacantism.
-
Doesn't apostolic succession apply to bishops?
Why the extra layer?
Archbishop LeFebrvre kept the line going when he consecrated the four. And when those four decide to consecrate, there will be a continuation of bishops.
Bishops consecrate bishops. Let's not make this more complicated than it needs to be. Sure, in the past, men who may have been power hungry or men who have been mistaken added unnecessary burdens but those are for ordinary times.
Yes, let's keep it true. Bishops consecrate bishops.
Bishops ordain priests.
The Thuc Bishops should be viewed as valid.
The LeFebrvre line is beyond any shadow of the doubt valid.
-
The LeFebrvre line is beyond any shadow of the doubt valid.
Not if you ask David Hobson. He claims that since Lefebvre was ordained by a Freemason he was never a priest because the Freemason wouldn't have the proper intentions to ordain.
-
The LeFebrvre line is beyond any shadow of the doubt valid.
Not if you ask David Hobson. He claims that since Lefebvre was ordained by a Freemason he was never a priest because the Freemason wouldn't have the proper intentions to ordain.
Mr. Hobson may actually be a "Donatist" but I couldn't say for certain.
I do have a question for the entire group.
When was the concept of the "Indefectabilty of the Catholic Church" invented by man? Who came up with this concept? And why, pray tell, would it not apply to a sede priest somewhere in the middle of nowhere?
-
Doesn't apostolic succession apply to bishops?
Why the extra layer?
Archbishop LeFebrvre kept the line going when he consecrated the four. And when those four decide to consecrate, there will be a continuation of bishops.
Bishops consecrate bishops. Let's not make this more complicated than it needs to be. Sure, in the past, men who may have been power hungry or men who have been mistaken added unnecessary burdens but those are for ordinary times.
Yes, let's keep it true. Bishops consecrate bishops.
Bishops ordain priests.
The Thuc Bishops should be viewed as valid.
The LeFebrvre line is beyond any shadow of the doubt valid.
Capt-
Unfortunately, things are not as simple as you would like them to be:
Within apostolicity, you must distinguish between formal and material apostolicity.
Material apostolicity is mere episcopal continuity.
Formal apostolicity is episcopal continuity + jurisdiction.
It is this latter concept of formal apostolicity with which the visible Church is comprised, since if mere material apostolicity sufficed for visibility, the consequences would be that schismatic bishops (e.g., Greek Orthodox) would be part of the visible Church (which is absurd).
Not even the Lefebvre bishops possess formal apostolicity (though any of the traditional bishops COULD possess it if they were later granted jurisdiction to complement their apostolic continuity).
For an interesting topical discussion of the issue, see "Apostolicity" in the old Catholic Encyclopedia here:
http://newadvent.org/cathen/01648b.htm
Pax,
Sean
-
Incidentally, in the revised/modernized 2007 Angelus Press version of Michael Davies' "Pope John's Council," there is a new appendix defending this corrupted version of apostolicity titled "The Declaration Dominus IesusRe: The Term Subsistit"" in which the same logic defends the schismatic Orthodox "churches" as true particular "churches."
On p. 406, Michael Davies makes the incredible (heretical?) claim that "There is no doubt whatsoever that the dioceses of the Eastern Orthodox Churches constitute true particular Churches, despite being schismatic."
One easily sees the pathway to "subsistit" in such thinking.
I had a back-and-forth with Angelus Press on this matter, and after some initial resistance, was assured that my point was acknowledged, and that there would be some form of "errata" notice placed inside future volumes.
I took this example as evidence against the fable of Michael Davies having moved back toward the SSPX in his final years, when in reality, it appears that the SSPX was really moving closer to him.
That was back in 2007, before we could all see the bigger picture of all the changes in the SSPX.
-
Doesn't apostolic succession apply to bishops?
Why the extra layer?
Archbishop LeFebrvre kept the line going when he consecrated the four. And when those four decide to consecrate, there will be a continuation of bishops.
Bishops consecrate bishops. Let's not make this more complicated than it needs to be. Sure, in the past, men who may have been power hungry or men who have been mistaken added unnecessary burdens but those are for ordinary times.
Yes, let's keep it true. Bishops consecrate bishops.
Bishops ordain priests.
The Thuc Bishops should be viewed as valid.
The LeFebrvre line is beyond any shadow of the doubt valid.
Capt-
Unfortunately, things are not as simple as you would like them to be:
Within apostolicity, you must distinguish between formal and material apostolicity.
Material apostolicity is mere episcopal continuity.
Formal apostolicity is episcopal continuity + jurisdiction.
It is this latter concept of formal apostolicity with which the visible Church is comprised, since if mere material apostolicity sufficed for visibility, the consequences would be that schismatic bishops (e.g., Greek Orthodox) would be part of the visible Church (which is absurd).
Not even the Lefebvre bishops possess formal apostolicity (though any of the traditional bishops COULD possess it if they were later granted jurisdiction to complement their apostolic continuity).
For an interesting topical discussion of the issue, see "Apostolicity" in the old Catholic Encyclopedia here:
http://newadvent.org/cathen/01648b.htm
Pax,
Sean
On the chance it wasn't obvious, the issue of formal vs material apostolicity has implications for the sedevacantist thesis, since if only formal apostolicity suffices for visibility, it will not allow the sedevacantists to propose saving the visibility of the Church by asserting that bishops possessing mere material apostolicity constitute the preservation of the heirarchy (and therefore visibility).
-
I understand. I think my "Oh Ladislaus" came off with a negative tone. I meant it as "Oh yes, I feel your pain".
No; I knew what you meant.
-
Sean Johnson wrote:
On the chance it wasn't obvious, the issue of formal vs material apostolicity has implications for the sedevacantist thesis, since if only formal apostolicity suffices for visibility, it will not allow the sedevacantists to propose saving the visibility of the Church by asserting that bishops possessing mere material apostolicity constitute the preservation of the heirarchy (and therefore visibility).
It is not a concern for us. The Church will never be without members of the hierarchy. There are several explanations that address this point.
-
Doesn't apostolic succession apply to bishops?
Why the extra layer?
Archbishop LeFebrvre kept the line going when he consecrated the four. And when those four decide to consecrate, there will be a continuation of bishops.
Bishops consecrate bishops. Let's not make this more complicated than it needs to be. Sure, in the past, men who may have been power hungry or men who have been mistaken added unnecessary burdens but those are for ordinary times.
Yes, let's keep it true. Bishops consecrate bishops.
Bishops ordain priests.
The Thuc Bishops should be viewed as valid.
The LeFebrvre line is beyond any shadow of the doubt valid.
Capt-
Unfortunately, things are not as simple as you would like them to be:
Within apostolicity, you must distinguish between formal and material apostolicity.
Material apostolicity is mere episcopal continuity.
Formal apostolicity is episcopal continuity + jurisdiction.
It is this latter concept of formal apostolicity with which the visible Church is comprised, since if mere material apostolicity sufficed for visibility, the consequences would be that schismatic bishops (e.g., Greek Orthodox) would be part of the visible Church (which is absurd).
Not even the Lefebvre bishops possess formal apostolicity (though any of the traditional bishops COULD possess it if they were later granted jurisdiction to complement their apostolic continuity).
For an interesting topical discussion of the issue, see "Apostolicity" in the old Catholic Encyclopedia here:
http://newadvent.org/cathen/01648b.htm
Pax,
Sean
On the chance it wasn't obvious, the issue of formal vs material apostolicity has implications for the sedevacantist thesis, since if only formal apostolicity suffices for visibility, it will not allow the sedevacantists to propose saving the visibility of the Church by asserting that bishops possessing mere material apostolicity constitute the preservation of the heirarchy (and therefore visibility).
From the Catholic Encyclopedia article: "Apostolicity of mission is a guarantee of Apostolicity of doctrine."
It follows that if a bishop does not teach the same doctrine as the Apostles (i.e. he has publicly departed from the Church) then he cannot have Apostolicity of doctrine and if he does not have Apostolicity of doctrine, he cannot possibly have Apostolicity of mission. And if he does not have Apostolicity of mission he cannot possibly have formal Apostolicity. But it gets worse for the Conciliar bishops. The new rite of episcopal consecration is doubtful. It is based on the faulty research of a modernist Benedictine monk (cf. the SSPX article on this topic). At best one could say that it might be valid but there can be no confidence that it is so. If it is invalid, which is how all Catholics ought to view it, the Conciliar bishops do not have material Apostolicity. So while it is a favorite pastime of R&R folks to cast doubt on the Apostolicity of traditional bishops, they ignore the fact that most if not all Conciliar bishops cannot possibly be Successors of the Apostles.
Also, last Pentecost 2013, Bishop Tissier gave a sermon (printed in the May 2013 Catholic Family News) in which he claimed to "have the apostolic succession". I don't think that can be interpreted to mean merely material succession. In order to have apostolic succession you must have formal succession.
-
Given that true apostolic succession requires BOTH valid orders and jurisdiction (even the Orthodox claim valid orders), there is still the problem of jurisdiction of these bishops and their inability to lawfully appoint a new pope. How could Sedevacantist priests and bishops (presuming their orders are valid) can be the visible Church if they lack valid jurisdiction and do not receive formal succesion?
Those who pass on holy orders have apostolic succession, but not formal succession, and therefore they can not maintain the mark of apostolicity, this is why the schismatic Orthodox may pass on Holy orders and stand in the succession in one sense but not in a formal, juridical way.
Again, unless the cardinals appointed by the anti- pope can have valid jurisdiction, the sedevacantists bite their own tail, because how can they lawfully elect a new true pope?
Typical evasive answers on the form of " It is not a concern for us. The Church will never be without members of the hierarchy" or "That is not the question to ask...", "God will take care of that..."etc etc... may sound convincing for the less educate (and thus vulnerable) audience, but do not for the more inquisitive minds.
-
You can talk all you want about a defection of jurisdiction, but you refuse to address the problem that your alternative would have the MAGISTERIUM defect.
There are possible solutions to the jurisdiction problem, but absolutely none for the Magisterium problem.
Let me repeat: R&R posits a defection of the Magisterium, and that's heretical.
-
Again, unless the cardinals appointed by the anti- pope can have valid jurisdiction, the sedevacantists bite their own tail, because how can they lawfully elect a new true pope?
This is because you don't understand sedeprivationism. With sedeprivationism, there's a material continuity that can "come to life" at any time and can be formally exercised as soon as those possessing this material succession return to the Faith.
-
You can talk all you want about a defection of jurisdiction, but you refuse to address the problem that your alternative would have the MAGISTERIUM defect.
There are possible solutions to the jurisdiction problem, but absolutely none for the Magisterium problem.
Let me repeat: R&R posits a defection of the Magisterium, and that's heretical.
Recognizing that the Modernist heresy has infiltrated even the Church authorities is not a defection of the Magisterium.
In the great scheme of things, why Modernism would be any different than Arianism? Christendom rocked upon its foundations then as well. Almost overnight, the world woke up one day to find itself Arian. Arianism became so established that almost every single bishop of Constantinople was an Arian. The heresy of Arianism was fought by the grace of God and the Church once more emerged from it victorious. Just the same, through the power of God, who is actually who guides Her, the Church will also defeat Modernism and not precicely by embracing schisms.
There is a spiritual warfare coming from the top to the very bottom in the hierachy, (extending to the individual level) but heresies must exist. God allows it. Our Lord permists heresy in the Church, that those who are apoved may merit by combating it. (Timothy 4)
Catholic Rome is torn, bleeding and wounded, but it will always be the guardian of the Catholic faith and the necessary conditions to maintain this faith. We simply cannot abandon Eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth. We have the promise of victory from Our Lord.
-
Let me repeat: R&R posits a defection of the Magisterium, and that's heretical.
Let others more knowledgeable and better informed to discuss and defend the R&R position.
The only concern here is the authentic True Faith of Life Eternal.
-
Recognizing that the Modernist heresy has infiltrated even the Church authorities is not a defection of the Magisterium.
No, this isn't about "authorities being infected". You're saying that an Ecuмenical Council taught error to the Church and that the Church promulgated a bad / harmful Rite of Mass.
-
Recognizing that the Modernist heresy has infiltrated even the Church authorities is not a defection of the Magisterium.
No, this isn't about "authorities being infected". You're saying that an Ecuмenical Council taught error to the Church and that the Church promulgated a bad / harmful Rite of Mass.
Right.
Cantarella, if you're really "concerned about the truth" as you said in your last post then you should actually reply to objections made against your position instead of simply ignoring everything said against your position and then positing a different argument.
Ignoring objections while simultaneously continuing the "discussion" as if there were no disagreements (much less serious difficulties) is not indicative of one who cares about truth, but one who cares about politics.
No one cared about truth more than Aquinas, and no one acknowledged and replied to objections more than he did. He actually wrote multi-volume books in this fashion. None of us are St. Thomas, but we can emulate his regard for the truth by honestly approaching issues and dealing with the objections to our position. If we aren't going to deal with objections, we should withdraw; not continue on with new arguments without ever acknowledging evident problems, difficulties or contradictions.
-
There are only about 15 ordinaries left in the world appointed by Pius XII, if we include bishops appointed by John XXIII, their number increases by about 10, almost all of these near death and emeritus. When these die, the formal Apostolic succession has ceased, the ecclesia docens is no more, ordinary jurisdiction has not been passed on, and the promise of Christ has failed. Either that, or 50+ year sedevacantism is false.
Sedevacantism is false.
And, if Pope Francis approves sacramental marriage for same-sex couples, will you obey? Will you recognize the morality and licitness of such? I keep telling myself, "The Catholic faith is not some meme," that is, the product of the human imagination which has been progressively institutionalized over the centuries. And, if Catholicism is, indeed, true, we can all expect a spectacular end, at least at the Last Judgment! Here's what I have been trying to do now for many years:
1) Reconcile the clear Magisterial statements as best you can. Sometimes this means that you "salute the position and not necessarily the person." Pope Francis is, at a minimum, a terrible Pope, if not an outright heretic. Don't follow everything which comes out of his mouth, most of which is bullshit. Only when he is "teaching and/or legislating from the Chair" do you owe any obligation to him whatsoever, and only then, when he is teaching and/or legislating in accordance with Tradition. Remember Pope John XXII (not Pope John XXIII); Popes can and do fall into theological error.
2) The One and Triune God does not command impossibilities. You don't have to believe in absurdities, so no "squaring the circle" mentality. That's modernism, an absurdity, unless one is a non-Catholic, which, apparently, most of today's Cardinals are, including, the nefarious Casper. He deserves to burn in eternal Hell, forever and ever. You ought to pity him for the endless suffering which awaits him; his life is merely dew at the dawn of a hot and dry summer day.
3) Sedevacatism has, at some point, to just make sense. The #2 postulate demands this. If Pope Francis would ordain women to the priesthood, claim that artificial and/or natural contraception is moral under some circuмstances which involve sɛҳuąƖ relations (remember, birth control is completely licit and moral for individuals who are totally celibate, say, for very rare medical conditions, just never to subvert the "primary ends" of marital sex), say that "gαy sex" is completely without sin, etc., then he is a heretic and not a Catholic. One cannot, under any circuмstances whatsoever, follow him or even hold out hope that he will return the One True Church to Tradition, even by some "loyal resistence." It's "game over" at that point. Only sedevacantism would make sense, nothing else.
-
Francis was ordained 13 December 1969 under the new rite of ordination which was approved and imposed by Paul VI on June 18, 1968.
Michael Davies: “… every prayer in the traditional rite [of Ordination] which stated specifically the essential role of a priest as a man ordained to offer propitiatory sacrifice for the living and dead has been removed [from the New Rite of Paul VI]. In most cases these were the precise prayers removed by the Protestant reformers, or if not precisely the same there are clear parallels.”
-
Some of them denounced simple sedevacantism as heretical because it provided no mechanism for this, also because most sedevacantists held to the idea that the whole hierarchy had lost their offices and all episcopal sees were formally vacant.
I don't know of a sediprivationist that makes this claim. SV simply states that a public heretic cannot legitimately hold ecclesiastical office and with this the SP whole-heartedly agrees. Neither BTW mention the apostate heretic in the canon of the Mass and both act the same towards him in regards to obedience. They both agree he is not a valid Pope.
We are not at odds with one another. Some are SV others are SV with a "solution".
On the other hand those who mention him in the canon and who obey him and pray to "saint JP2" are a whole different category. Perhaps I understand a bit more why you insist that the traditional Catholic Bishops are not the real hierarchy.
Anything from a reliable or authoritative source that shows that apostate heretics can be a valid Pope in the full sense of the word? I would be quite interested in reading it.
-
Between us here, what I don't "like" is Traditional Catholicism. I can't stand it. There's nothing I'd rather do than to be able to just be a normal Catholic, to be able to go to the Catholic church down the street for Mass and Confession and Eucharistic Adoration. There's nothing I'd rather do than to stop having to deal with theological issues and get embroiled in constant polemic. I would much rather just go to an FSSP Mass center or an Eastern Rite church, pray for the Holy Father Francis, and go about the business of saving my soul as a normal ordinary run-of-the-mill mainstream Catholic. I'm tired of being a Traditional Catholic. I just want to be a Catholic. If I went by what I liked, I would be a Novus Ordo Catholic. But my conscience simply will not permit that. I often envy those who just blithely go to the Novus Ordo and haven't a care in the world.
I know this is from 5 years ago, but I cannot state how much I agree. This crisis is no doubt a punishment from God, which the world has 100% earned. I pray everyday for it’s end because it stinks. I would love to be able to go to the church down the block and not have to drive 45 mins every Sunday, to not have to argue with novus ordo teachers about theology and such. One good thing comes from this though: it separates the strong from the weak and produces true Catholics who fight for Holy Mother Church. If I was living in the 50s or 40s there’s no way I would spend a s much time as I do now correcting error among people i know and being active (apart from going to mass on days of obligations and Sunday, praying the rosary, and going to confession) in my faith (researching).Sorry for the long post but I agreed with your comment so much I had to reply.
-
I know this is from 5 years ago, but I cannot state how much I agree. This crisis is no doubt a punishment from God, which the world has 100% earned. I pray everyday for it’s end because it stinks. I would love to be able to go to the church down the block and not have to drive 45 mins every Sunday, to not have to argue with novus ordo teachers about theology and such. One good thing comes from this though: it separates the strong from the weak and produces true Catholics who fight for Holy Mother Church. If I was living in the 50s or 40s there’s no way I would spend a s much time as I do now correcting error among people i know and being active (apart from going to mass on days of obligations and Sunday, praying the rosary, and going to confession) in my faith (researching).Sorry for the long post but I agreed with your comment so much I had to reply.
I do want to clarify that I would never consider the Novus Ordo out of principle. I was just yearning for an era in which I could just be a "normal" Catholic. Sometimes as Traditional Catholics we can be tempted to fall into a mindset of "exceptionalism". Of course, in every era of the Church there have been errors to combat and various other battles to be fought. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about yearning for a normal, simple Catholic life where you could just walk down the street to your local Catholic church, visit the Blessed Sacrament, and receive the Sacraments ... and go about the business of saving our souls, instead of always being in polemic mode.
-
I do want to clarify that I would never consider the Novus Ordo out of principle. I was just yearning for an era in which I could just be a "normal" Catholic. Sometimes as Traditional Catholics we can be tempted to fall into a mindset of "exceptionalism". Of course, in every era of the Church there have been errors to combat and various other battles to be fought. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about yearning for a normal, simple Catholic life where you could just walk down the street to your local Catholic church, visit the Blessed Sacrament, and receive the Sacraments ... and go about the business of saving our souls, instead of always being in polemic mode.
Yea I completely agree.
-
No offense, but don't be stupid; my argument derives from considerations regarding the infallibility of the Magisterium.
Up until a few minutes ago, you did everything but respond to Nishant's points; there was no relevant argument.
Anyways, its hard not to be stupid when you're me.
I'm sorry that I got upset. This argument spills over from multiple other threads on the same subject, so there's a background that was implied.
Between us here, what I don't "like" is Traditional Catholicism. I can't stand it. There's nothing I'd rather do than to be able to just be a normal Catholic, to be able to go to the Catholic church down the street for Mass and Confession and Eucharistic Adoration. There's nothing I'd rather do than to stop having to deal with theological issues and get embroiled in constant polemic. I would much rather just go to an FSSP Mass center or an Eastern Rite church, pray for the Holy Father Francis, and go about the business of saving my soul as a normal ordinary run-of-the-mill mainstream Catholic. I'm tired of being a Traditional Catholic. I just want to be a Catholic. If I went by what I liked, I would be a Novus Ordo Catholic. But my conscience simply will not permit that. I often envy those who just blithely go to the Novus Ordo and haven't a care in the world.
Just curious, why not an Eastern Rite church?
I get why not the FSSP, since there are potential doubts about validity, from certain vantage points.
-
Just curious, why not an Eastern Rite church?
I get why not the FSSP, since there are potential doubts about validity, from certain vantage points.
Don’t the eastern churches accept V2 and their popes and actions?
-
Today, we drove through my home town and several other blue collar towns and to see many beautiful and well built churches and schools tore down. One lot is major convenience store. Messed up and sad. Rich parishes remained untouched.
-
Vatican II is the new religion.
If Vatican II is so great then why is the Catholic Church disappearing and replaced with communist sodomite communities.
-
Discussion can continue forever but the fact remains:
For this reason Jerome addresses Damasus thus: "My words are spoken to the successor of the Fisherman, to the disciple of the Cross....I communicate with none save your Blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this I know is the rock on which the Church is built" (Ep. xv., ad Damasum, n. 2). Union with the Roman See of Peter is to him always the public criterion of a Catholic. "I acknowledge everyone who is united with the See of Peter" (Ep. xvi., ad Damasum, n. 2). And for a like reason St. Augustine publicly attests that, "the primacy of the Apostolic chair always existed in the Roman Church" (Ep. xliii., n. 7); and he denies that anyone who dissents from the Roman faith can be a Catholic. "You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held" (Sermo cxx., n. 13). So, too, St. Cyprian: "To be in communion with Cornelius is to be in communion with the Catholic Church" (Ep. lv., n. 1). In the same way Maximus the Abbot teaches that obedience to the Roman Pontiff is the proof of the true faith and of legitimate communion. Therefore if a man does not want to be, or to be called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this or that man...but let him hasten before all things to be in communion with the Roman See.
SATIS COGNITUM
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
To be a Catholic is to be united to the Holy See and the Chair of Peter and accept all that is taught in doctrine, dogma, and discipline. Anything else is to be not a Catholic.
Can anyone after reading the above really accept the belief of R & R?
If Francis is the Pope a Catholic must accept all that Francis teaches magisterially (Amoris Laetitia) or he is a heretic. The same goes for soon to be married priests. It is very simple.
-
Discussion can continue forever but the fact remains:
To be a Catholic is to be united to the Holy See and the Chair of Peter and accept all that is taught in doctrine, dogma, and discipline. Anything else is to be not a Catholic.
Can anyone after reading the above really accept the belief of R & R?
If Francis is the Pope a Catholic must accept all that Francis teaches magisterially (Amoris Laetitia) or he is a heretic. The same goes for soon to be married priests. It is very simple.
So then you have to do the same with “your” Pope, Benedict XVI. You must accept everything he has taught.
You must accept the New Theology, Vatican II, the New Mass, and everything else.
If Benedict is still the pope, it solves NOTHING!
Why do you act like he is so much better than Francis?
https://images.app.goo.gl/32BUQbLw6Zt4UtRaA (https://images.app.goo.gl/32BUQbLw6Zt4UtRaA)
-
So then you have to do the same with “your” Pope, Benedict XVI. You must accept everything he has taught.
You must accept the New Theology, Vatican II, the New Mass, and everything else.
If Benedict is still the pope, it solves NOTHING!
Why do you act like he is so much better than Francis?
https://images.app.goo.gl/32BUQbLw6Zt4UtRaA (https://images.app.goo.gl/32BUQbLw6Zt4UtRaA)
(http://blob:https://www.cathinfo.com/41655bdc-a376-47c9-a903-e6073f2a42c5)
(http://blob:https://www.cathinfo.com/cbef4b6d-70a7-4490-a83b-c7488b1d07a3)
I don't see anything in the quote that would say every encyclical must be absolutely adhered to to be considered Catholic either. That's not even what the quote says.
-
So then you have to do the same with “your” Pope, Benedict XVI. You must accept everything he has taught.
You must accept the New Theology, Vatican II, the New Mass, and everything else.
If Benedict is still the pope, it solves NOTHING!
Why do you act like he is so much better than Francis?
https://images.app.goo.gl/32BUQbLw6Zt4UtRaA (https://images.app.goo.gl/32BUQbLw6Zt4UtRaA)
So you attack me based upon former positions that I believed in. Nice way of derailing of discussion on the R & R position.
Pat yourself on the back and go away.
-
So you attack me based upon former positions that I believed in. Nice way of derailing of my position on the R & R position.
Pat yourself on the back and go away.
What?
You posted this today pal... Have your positions changed in an hour?
-
What?
You posted this today pal... Have your positions changed in an hour?
I am a sedevacantist. Can't you see that. I was attacking the R & R position by showing the impossible position one is put in by accepting Francis as a pope.
-
I am a sedevacantist. Can't you see that. I was attacking the R & R position by showing the impossible position one is put in by accepting Francis as a pope.
You are? I just saw a post by you in one of nottamblas Benedict is still pope threads, and it sounded like you agreed with her.
-
I know this is from 5 years ago, but I cannot state how much I agree. This crisis is no doubt a punishment from God, which the world has 100% earned. I pray everyday for it’s end because it stinks. I would love to be able to go to the church down the block and not have to drive 45 mins every Sunday, to not have to argue with novus ordo teachers about theology and such. One good thing comes from this though: it separates the strong from the weak and produces true Catholics who fight for Holy Mother Church. If I was living in the 50s or 40s there’s no way I would spend a s much time as I do now correcting error among people i know and being active (apart from going to mass on days of obligations and Sunday, praying the rosary, and going to confession) in my faith (researching).Sorry for the long post but I agreed with your comment so much I had to reply.
45 minutes!? Consider yourself one of the lucky ones.
-
You are? I just saw a post by you in one of nottamblas Benedict is still pope threads, and it sounded like you agreed with her.
I thought the same thing - which is why I said what I said.
-
45 minutes!? Consider yourself one of the lucky ones.
Not old enough to drive so it makes it tough since my parents aren’t Catholic.